Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 442 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
tell the Assembly if BOPL, the Government or its marketing agents have ever engaged in any discussions or negotiations about the sale of television rights to any game or event staged at Bruce Stadium? If they have, will she give details?
MS CARNELL: That was answered yesterday. We have not been involved in any television rights discussions, and there is no item in the budget. Quite simply, as I said yesterday, there is no line in the budget for Bruce Stadium for television rights.
MR OSBORNE: My question is to the Treasurer and it is in regard to the ACTEW/AGL joint venture. Would the Minister please explain the processes involved in determining the value of compensation that ACTEW will receive from AGL in forming the joint venture partnership, estimated at about $100m from AGL to ACTEW? Is it intended for the compensation to be strictly payable in cash as opposed to cheaper electricity or services? What will the compensation payment be used for?
MR HUMPHRIES: The intention is that ACTEW and AGL will be 50/50 partners in the joint venture. That result is achieved where partners come to the partnership with assets of different value by the making of an equalisation payment between the parties so that they stand as equal partners. Mr Osborne has suggested that there could be a payment of up to $100m. I have heard that figure used.
I think it is important to put on the record that the Government intends to have negotiations proceed between ACTEW and AGL about the nature of a partnership. Having established that they can enter into a partnership arrangement which would result potentially in some equalisation payment, there would then be an independent valuation of the assets involved, and the independent valuation would affirm or not the assumptions about valuations which have been made by ACTEW and AGL.
Clearly, the ACT wants to ensure that none of its assets are being undervalued in that process for the sake of making this partnership work better. Having established that the valuation is acceptable, an equalisation payment could be made. As to whether it will be made in cash or some other form, I do not know whether the agreement between the parties is likely to be explicit about that. I do not know that I can answer that question categorically, but I imagine the payment would be in cash. As to where it is going, that is a matter for the ACT to decide. It would be my view that a payment of that kind should be made to address the ACT's unfunded superannuation liability. If the Assembly has a view about the matter, I am willing to listen to it. But that would be the view that the ACT Government would take provisionally at this stage, bearing in mind that no equalisation payment has yet been determined.
MR OSBORNE: I ask a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. If the Government does place any money in the superannuation pool, do you intend to introduce legislation to quarantine that money?
MR HUMPHRIES: We are not required to announce government policy but, since Mr Osborne has asked so nicely, I feel I should make a statement about it. It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation soon in this place to provide for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .