Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 528 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Did you either mislead the house or are you simply not in the loop?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I would have thought, Mr Berry. Mr Speaker, it was put to me that the CEO of my department had informed a party, presumably ENERGEX, that a decision had already been made. It was your assertion in this place yesterday that the CEO of my department - - -

Mr Stanhope: No, it was a question.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not. I will read it to you, Mr Stanhope:

That is not a question; that is an assertion.

Mr Stanhope: Of course it is a question; it is called question time.

MR SPEAKER: That has not bothered people before.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is an assertion, and it is contradicted by the letter which Mr Quinlan had in his possession at the time from the organisation's same agent, which says, "The Under-Treasurer advised me to wait until a decision had been made in regard to the AGL proposal". They are not consistent, are they, Mr Speaker? They are not consistent at all.

Mr Speaker, what is perfectly clear from all of this is that there is no offer on the table from ENERGEX for the purchase of whole or part of ACTEW and the line that the Labor Party is running at the moment that there are other offers on the table simply is not true. Whether the door is open or not, there are no other offers on the table. Mr Quinlan told this place that there was an offer from ENERGEX on the table, and there is not.

Mr Stanhope: He asked a question.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, he did not ask a question. Look at what he said in the Canberra Times yesterday, Mr Stanhope. He did not ask a question. He made an assertion that the Government had knocked off a proposal from ENERGEX because it was in a mad keen rush to embrace AGL, or words to that effect. That is what Mr Quinlan said yesterday. Mr Speaker, those who are considering delaying a decision on the AGL proposal because they believe that perhaps we should consider seriously an offer from ENERGEX can be assured that there is no offer from ENERGEX with regard to the sale of ACTEW or any part of it. There is no offer from ENERGEX. I table the letter from ENERGEX that confirms that fact, Mr Speaker. There is, therefore, only one reasonable proposal before the Assembly to consider; that is, the question of a joint venture between ACTEW and AGL.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Hird?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .