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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 617 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

approval may not be forthcoming, on the basis of an in-principle objection. The due diligence assessment will involve detailed planning and evaluation requiring a major commitment by the management and staff of both ACTEW and AGL. ACTEW and AGL need the support of this Assembly to enter into the process that will lead to that partnership, based on the results of the due diligence process.

The ACTEW/AGL Partnership Facilitation Bill, which is also before the Assembly, provides the framework of the requirements to be met in entering into a partnership. A key provision of the Bill requires the approval of the Assembly prior to the vesting of the assets, rights and liabilities of ACTEW to the partnership or partnership entity. In addition, ACTEW and its subsidiaries are, and will continue to be, subject to the Territory Owned Corporations Act.

I have to pause to note that in the midst of this immensely important debate there are precisely no members sitting on the Opposition benches at this time - not one.

Ms Tucker: There are two there.

MR HUMPHRIES: Strangely, they have now come back.

Ms Tucker: There are only three Liberals and two Labor members.

MR HUMPHRIES: There are five members of the Government present, and there are only six of us altogether. You can only get one more than we have present at the moment.

Mr Speaker, ACTEW and its subsidiaries are, and will continue to be, subject to the Territory Owned Corporations Act. It is necessary, therefore, for the Assembly to approve this motion to vest the main undertakings of ACTEW or a subsidiary. The motion gives effect to subsection 16(4) of the Territory Owned Corporations Act.

A great many things have been said about this proposed joint venture in the last few weeks. Much of what has been said has been based on conjecture and hypothesis, resting ultimately, if one is charitable, on the assumption that there is much unknown about the future of energy trading and energy selling in the Australian market. If one was uncharitable, one would say it is based on a desire to throw red herrings and smokescreens across the path of this proposal.

I believe that we need to accept one thing as a given in this debate. That one thing is that, whatever we may feel about the position of ACTEW, we cannot deny that the energy market in Australia faces a period of enormous uncertainty. The report from the Australia Institute, which was referred to earlier in question time, accepts that there is a degree of uncertainty about the Australian energy market. Other reports have made similar comments. Nobody in this place can come to this debate and quantify precisely the measure of risk which ACTEW will experience after whatever date it may be that full contestability comes to the ACT marketplace. None of us can say with certainty what percentage of the customer base of ACTEW will be lost, what percentage will be picked up or what businesses will be at risk as new competitors move in. The quantities are impossible to know in this environment, but what cannot be denied is that a failure to act

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