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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 621 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

We then moved to the merger proposal with Great Southern Energy, which New South Wales dismissed out of hand. At the same time as we had that proposal to enter a merger with Great Southern Energy, we had an eleventh hour call for expressions of interest. Mrs Carnell and Michael Egan from New South Wales announced the investigation of the Great Southern Energy merger on 9 April, and on 10 April suddenly we had an invitation for expressions of interest to launder the process of a one-on-one negotiation that we had gone straight into. Surprise, surprise, we were starting to subvert due process right from that point. I might add that the Chief Minister, in a previous time, under different pressure of course, informed this house that the expressions of interest were not tenders.

The Government now needs to give that expressions of interest process credibility. Why? Because right from the start they have flouted due process. Through that, we have arrived at another one-on-one deal. Information is seeping out that some of the considerable amount of the detail of that particular deal has been thrashed out. The problem we all accept is that there is risk in the retail business.

The first solution should be some arrangement to ameliorate the risk in the retail business. The Government, through Mr Humphries and through Mrs Carnell, has claimed, "We have put up three proposals but, every time, we have attached a caveat, a condition, to addressing that retail risk. You have to sell some assets. Each of the deals that have been offered to this place involves the sale of public assets, even though through the course of about 12 months the people of Canberra made it fairly clear that they did not want public assets sold".

If you want to look at the Government's decision and persistence in attaching the sale of assets to fixing the real problem, just look at the invitation for expressions of interest. It talks about providing the opportunity for releasing significant excess capital from ACTEW. What is that code for? I would say that is code for selling part or all of public assets. It did not want a solution that just fixed the problem. It said, "We want a solution. Yes, we are prepared to fix the problem but you have to sell assets as well". It has always been a case of doom and disaster if we do not sell it now. According to ACTEW's CEO, it would wither on the vine.

In question time last week, the question time that changed question time forever, I asked the Treasurer how the water business of ACTEW would grow or shrink, depending upon change in ownership or maintenance of the current ownership. I still ask: How will the water business change, dependent upon the ownership? How will it wither on the vine? How will the sewerage business wither? How will it grow or shrink, depending on the ownership? How will electricity distribution grow or shrink or wither on the vine, depending on a change in ownership. A week ago I think I could have paraphrased Mr Humphries answer as: "I have no idea. I have been told by the ACTEW board and I have faith in them". Why is the ACTEW board not sitting across there running the ACT? Why do we not cut out the middle man - if you are in the loop at all?

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