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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 623 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Option No. 1 would have fixed the problem. It would have left us with a home-grown, home-owned, thriving business. Yes, ACTEW is relatively small in terms of the ACT electricity industry, but it is very substantial by Canberra standards, and importantly it will grow with Canberra. It will grow as the population grows. The Assembly should send this Government back to the negotiating table and say, "We want option No. 1 resurrected. We want to see the detail and we want the opportunity to consider it". Instead, the Government says, "We have picked out just one for you to select. You should approve it. Why? Because we put up two other deals that involve asset sales. We have given you three chances. What more do you want?". What we want is the real problem identified and isolated. What we want is the real problem solved genuinely with goodwill and honesty. But we have consistently had this additional baggage applied to each of the options put forward. I do not believe that the proposal put forward here offers much in growth in the long term.

Mr Humphries: What do you believe, Ted? Tell us what you do believe.

MR QUINLAN: Mr Humphries, if you have not been listening, I am prepared to repeat it. I believe that you should have the common decency to resurrect some of the other options that were put forward with the expressions of interest - those that address the particular problem and do not involve asset sales.

Mr Humphries: Which one particularly?

MR QUINLAN: How about option 1 from AGL? We have involved ourselves directly in a one-on-one deal with AGL. I have every reason to think that AGL is a very credible company. I also have every reason to believe that AGL will do absolutely the right thing by its shareholders. But shareholders and ACT residents probably have competing interests in terms of who gets the best deal out of this amalgamation. In entering into one-on-one negotiations, we have totally compromised any bargaining power we have, because we have eliminated anybody else that might be interested. I firmly believe there are other credible organisations that would be prepared to negotiate. (Extension of time granted) I firmly believe there would be other companies interested in doing a deal that solves the problem but maybe does not sell the local assets, which has always been on your agenda.

Mr Humphries: Except retail assets, of course.

MR QUINLAN: What retail assets might they be?

Mr Humphries: Retail assets.

MR QUINLAN: What are they?

Mr Humphries: Electricity retail assets.

Mr Stanhope: What is the asset you are going to sell?

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