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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 626 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Where does that process end? A merger with AGL is pretty much a merger of complementary organisations which together will produce, in my view, a very effective organisation with a wider base than ACTEW currently has. If we refuse to accept this proposal today, where is the next offer going to come from? Can the Opposition tell us which organisation is next in line to come forward after we reject this proposal, after AGL take their marbles or their bat and ball and walk away? Where is the next proponent going to come from?

First of all, I would have to argue that there will be none. Why would there be? We have successively rejected a series of proposals that have been put forward. I would have thought that any organisation out there that might have had some pretensions to doing a deal with us would be very much disheartened and would say, "Why bother? This mob is not serious. They have no intention of consummating any proposal that would involve ACTEW, even if it is a good one". You can always find people who will knock the proposal that is on the table now, which is what we have seen, saying that this proposal is no good for this reason, that reason and the other reason. I could produce a document which outlines that, but I do not think I need to. But when is somebody going to look at the positive side and say, "This is good deal because ..."? That is what I have been looking at and I believe that we are at the stage where, to mix a few metaphors, we have to grasp the nettle, take the bull by the horns and confront the issue head on, because if we do not, we never will.

The task that I set for myself some weeks ago was to look at this proposal and see whether it would be good for the Territory. I have had to conclude that, subject to a bit of finetuning, which Mr Quinlan refers to and Mr Rugendyke refers to, and with a good heart and good intent, we can make this deal a good one for the ACT. We can make it a good deal because, as I have said, it involves an amalgamation of two complementary organisations which would broaden the base of both and make a stronger organisation and at the same time, if we do it right, we can protect the interests of the ACT community in the doing. I think that even Mr Quinlan will agree with me on that. He is proposing to make some amendments to the Bill when it comes up to tighten it up a bit so that those interests are preserved. If they can be preserved, why would we reject the proposition if, at the end of the day, we can come up with an arrangement where the interests of this community are preserved and the organisation has the potential for a better future than it has at the moment? I cannot see on what grounds we would reject that kind of proposal.

I have spoken to the Minister, I have spoken to Mr Quinlan and I have spoken to Mr Rugendyke. I have also spoken on a number of occasions to the chief executive of ACTEW and to officials of AGL because I want to find out what they are about. I am satisfied that they have answered all the questions that I have had and that we can make this legislation something that will make it work. That is why I support in principle what the Government is doing. I think we would be up against a brick wall if we do not accept this one, because nobody in his right mind would come to us with another proposal. We could go round the whole country touting businesses, saying, "Please come and do some business with us", but why would they bother because we would have well and truly indicated that we are not interested? So I support the proposal in principle.

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