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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 631 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I agree with comments made by a couple of speakers so far that this is very much the last chance for the ACT. If this chance is knocked back now there will not be another one. I do not think we would be putting up another possibility there and all we hear from the ALP is the continual raising of problems. I do not think that there would be anything that would ever satisfy them. We just have continuing negativity.

I think there is much in what Mr Kaine said in terms of the sense of this proposal and I was very happy to hear it. The proposal is something which would benefit the ACT. AGL is a big company and the partnership would give ACTEW a great deal of strength, diversity and flexibility. ACTEW, AGL and everyone else in this industry are in an increasingly competitive and dynamic marketplace. As I see it, this partnership would benefit the ACT through increased returns and improved infrastructure, ACT customers through greater choice and improved services, and ACTEW and its staff through having reduced risk, increased efficiencies and expanded opportunities. I think that the proposal is something that we need to grasp. We will not have another chance.

MS TUCKER (4.45): At this point, I will move the amendment circulated in my name and Mr Stanhope and other members will be able to address it when they speak. I move:

I appreciated Mr Stefaniak's explanation to us of the issues surrounding deregulation of the electricity market, but I think that most of us have grasped them. He seemed to think that we have not. I think it is clear from all the debates that have occurred here that no-one has said at any point that they do not recognise that there are some risks involved with the retailing part of ACTEW's business. Obviously, there is disagreement about the degree of the risk. I did not hear him deal with that in any detail, which I think would be useful if we wanted to have a really close analysis of it.

The point is that I think that everyone in this place is acknowledging that there is some risk involved in the retailing of electricity under the deregulated market. There is not much disagreement on that. But there is disagreement fundamentally about whether we need to sell the whole lot of ACTEW to deal with this problem. The amendment I have put to Mr Humphries' motion basically would turn around what the Government is proposing with the ACTEW/AGL merger. I do not want the Government to pursue options for ACTEW's future which involve the sale, franchising, entering into joint ventures or contracting out of ACTEW's electricity network, water or sewerage businesses.

If my amendment is passed, the proposed ACTEW/AGL merger will have to be shelved, although the Government could still pursue options for the electricity retailing business of ACTEW. I understand that AGL has entered into such an arrangement in South Australia and will work with the retailing section of the business there. While I am talking about that, I found Mr Kaine's argument quite intriguing. He seemed to be saying that if we do not go ahead with this proposal the business community will run away with

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