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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 637 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We need to be absolutely clear about what it is that we are debating. Essentially, it is about the future control of the assets ACTEW takes to the joint venture. Clause 11(2) of the Bill vests the property jointly and severally in each joint venture partner. The legal and equitable interest in ACTEW that the community now possesses would transfer to this joint venture. Ownership of the property would transfer to the joint venture. On the admittedly flimsy evidence that we have so far been given, it is total control. That is what it is; it is total control of the asset. Perhaps that control will be hedged by an agreement between the parties to the joint venture. But if that is the case, where is the agreement? What are its terms? What are its terms to be? What rights will the ACT retain to its property in ACTEW? What control will the ACT have over the disposal of its assets? On the evidence before us, the answer is that it will have no rights.

The Bill has some provision for ending the joint venture and the return of at least the electricity distribution assets to ACTEW. But what assets would be returned? What assets would be available for return? The Bill requires Assembly approval of any proposal to reduce ACTEW's share of the joint venture below 50 per cent. ACTEW must retain its half share of the cake. But where are the provisions to stop a reduction of the cake? There are none. We are asked to take it on faith. So, if the day comes and the joint venture is wound up, what will come back to the ACT? Does anybody know what will come back to the ACT? We simply are not told in any documentation put before us what will come back. Of course, what will come back in those circumstances will come back only with the agreement of AGL.

What role will ACTEW or anyone else have in protecting the interests of the ACT community, the owners of ACTEW? The answer seems to be that it will be very little. The indications of what is before us are that AGL will provide the asset management services to the joint venture. AGL will buy the electricity and gas. AGL will sell the electricity and gas. It will control the staff. It will provide the call centre. AGL will provide the billing system, the operation systems and the corporate functions. Who or what will look after the ACT's interests? Strategic management groups within ACTEW, we are told: An ACTEW stripped to nothing, a bare shelf. On the evidence given so far, this proposal is totally ineffective to the extent that it can protect the interests of the ACT.

The questions I pose need to be addressed by members of this Assembly before they make a decision on what is before them. These questions must be answered before this Assembly can meet its responsibilities to the Canberra community. If members find the questions simply cannot be answered - Labor cannot find an answer to these questions and I challenge anybody else in this place to do so - there is no option but to vote against this proposal.

Before we can deal sensibly with the matters in front of us we need to get back to the real issue. We need to cast aside the Government's dire, Hanrahan-like warnings of impending doom for ACTEW unless we rubber-stamp this half-baked joint venture proposal. Remember last year's debate: The Government said that ACTEW would be worthless to the Territory, that it would better to sell it then while we could still realise a healthy cheque. The sky did not fall in, and there is no need now to rush into a decision that betrays the trust of ACTEW's owners.

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