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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 641 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

today when we do not know the value of the joint assets. We do not know the value of AGL assets in the ACT. Professor Hodgson asked, "Where are the estimates of the future profits of the venture?". We have no information on the future profits of the venture.

Professor Hodgson points out that sound commercial practice requires a budget to be made out with appropriate analysis of the potential of a range of financial scenarios vis-a-vis the current situation. The advantage of such an approach is to quantify in dollar terms - surely they are the terms that this Government is interested in - the gains from the joint venture and the financial cost of the potential risks involved. But, as we know, there are no estimates of cost savings - none. There are no estimates of the financial benefits to customers - none. There is no timetable for the equalisation payments to be made by AGL. We do not know when AGL is going to make the payments. As Professor Hodgson says, without negotiating an exact up-front contribution, the agreement is fraught with costly agency and monitoring problems, not to mention uncertainty.

Finally, there is no estimate in the papers reviewed by Professor Hodgson, the papers that this Assembly is being asked to make a decision on, of the cost of the much vaunted gas-fired preparation plant. (Further extension of time granted) Perhaps more importantly, there are no comparative costings for the electricity from a gas-fired plant versus the purchase of electricity from other generators. There is no analysis of the prospects of selling the power generated from the gas-fired plant to an already highly competitive market. None of these issues has been dealt with. We have no information on any of these questions and we are being asked to vote on the proposal. We debate in ignorance and have been asked to vote without having any of the facts before us.

Mr Speaker, what the Government proposes with this quite bizarre scheme is a sledgehammer to crack the nut that is the threat to the retail sector of ACTEW. ACTEW's retail business is worth 10 per cent of its revenue. It is at acknowledged risk from competition, although the extent and potential of that competition are hinted at, not demonstrated. The Government wants us to approve a scheme in which it sells half the community's power business in order to buy half a gas business. It wants us to approve a joint venture with a much larger and, from the evidence we see around this place, a much cannier private sector corporation and cede control over the assets of our most valuable public asset. It wants us to believe that the whole deal is kosher: "Trust us, we are from the Government". We have that from the Government with such a proven disastrous record in dealings with the private sector. We have that from the Government that gave us a map of the Cayman Islands in its attempt to extricate itself from the Bruce Stadium fiasco. We have that from the Government that underwrites football clubs, car races and, as we discovered today, rock concerts.

Mr Speaker, what the Government proposes and how it argues its proposal is simply not good enough for the Labor Party. It is not good enough for the community we represent. Sadly, this Government has shown itself to be happy to accept half-baked, illogically argued constructs that are designed more to show off to the big boys than to protect public assets and public money. Labor believes that we in this place would be derelict in our responsibilities were we to approve the stripping of ACTEW. We acknowledge that there is a problem that has to be addressed. This is not the solution. That is clear to all of us.

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