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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 646 ..

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. I was hoping you would swing it back to where the extra time was needed, Mr Berry.

MR BERRY: That is what I was going to do. Mr Rugendyke needs to be satisfied with these matters and as time passes he will be convinced more and more about the Chief Minister's involvement in this process. He will be convinced more and more about the Treasurer's involvement in this process, and other financial disasters in which he has been involved as a Cabinet Minister along the way. Now, Mr Rugendyke

Mr Hargreaves: He is laughing.

MR BERRY: No, he is not laughing at this. He could not. This is too serious.

MR SPEAKER: Is this the reason that you want it postponed until June 2000?

MR BERRY: Indeed, because I want to expose these people.

MR SPEAKER: I see.

MR BERRY: I want to expose these people and, bearing in mind the public statements that have been made by Mr Rugendyke, I think we need time to better demonstrate that, time and time again, you will find the fingerprints. They will try to keep them away from you. Now, there is a great deal of information that has not been provided, about which we ought to be concerned.

I turn to the Australia Institute report. This one has been dealt with as well, I think. Professor Allan Hodgson, the head of the School of Accounting, Banking and Finance - we will come back to that one in a minute. "What are the expert assessments of the prospects of both ACTEW and AGL in the new energy market?". Well, would you trust Kate Carnell and Gary Humphries on this? I do not. "Exactly what are the synergies that could be expected from the merger?". Would you trust Kate Carnell - - -

MR SPEAKER: Again, Mr Berry, it is not a question of whether you are trusting or not, the fact is that you have to justify - - -

MR BERRY: I need to get further expert information, Mr Speaker. I want to hear more about this. I want to know about the method to be used for calculating the equalisation payment before I give approval for this matter. I already know that the Government says we will get $100m or so when we hand over the gold-plated assets to this organisation at bargain basement prices. Mr Humphries says that, if it all collapses, we will get all those assets back, but he never mentions that we are going to have to cough up the money - probably borrow it - to get the assets back.

"What would be the precise legal structure?". Who knows, because that has to be agreed to by the two shareholders in the end, and signed away after we make the decision. You would have to be mad to let this pair sign anything without knowing the full details of it. The Australia Institute report asks:

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