Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 647 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
How would the new board operate and to whom would it report? What would be the dividend policy of the Joint Venture? What would be the capital structure of the Joint Venture? What are the taxation implications of the various possible capital and legal structures of the Joint Venture? How will the ACT public know whether it had achieved a good deal in the merger?
On the issue of greenhouse benefits, today we still hear this Minister talking about the benefits of this for the greenhouse effect. I think the frailty of those arguments has already been exposed. Let us look again at the Australia Institute report. Mr Humphries might seethe in private about that; nevertheless, it hits all the right buttons. It goes on to say:
Nor is the new plant likely - - -
Mr Hird: What does this have to do with adjourning?
MR BERRY: We need to get to the bottom of all of this information that has not been provided. I continue:
Nor is the new plant likely to contribute to reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The plant would have greenhouse benefits if it replaced electricity generated from coal-fired power stations. However, the gas-fired plant in the ACT would provide electricity into the national grid at peak periods. As such it is unlikely to replace coal-fired electricity, but would substitute for gas-fired electricity generated elsewhere, or hydroelectricity (from the Snowy or from Tasmania's HEC should Basslink go ahead). In the former case, the new plant would be greenhouse neutral; in the latter case, the new plant would increase Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
The issue of competition in relation to the generating plant has not been properly explained.
Mr Humphries: Because you have not asked the right questions have you?
MR BERRY: Why has that not been explained?
Mr Humphries: Because you have not asked the question.
MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says we should ask. We want to hear it from you. You do not know, that is your problem. You only have the ideological baggage "I want to sell it". You have always wanted to sell it from day one, and that is all you are interested in. You might be able to mesmerise a few people around this place with your charm, Mr Humphries, but not us.
Mr Hird: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Berry is not addressing the matter before you. He is debating another subject.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .