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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 684 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, as I hope members have appreciated so far, the assets to be brought to the partnership are yet to be determined. I have indicated, for example, in answer to a question the other day in this place that although we are willing to bring the TransACT proposal into the partnership, that is a matter of negotiation over the next few months should the Assembly give a green light for the partnership to proceed. Theoretically, the assets which are there, minus water and sewerage, are there to go into the partnership. The valuation which has been done on the total value of the assets of ACTEW has been published, I think, at some point or other. I am not sure whether it breaks down what is there, except for water and sewerage. If Mr Wood wishes to go and do his sums on the basis of published figures, he can probably work out what is potentially available on ACTEW's side to put into the partnership.

In terms of AGL, I could not say, Mr Speaker. It may be that I could give some indication of that later in the year if the partnership proceeds, but that is a matter which really is up to AGL to consider. Of course, it is a question of balancing what each side brings to the partnership that determines what kind of equalisation payment would be made as between ACTEW and AGL.

MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. You just said, Minister, that it is a matter for AGL to consider what level of assets. Is it not a matter also for this Assembly to consider?

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, and that is why I suggest that, at the point where the assets are valued to determine what kind of contribution each side is making to a partnership, we would need to know that we were not putting in so much more than AGL that the partnership was unfair. Bear in mind that it was only yesterday in this place, as I recall, that those opposite were saying we are going to be eaten up by this giant called AGL. If they put in more assets than we do, well, that is presumably to the ACT's advantage in some ways.

The point is that, at the end of the day, the ACT community will have to be satisfied that there is a capacity to be able to deliver equally on the partnership and that both AGL and ACTEW will produce some assets and some expertise and some other benefits which will, in synergy with each other, produce the sort of thing that we were looking for, which in this case is increased profits that come back to the ACT community as dividends and also, of course, the rather important benefit of maintenance and growth in jobs.

MR KAINE: My question also is to the Treasurer and it also concerns the proposed ACTEW/AGL merger. It is about a matter, however, that has not loomed very large in the debate in this place, although it will be very important to a very small number of people perhaps with limited needs. Mr Treasurer, you will be aware, of course, that at present ACTEW, as part of its community service obligations, provides comparatively generous rebates to eligible age pensioners. Without going into too much detail, for an age pensioner who is a sole owner of a property, a rebate of 65 per cent is available on the water and sewerage supply charge, and for electricity consumption there is a complementary age pensioner rebate of some 19c a day in the warmer months and 67c a day during the cooler months. In short, for a typical pensioner on a fixed income, there

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