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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 754 ..

MR CORBELL: We will see how that question is put to the test at the next election. There is no doubt at all in my mind and in my colleagues' minds that this is the end of ACTEW. It is the beginning of the end, and it is the road which will lead inevitably to the complete privatisation of the asset. That is not acceptable. That cannot occur. That is why Labor is opposing this motion today.

Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Treasurer. In relation to the proposed ACTEW/AGL joint venture, can the Treasurer tell the Assembly when the equalisation payment to be paid by AGL will be negotiated, and whether he is aware that AGL is in dispute with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission - which, in a press release issued today, provided an assessment of the company's regulatory asset value of $170m, considerably less than the value advanced to the commission by AGL - and that comments on the issue are not to be dealt with by IPARC until after 7 April next?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the question of negotiating the equalisation payment, if any, is a matter that will occur, of course, subject to the decision of the Assembly today, over the next few months. Now, members are aware that ACTEW and AGL have set for themselves a tentative deadline of 1 July this year for the establishment of a joint venture partnership. Obviously if that date was going to be adhered to, it would be necessary to establish the basis on which the two parties would come together. There would need to be some assessment, by that stage, of the relative value of the two halves of the joint venture. Obviously if one part is bigger than the other, then an equalisation payment will be made.

So I would anticipate that this would happen well after 7 April - or whatever date it was Mr Stanhope just referred to - and that it would be a matter to be negotiated between the parties. As to whether the payment itself would occur before the joint venture begins, that is up to the parties. I do not believe that this is a matter that is necessarily relevant, at this point in time, and I do not particularly mind as long as the payment is ultimately made - if such a payment needs to be made.

Mr Stanhope: Do you think that there may not be a payment? Do you think AGL is worth more than ACTEW?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, my advice is that what ACTEW proposes to bring to the partnership is greater than what AGL proposes to bring to the partnership. Now, on that basis, you would expect there to be an equalisation payment - there would be an equalisation payment - - -

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