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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 761 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

distribution? The disaggregation allows the formation of separate energy retailers and, therefore, if AGL do drop out there will be competition in this particular market available to us. It might be an advantage.

MR HUMPHRIES: First of all, Mr Speaker, I have had many discussions with AGL over the last few months, and in this process they are dealing with a fairly unusual set of circumstances. As a major company in Australia, they have had to deal with all sorts of regulatory bodies, with governments, and with other utilities and operators within the Australian marketplace. They are a fairly flexible and adaptable organisation when it comes to dealing with issues of that kind.

I suspect that what they have not had to deal with before is this legislative process, which is an extremely uncertain one from the point of view of a major company seeking some certainty of outlook for itself, its shareholders and its business. No doubt ACTEW, at this particular point in time, are feeling very strongly the sense of what the New South Wales Treasurer, Mr Egan, referred to last year as the "vagaries of the ACT Legislative Assembly".

What the AGL corporation have said to us is that they have to make a decision about a significant investment in the Australian Capital Territory. In order to make that investment, they want some certainty of outlook. They do not wish to put their money into what appears to be an unstable situation. They, therefore, are prepared to put that money forward on the basis that they get a clear green light from the Legislative Assembly that it wishes the Government - or particularly ACTEW - to negotiate a sound venture that is in the interests of both the AGL corporation and the ACT community.

Now, I have heard AGL's concerns about this, and I am perfectly well aware that AGL will seriously consider walking away from this arrangement if the Assembly further delays a decision on the matter. One person's threat is another person's statement of fact, and whether members choose to characterise it that way is really up to them. I have heard what AGL have to say. I understand their concerns about the situation. I believe that it is fair and reasonable, with the information on the table, to seek Assembly approval and that is what the Government has done. I think that we should clearly indicate today whether we have substantive arguments against this proposal, or whether we are clutching at straws in an attempt to justify the ideology of a party that is opposed to any form of privatisation or relaxation of government control over public assets.

Mr Quinlan: Where is the competition in this deal?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, it is particularly ironic that Mr Quinlan is asking this question. Mr Quinlan has himself gone into the forums of the Labor Party and argued that they need some flexibility to be able to provide for some relaxation of public control. Mr Quinlan, of course, was defeated on that occasion by his colleague behind him, Mr Berry. So we know that you believe that total public control of assets is not necessarily in the interests of the ACT community.

Mr Quinlan: That is not the case at all.

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