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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 809 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

of Western Australia. I have spoken with Western Power executives and they could not be happier with the joint venture. That project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget, and it will run at a profit in its first year. When I spoke with Western Power I was told that their only regret was not asking AGL to build a bigger pipeline so that they could build more branch lines to sell more gas to more places.

This joint venture is a fifty-fifty arrangement, with a very similar structure that is proposed for ACTEW and AGL here in the ACT. This is evidence that this type of joint venture has been achieved with the government utility sharing an equal footing with AGL. There is no reason why it cannot be replicated here in the ACT. I have received assurances from AGL that they are in this joint venture for the long haul. Both ACTEW and AGL are in a terrific position; they both have plenty to bring to the table - they have the infrastructure and resources to create a progressive multi-utility.

I am excited by the prospects it provides. It gives ACTEW the capacity to build the businesses, the capacity to create career opportunities for ACTEW staff and the capacity for ACTEW to be a proactive force in a dynamic industry. The example of solar energy and the federal government subsidies for installing this type of technology shows that ACTEW has to be prepared to react to these types of developments and it will be better prepared for those pressures in a joint venture with AGL.

During my research into this proposal I learnt that the generation, the wires and the retail aspects of the energy industry must be kept separate to ensure that subsidising breaches do not occur under competition policy regulations. The new term I encountered is "ring fencing". I am convinced that the Labor Party is intent on "ringbarking" ACTEW. Despite making sympathetic noises early, I am convinced that the Labor Party had no intention of giving this proposal a fair go.

I am prepared to consider the amendments proposed by Mr Quinlan. If they do seem to enhance the legislation, I would be prepared to support them. But I must give Mr Quinlan credit because he has at least been half genuine with his dealings and has made the effort to maintain dialogue. But I understand that Labor will still oppose the Bill even if they receive support for their amendments, which I do find to be a curious approach. This negativity was reflected in a media release issued by Mr Stanhope this week.

Mr Berry: What about mine?

MR RUGENDYKE: Yours will come. Mr Stanhope ended the debate on Tuesday with a release titled "ACTEW Down the Drain with Osborne and Rugendyke". This is lobbying by press release. Some fight, Mr Stanhope! Where is he? Some fight, Mr Stanhope! If you had genuine concerns about this proposal, why did you not come and see me? I have said exactly the same thing in this chamber before, but it always seems to be forgotten. My door is always open. If you have an issue, put it to me. Lobbying by press release does not work.

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