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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 810 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

It astounds me that Mr Stanhope can find the time to have a whinge in a media release, but does not even bother to directly present his case. All I can presume is that Mr Stanhope does not feel strongly about this issue. The fact that this Labor leader has not put any effort into gaining the numbers is a fair indication that deep down there are members of the Labor Party who acknowledge that this is a good joint venture. The public noise is simply a method of satisfying Caucus.

Mr Speaker, we have heard members of this Assembly label this proposal a sale. This was a predictable approach from the Labor Party and the Greens, on their philosophical grounds. But I do not accept that it is a sale. The intent of the Bill and the intent of AGL and ACTEW is to share assets in the joint venture. (Extension of time granted) But in the event of a so-called divorce, the assets would be returned to the rightful owner. That certainly is not giving away or selling ACTEW's assets. I am satisfied that ACTEW's assets are secured by this proposal.

We have also heard the argument that the retail arm is the only aspect of ACTEW which should be subject to change. The AGL proposal certainly deals with this area. Presently, ACTEW has approximately 130,000 retail customers and ranks at the bottom of the pile in terms of purchasing power. With AGL, ACTEW would be in a pool of about 1.1 million customers. That would rank with Energy Australia as one of the two most powerful in the land in terms of purchasing electricity.

But the AGL proposal goes further. For example, the commitment to construct a gas-fired power station as part of the joint venture has community support. I know, for one, that the Master Plumbers Association has come out in support of the proposed allegiance due to the improved environmental outcomes that a gas-fired power station would provide.

I have far greater expectations for ACTEW and its staff than just looking at options for one part of the corporation. We should be aiming higher than for ACTEW to just keep its head above water. I also believe we should be trying to shore up a future for ACTEW that facilitates growth, diversity and opportunities in the whole organisation. I am not convinced that pursuing just a sale of the retail arm will achieve this.

I said in an earlier debate on ACTEW that, if the Assembly were to consider allowing ACTEW to enter a joint venture, it would have to be fifty-fifty and with safeguards in place to ensure the partnership could not subsequently be privatised without the Territory's approval. This proposal meets that requirement.

Further, I have made it clear that a number of issues would have to be met by both parties. I am satisfied with the written assurances that I have received. The first is the involvement of the Chief Minister, which was the topic of a further media release - again, lobbying by press release by the Labor Party. Mr Berry has questioned the Chief Minister's involvement. I would like to put on the record my position and the responses I have received from ACTEW and AGL. Mr Speaker, I have faith in John Mackay, Jim Service and the ACTEW board to negotiate the best possible deal for the Territory. But I have sought assurances from all stakeholders that the Chief Minister is not a party to the negotiations and will not be able to interfere.

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