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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 824 ..

MR STANHOPE: I assume from his intervention that Mr Osborne is concerned that, in not addressing some comments to him, he feels left out.

Mr Kaine: Personal reflections are highly disorderly.

MR STANHOPE: I would not wish to be disorderly.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Kaine! Mr Stanhope has the call.

Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker: I believe Mr Kaine was drawing attention to standing order 55.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand standing order 55. This side of the house will come to order.

MR STANHOPE: The main concern that the Opposition has expressed and continues to express is that we have not been given the details that allow us to make an educated and responsible decision about whether or not this proposal should be supported. We simply do not have the information, and it cannot be denied that we do not have the information.

Isn't it ironic that only today the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission issued a press release which drew attention to a dispute between the Pricing and Regulatory Commission and AGL over the regulatory asset value? A fundamental point in relation to the decision about whether or not to proceed with a joint venture is to know what the relative value of the assets of the respective partners may be. How can anyone possibly negotiate a position if you do not know the base line figures, if you do not know what AGL is worth and if you do not know what equalisation payment is going to be made?

It is disturbing to me, as it should be to everyone in this place, that as recently as Tuesday of this week the Treasurer - the person leading the negotiations and the person primarily responsible for advancing the case - told us that he would anticipate an equalisation payment in the order of $100m. Yet today in question time the Treasurer told us that he was not sure there would be an equalisation payment. He cannot tell us that there will be a payment at all.

It may be that, even though there is a differential in value between the assets of ACTEW and AGL, there will be no equalisation payment at all. If the Government does not know that, what does it know? What cost-benefit analysis has been done? The end result of entering into an arrangement of this sort is that half of our major material asset will be flogged off, and no cost-benefit analysis of any sort has been done. The Government has not been able to put on the table any figures. No numbers have been provided, and there has been no suggestion of any potential dividend that the joint venture will produce.

We have asked questions on this issue. ACTEW has told us through the ABN AMRO report what its anticipated dividend will be over the next few years. So, if ACTEW is promising to deliver a dividend of that order, what will the dividend be under the new

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