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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 828 ..

The members of that committee left that hearing expecting to have the responses to both reports tabled in this session. Today is the last day and it still has not appeared. It will not, I would suggest, ever appear.

There is another correlation in something that Mr Humphries said which has a bearing on the ACTEW/AGL merger. When talking about the cost-benefit analysis of the prison, the Treasurer, in his capacity as Attorney-General, said, "I have asked for work to be done jointly between Treasury and Corrective Services". Here is the rub: It was clear that neither department had sufficient expertise to be able to balance those issues.

Perhaps there is not the expertise within his department to carry out a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is why we do not have one at present. How on earth Mr Rugendyke or any other member of this place could make a decision on a venture that is going to involve hundreds of millions of dollars without a cost-benefit analysis is beyond belief.

Ms Carnell: John, you don't even know what a cost-benefit analysis is.

MR HARGREAVES: The Chief Minister interjects, bagging our understanding of a cost-benefit analysis. I would expect nothing else. I will repeat what I said before. Mr Humphries, the Treasurer, said, "It was clear that neither department" - Treasury nor Corrective Services - "had sufficient expertise to be able to balance those issues". He was talking about getting a cost-benefit analysis done. Clearly, as we have not seen one, they do have not the expertise. Interestingly, he reckons we are going to be just as big a player as AGL.

I suggest that the AGL board would have had its cost-benefit analysis done a long time ago. It would have been well placed to make a proper commercial decision. For those opposite to suggest that they are going to be an equal partner after the joint venture is silly beyond belief.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34; the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR HARGREAVES: I reiterate that those opposite will be not only junior partners at the board table but they will bring with them such a distinct lack of expertise and such a distinct lack of commercial instinct that it will be nothing short of dangerous. A conspiracy theorist would suggest that what we are seeing is an absolute repetition of the Telstra sell-off. It is a well-known fact that these sorts of joint ventures are doomed and that the dominant partner will walk away with the total prize.

I do not blame AGL at all for this. If they think they are clever enough to acquire a state-owned electricity company, good on them. They are in the commercial world dealing with kindergarten children here. I do not think I will bother to say anything more on the issue, given that I have 0.5 of a second left.

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