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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 843 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

I do this despite what are threats from AGL, something that some of the members in this house have not taken all that kindly to. I personally do not take well to threats of this order, but I do understand AGL making such a threat. It is an all or nothing, take it or leave it, threat. I understand completely AGL doing it because I think this Government has shown a singular ineptitude in business. I rather think that AGL could quite confidently buffalo this Government, unless, of course, the threats were a mutually agreed contrivance between the Government and AGL to buffalo some of our members and to put them in an all or nothing position.

There is a lot we do not know about this particular deal, and enough to be genuinely concerned about. There is certainly enough for any responsible MLA not to hand a blank cheque. That came out in question time when we asked about the value of assets and the equalisation payment. We have gone from possibly $250m when I first talked to representatives of AGL and ACTEW about this to "if any" today. We have seen that there is possibly a dispute between AGL and IPARC as to the actual value of those assets. Quite a lot of money is involved, let me tell you, so I rather think that we need at least to take a staged look at what is going on here, and we really should not disenfranchise completely this Assembly from this very important deal. I have to say that I am a bit concerned.

I notice that there has now built up on the Government's side of the house a mantra that we cost 200 jobs because of market share. I find this quite astounding. In a section that employees 50 we have lost 200 of them. With the logic that has been put forward in this house so far, I do believe that they could actually say that.

Mr Moore: Lucky you are not a lawyer, Ted.

MR QUINLAN: I think that has been Mr Moore's total contribution to the debate. It shows the gross hypocrisy of what he says. In fact, the loss of jobs is classic Professor Hilmer stuff. In fact it is the public sector that chops off the jobs, which in theory increases the value of the organisation. Then you flog it. This is classic staged Hilmer. I count John Mackay, the chief executive of ACTEW, amongst my friends, but at the same time I do know that his professional peak is that of a corporate undertaker. From the time of his appointment, that is what we have been doing. We have been taking the organisation through this classical Professor Hilmer phase.

I find Mr Moore's support for this quite astounding. It goes to show just how far you have come, Michael. Just as an aside, earlier in your speech you shopped your Chief Minister. Your Chief Minister said before the election, "Privatisation is not on the agenda". Then you had discussions, even before she was appointed Chief Minister, very close to that election, and you were wheeling and dealing on the privatisation of ACTEW.

Mr Moore: After the election.

Ms Carnell: After the election.

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