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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 878 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Most of the job projections that were made relate to the construction of the gas-fired generator. This very positive cloud was generated by the proponents around all the jobs that were going to be generated by the gas-fired generator and by the removal of some AGL staff from Queanbeyan across the border. They probably all live in Canberra anyway. These are the staff that we are achieving as a result of all this.

These are the things we do not know. We do not know about the comparative costings. We do not know any of the comparative costings relating to gas-fired electricity versus other options for purchasing electricity. We do not know any of that. They were the reasons that the Labor Party questioned and probed the Government. We sought answers which we felt were needed before serious consideration could be given to this proposal. The answers were not given.

It is on that basis that the Labor Party has opposed this reckless dealing with a major public asset; a public asset that has been built up over the years by generations of Canberrans and that has an affectionate place in the hearts of Canberrans. It is an organisation which the community trusts and wishes to retain in public ownership. It was ironic to see the latest pronouncements from Ziggy in relation to Telstra. History tells us that is precisely where ACTEW will go - down that same path.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (9.37), in reply: I will try to be brief in light of the lateness of the hour. A number of issues have been laid on the table as guarantees or prerequisites which this Government and the ACTEW Corporation stand behind for this arrangement to proceed.

I do not think there is much to be added to many of those comments, except to offer some reassurances on a few matters. First of all, we have had the suggestion that it would be profitable for the ACT community to proceed with the sale of the retail electricity arm of ACTEW only. That is an argument which Labor has come back to time and again in the course of this debate. They are saying that we do not have to make this decision tonight. We do not have to sell ACTEW. We have an alternative. They say they will support consideration of the sale of the retail electricity arm of ACTEW only.

Let me make this quite clear. Essentially, that leaves ACTEW with its water and sewerage assets and its electricity distribution assets. There are a few other smaller things, but in the main the assets of value are the electricity distribution assets and the water and sewerage assets. With respect to the electricity distribution assets, the Labor Party expects that somehow we will be able to retain a level of profit from those assets retained by the Territory to ensure that we are safe and secure as a territory and able to generate reasonable dividends to the community as a result of that kind of business.

The Labor Party may not be aware that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commissioner, Mr Baxter, has already set a price path for the electricity distribution business of ACTEW. That price path is for the next five years, and he has projected a decrease of two per cent in the price paid to ACTEW for the return to ACTEW from its distribution assets.

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