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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 885 ..

MR QUINLAN (10.02): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move my amendments 3 and 4 together.

Leave granted.

MR QUINLAN: I move:

Mr Speaker, for those who were not here earlier when I went through it, these amendments relate to assets outside systems assets. If there is to be vesting of considerable real estate that ACTEW owns within this deal, then I think that should be a separate decision of this place.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (10.03): I am very concerned about amendments 3 and 4. I think they represent a serious erosion of the decisions the Assembly has already taken tonight. Under clause 11 the Minister is allowed to declare assets vested in the joint venture. That can occur under the motion which has been passed and the Bill which is part way through being passed at the moment. You cannot make a declaration to vest those assets unless ACTEW and AGL have agreed to the terms of the declaration and the Assembly has, by resolution, approved the vesting. It has done that already tonight by the resolution which was passed a little while ago.

Mr Quinlan's amendments take a new class of assets called "significant assets" and in effect say that significant assets cannot be dealt with except by a resolution of the Assembly. What is the difference between a significant asset and a main undertaking? Clearly, a significant asset could be a main undertaking, and vice versa. The lack of definition here worries me considerably.

I see what Mr Quinlan is getting at. He does not want something significant in ACTEW which might not be associated with the joint venture - I think that is what he is trying to do - sold or put into the joint venture without the Assembly approving it. That is fair enough, but the confusion between main undertakings and significant assets is such that it would cause a real problem in knowing whether a particular thing we propose to deal with under this arrangement was a significant asset or a main undertaking, or both. It could lead to the Government, because it is unsure, having to come back to the Assembly to get approval for a particular asset to be part of the deal if it was considered a significant asset, having to come back to this house for a further vote on whether or

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