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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2506 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

ACT because it was in public hands? I am sure we can all remember the debate and the strident claims that if it was not sold immediately it would lose half of its value. Do you remember those claims? I remember the claim that it was losing $10 million a week, or something or other. That was in October 1998. It was claimed that if it was not sold immediately it would halve in value within six months. That was the strident, hysterical claim in October 1998. The other states would flood the electricity market and we would not survive.

Then we had the great superannuation debate, and I regret that my colleague Mr Quinlan did not mention it. We were told that if we did not sell it immediately we would be bankrupted because of the superannuation liability. We remember those debates and we remember the overwhelming outrage from the Canberra community at the prospect that its major asset would be sold.

At that stage, as a result of that enormous outcry and response from the community, ACTEW was not sold. Of course, not to be deterred, we then had mark 2, the calling of tenders, and then the ignoring of the process and the single selection of the ACTEW/AGL merger that we now have. There was a single selection process, and no determination to ensure that we are dealing with the actual issue, namely, the risk in the retail market.

I see that the Canberra Times, even today, is still basically running the furphy, without explanation or understanding, that the issue that we were facing from the outset and which everybody acknowledged was the risk in the retailing of electricity. What proportion of the business of ACTEW is that, and what value of that proportion of the electricity business is the retail arm? I think Fay Richwhite identified it as a risk of three per cent of the retail arm and 10 per cent of ACTEW's overall business. That is what we were looking at. That is how this all started. The evil that we were seeking to address was the risk to the retailing of electricity in the ACT-a risk identified by Fay Richwhite, the government's own consultants-of three per cent, and 10 per cent of the overall business.

This is what we have been led to. We have flogged off half the business, against the wishes of the people of the ACT, and in the face of the promise by the Chief Minister that she had no intention, going into the last election, of affecting the ownership arrangements of ACTEW. This is a major defeat and it is a major loss. It is a major loss to the people of the ACT. They have lost half of the value, or half of this asset, in what can only be regarded as a problematic deal. It is very problematic in terms of the shifting of the debt onto the people of the ACT and the grabbing of the asset by AGL. We all know what the long-term consequences and implications of this deal will be, and they are not to the benefit of the people of the ACT.

MR KAINE (11.25): Mr Speaker, I move:

I seek leave to make a short statement in explanation of that motion.

Leave granted.

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