Page 1206 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Chief Minister, can you tell the ACT community what assessment your government has made of the potential implications of this restructuring proposal on the supply of electricity and gas within the ACT? In particular, has any analysis been undertaken of the consequences of this proposal for ACT consumers?
MR STANHOPE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question and I acknowledge the importance of the issues that the Leader of the Opposition raises in the question. It certainly is an issue of very, very significant and high importance to the ACT government, to ActewAGL and, indeed, for the people of the ACT.
As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there has for some time been a level of sparring between AGL and Alinta. That commenced significantly on 31 October 2005, when AGL announced the plan to demerge into two new major listed businesses by separating its retail and emergent energy assets from its infrastructure assets. Of course, from that time, namely 31 October, when AGL first indicated that it was seeking to restructure, the ACT government initiated with Actew and ActewAGL a process to ensure that the interests of the territory were utterly protected.
Indeed, after 31 October, when AGL made that announcement, the next significant milestone or issue or point occurred certainly in January, when the chairman of Actew formally advised the voting shareholders of a number of issues of significant concern to Actew with respect to the impact of the merger on the ActewAGL joint venture. A principle document was agreed with AGL in relation to how to deal with those particular issues, and the Actew board, at the urging of the ACT government, made it clear to AGL at that time that any change in the present joint venture arrangements would not be acceptable if the change adversely impacted on the successful operation of ActewAGL.
As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, then, on 21 February, Alinta announced that it had secured a 10 per cent stake in AGL and proposed a merger with AGL followed by a combined demerger. On 23 February, Alinta advised that it had secured 19.9 per cent in AGL through a $1.8 billion purchase of shares. On 13 March 2006, AGL countered the Alinta merger proposal with its own merger offer, to be followed by a demerger of the combined AGL-Alinta. Both companies continued to reject each other’s proposals, to a point where, as the Leader of the Opposition indicates, within the last week something of an accommodation has been achieved, as a result of which the new structural or company arrangements have again raised a number of significant issues of continuing interest, of course, to AGL in the context and, through AGL, ActewAGL and Actew.
I think it was as recently as the last week that I again communicated with the Chairman of Actew, Mr Jim Service, seeking further advice on the nature of negotiations and the specific issues that Actew and ActewAGL need to be mindful of and need to pursue in a close and continuing dialogue in relation to all the implications of the new corporate structure and the essential strategic plan, which our slightly restructured partners in ActewAGL are now pursuing.
Let me assure members that it is an issue of continuing discussion and communication between the government and Actew through the chairman of Actew. It is an issue of enormous significance to the territory and we are taking every step to ensure in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .