Page 1943 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the Liberal Party in this place. I am to be castigated, I am to be challenged as acting illegally, for seeking to arrange with the receiver, who is an employee of the bank—and there is nothing untoward, illegal or against the law in me suggesting—that any moneys provided by the ACT government, ACT ratepayer funds, to support this company till the end of the year so it can continue to operate whilst the receiver seeks to find a buyer, is secured to the extent that it will support the workers and not the bank or the receiver. The receiver has already foreshadowed a fee of $1.1 million, which, of course, is secured ahead of the workers. Is it unreasonable for me to suggest—(Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Gentleman?
MR GENTLEMAN: Will the Chief Minister tell the Assembly what part the ACT government is playing in the rescue bid that aims to ensure the mill continues to operate so workers can maintain their jobs?
MR STANHOPE: The ACT government continues, as it has in the past, to seek to secure the future of this mill. We have provided $1.4 million assistance in the past. We provided that in the way of direct cash grants as well as a significant payroll tax holiday. We put an additional $716,000 on the table in the way of cash grants and payroll tax reductions as sought by the receiver. We are willing to participate with the commonwealth to work with the receiver of the company and the New South Wales government to ensure that this business can continue to operate between now and the end of the year. That is the condition applied by the commonwealth.
We have this notion that it is the ACT government that is imposing conditions and being unreasonable. It needs to be understood that the commonwealth has not yet agreed to the terms of the payment of the $4 million that it has proposed. Indeed, the commonwealth government is in the process of negotiating an extensive and detailed set of conditions with the receiver. In the draft agreement of the commonwealth’s conditions provided to me by the receiver, the commonwealth has 74 conditions to its commitment of $4 million. In the arrangements that the commonwealth makes it agrees that 25 per cent of the $4 million that the commonwealth is providing will go to meet the receiver’s fees. That is a position that I am not prepared to accede to.
There is one concern I expressed to the receiver that he has been able to satisfy me about. I asked that ACT taxpayers’ funds not be used to pay the receiver’s bill. The receiver is an employee of the banks. He is appointed by the banks to look after their interest, their $15 million debt, the $15 million that the National Australia Bank invested in this company—some interesting decisions made by whoever it was who assessed the worth of that investment. The commonwealth has determined that the $1.1 million receiver and auditor costs are a legitimate charge against the $4 million. That is interesting. It is a position that surprises me and a position that I was not prepared to countenance.
Now, in my negotiations with the receiver, I can say that if the commonwealth is happy to pay the receiver, so be it, but I indicated that I was not prepared to use ACT taxpayers’ money to pay the bills of the National Australia Bank in the employment of a receiver to look after its interests in relation to this insolvency. That is not the business of the ACT government. It is not for the ACT taxpayer to pay the National
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .