Page 2443 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
mentioned that there may be other asset sales beyond ACTTAB, can we make the process run more smoothly in the future? Are there lessons to be learned from this? And how do we improve what we are doing? The first thing is the whole issue of the process. Why were people shut out? Was that a reasonable thing to do?
There was some amount of secrecy about this. There is a story, also in the Canberra Times, that the government refused to detail even basic details about the sale process. The spokesperson would not say how many had been lodged, beyond saying “a number” and that the expression of interest documentation was confidential. That may have been true, but surely just the number was not confidential. The officer then said she would not divulge details about the bidding stage or timetable beyond completing plans to have the sale completed by 30 June. You have to question why that is secret. Why is the process that you are following actually so secret? It is important that we get an understanding of that and whether, because of the way the government conducted the process, we got the right outcome.
Then we need to work out whether the $105 million is as good as it seems. I have to say, Treasurer, that it sounds like a good deal. But what have we given up for that? It would appear that the price includes the tote, the sports betting, the lottery-type activity on the racecourse—things like Keno, et cetera—and the track-side activity. We have surrendered that for 50 years.
The question I asked was: what numbers were done? What financial analysis was done? And I asked could I see the government’s financial analysis. I was told, “No.” The reason given was that it was commercial in confidence. It is the government’s own analysis. The government does not have to keep it commercial in confidence. Indeed, this is a government that said it would not hide behind commercial in confidence; this is a government which, when the Chief Minister took it over, heralded a new era of openness and accountability. If we had this new era of openness and accountability, what stops you from giving us the financial analysis so that the opposition and the community can make their own decision on whether we got a good deal here?
In one way, the money up-front might be a good deal if it was invested and you got a long-term dividend from it. But if the money is just going to help balance the government’s budget, which is doing so poorly, are we robbing the future to pay for the present? These are the questions that need to be answered.
When the announcement was made, there were some articles published. I will read just one from the Australian, but there were others:
TABCORP’S David Attenborough has helped ensure the company’s long-term future with cheap long-life licences through his ACTTAB acquisition.
The deal is the first for Attenborough since the split from his casino arm, now called Echo Entertainment, and at $105.5m it is a handy boost to earnings.
At eight times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of $14m, the multiple equates with Tabcorp’s present trading performance and fills a gap on his east coast network, which runs south from NSW.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video