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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 875 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

requirements and the rules that have already been set, is possible to achieve. Everybody is very confident that it can be achieved. If it pans out for both sides, that deal can be done.

This morning we even had debate about what the remuneration of the board members should be. Mr Corbell made some comments about unjustifiable increases and all sorts of things. That is simply a ridiculous thing to bring up in this debate on a facilitation Bill.

Mr Berry: I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I think that is a reflection on a vote of the Assembly. That was already voted on this morning, so I think the Chief Minister is reflecting on the vote.

MS CARNELL: No, I am not reflecting on the vote at all.

Mr Berry: You are reflecting on matters which were decided this morning.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you are one of the Temporary Deputy Speakers, Mr Berry, and I expect you to understand standing orders, which you do. Maybe you would like a turn in the chair. The Chief Minister has the call.

MS CARNELL: Again, it is just stalling tactics. A number of members asked, "If we are going into a deal with a company like AGL, how do we know that AGL will not just take all of our profits?". AGL's end-of-year figures that were recently released showed an increase in profit of 56 per cent. Unfortunately, ACTEW's profit did not go up. I am not suggesting that that is a bad thing for ACTEW. I think ACTEW are doing quite well in a very difficult market. But in terms of increase in profit, AGL has the runs on the board. Any view that somehow this is about AGL coming to pluck the ripe fruit of ACTEW is, to say the least, a reflection of a lack of understanding (Extension of time granted)

I think it is very important to finish by mentioning a couple of comments made by Ms Tucker. Ms Tucker said that there was going to be a $38m dividend for ACTEW, basically in perpetuity. Even ACTEW accept that that will fall to $36m and probably down from there over time. It is important in this debate to get the facts straight on what we are talking about. To do what those opposite want us to do - and that is to sell the retail arm of ACTEW - certainly is possible, but we would end up with a shrinking company, a company with no capacity to grow in the future, a company that would inevitably shed staff, and the dividend would go down. That would impact heavily on our service delivery. I do not believe that is something anybody in this place wants. Is it not a good idea for us to get behind this Bill, to take the assurances given by the ACTEW board and the AGL board and to get on with the job?

MR STANHOPE

(Leader of the Opposition) (9.27): I will not speak for very long because we have already had this debate. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, the debate, to a very large extent, is about the appropriateness of the process which the Government proposes for the disposal of ACTEW's assets and the following merger of ACTEW with a major private sector corporation. As is quite obvious to everybody who

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