News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Hydro sent jobs letter 

Hydro sent jobs letter

11 Feb, 2011 03:00 AM
PREMIER Kristina Keneally was directly warned that thousands of Hunter jobs were in jeopardy because the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter needed a new power contract, but her government did nothing for three months, an inquiry has heard.

The parliamentary inquiry into the government's electricity assets sale revealed yesterday smelter owner Hydro is considering legal action against the government-owned Delta Electricity for compensation after Delta was prevented from signing a 10-year power contract with Hydro.

Any compensation would further eat away the proceeds of the power sale, and could potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

On November 5, the government's electricity reforms steering committee blocked Delta from signing the contract to help ensure higher bids for the electricity assets.

Hydro executive Trevor Coombe said the company wrote to Ms Keneally on November 26 to warn the blocked deal had wasted two years of negotiations and jeopardised 800 smelter jobs, thousands of indirect jobs and about $130 million a year in flow-on benefits to the Hunter and investment in the smelter.

Hydro also sought urgent meetings with either the Premier or Treasurer Eric Roozendaal.

But there was no meeting nor assurances nor an explanation as to why the contract wasn't signed, given a heads of agreement between Hydro and Delta, Mr Coombe said.

Instead, the first communication came yesterday when Labor MP Luke Foley read a statement Ms Keneally's office had issued about 10 minutes before the hearing.

It said the government had written to Macquarie Generation instructing it to enter into negotiations with Hydro for a new long-term power contract, following a cabinet decision last week to abandon further privatisation.

The Premier "vowed to do everything in her power" to protect smelter jobs.

Earlier, Hydro managing director Alberto Fabrini said it had halted plant upgrades and might be forced to stop maintenance spending, which could leave the plant uncompetitive and at a "point of no return" within three years.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The electricity contract should be at the same price householders pay for power. Why not?
Posted by Bigfeller, 11/02/2011 3:35:45 AM, on The Herald
i believe a private company would face criminal charges over this. So should the government. Just getting rid of them is no longer enough.
Posted by just a thought, 11/02/2011 7:15:09 AM, on The Herald
Can someone please explain the mad rush to sell these assets? What are the motives for these sales?
Posted by Steve, 11/02/2011 7:17:59 AM, on The Herald
Another nail in the government's coffin. The sooner we bury them, the better off we are going to be.
Posted by poppy, 11/02/2011 8:14:04 AM, on The Herald
Told myself I would never vote for Keneally - but I had judged her too harshly. No, she now gets my vote for idiot of the decade.
Posted by be serious, 11/02/2011 8:23:08 AM, on The Herald
Rome wasn't built in a day - and neither was NSW Labor destroyed in a day - but slowly.....piece by piece...it is all falling down!
Posted by Walls a tumblin', 11/02/2011 12:13:54 PM, on The Herald
To 'Steve': The answer to your question is, simply, Labor is up to its eyeballs in debt and needs more of your money in order to waste even more! Crikey, why was I also suddenly reminded then of our Labor pollies in Canberra?
Posted by Seven of eight, 11/02/2011 3:10:48 PM, on The Herald
So businesses want to lock in power prices BEFORE any carbon pricing is determined - an option not available to households. And I bet carbon pricing is going to be done at the generator level, not at the consumer level. Which means that only those WITHOUT sweetheart deals - once again, households - will have to pay the carbon pricing for all of the generated power. Which is why we are hearing that household power bills will rise by 40% +. Carbon pricing will not be allocated proportionally.

The point of carbon pricing is to encourage users to reduce their usage, but households will have to pay ALL the carbon costs associated with generation. No matter how much they reduce their usage, short of going, literally, power-less, they can never make a serious impact on greenhouse gases.

Why are households subsidising businesses? Why are there proposals that taxpayers subsidise businesses? Businesses will NEVER reduce their carbon footprint unless it costs them money not to.

And any subsidy amounts to a covert tariff on imports, making it impossible for developing countries to compete.

After the sell-off the Govt hope it will just be "commercial realities", not "voter backlash"

Posted by qwerty, 13/02/2011 9:16:00 AM, on The Herald

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles


 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...