❓ A parliamentary question on notice probes the sale of Bright Telecommunications by Western Power to Silk Telecom, focusing on due diligence, asset valuation, and potential impacts on market competition. The response reveals limited financial success of Bright and confidentiality surrounding the sale price.
AnsweredQoN 2646Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(a) what was the approximate value of the telecommunications licence that was held by Bright Telecommunications;
(b) if unknown, why was such an important asset held by a State owned corporation sold without due diligence being done;
(c) did Silk Telecom already hold a telecommunications licence before purchasing that held by Bright Telecommunications; and
(d) if yes, does the Minister accept that one entity owning two telecommunications licences in a single market has the potential to reduce competition and therefore increase costs for the consumer?
(2) Besides the telecommunications licence held by Bright, what other assets of Bright Telecommunications were sold to Silk Telecom; and
(a) how much were these assets worth; and
(b) if unknown, why was such an important piece of State owned infrastructure sold without due diligence being done?
(3) What was the revenue of Bright Telecommunications during the last three complete financial years prior to the sale; and
(a) if unknown, why was such an important piece of State owned infrastructure sold without due diligence being done?
(4) How much was Bright Telecommunications sold for?
(5) Can the value of this sale be broken down to the specific components of Bright sold?
(6) Can the value placed on each component be provided?
(7) If not, why was such an important asset held by a State owned corporation sold without due diligence being done?
(b) if unknown, why was such an important asset held by a State owned corporation sold without due diligence being done;
(c) did Silk Telecom already hold a telecommunications licence before purchasing that held by Bright Telecommunications; and
(d) if yes, does the Minister accept that one entity owning two telecommunications licences in a single market has the potential to reduce competition and therefore increase costs for the consumer?
(2) Besides the telecommunications licence held by Bright, what other assets of Bright Telecommunications were sold to Silk Telecom; and
(a) how much were these assets worth; and
(b) if unknown, why was such an important piece of State owned infrastructure sold without due diligence being done?
(3) What was the revenue of Bright Telecommunications during the last three complete financial years prior to the sale; and
(a) if unknown, why was such an important piece of State owned infrastructure sold without due diligence being done?
(4) How much was Bright Telecommunications sold for?
(5) Can the value of this sale be broken down to the specific components of Bright sold?
(6) Can the value placed on each component be provided?
(7) If not, why was such an important asset held by a State owned corporation sold without due diligence being done?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 September 2007
Responded by
Minister for Energy
Response time
28 days
Western Power has provided the Minister for Energy with the following response
(1)(a) The telecommunications licence did not have a market fair value, as they are not traded in an open market. The telecommunications licence was not a separable asset of Bright and as such did not have a separate value attached. Rather, Bright was valued and sold on a 'whole of business' basis rather than as individual assets.
(1)(b) The value of the Bright business as a whole was assessed as part of the due diligence process.
(1)(c) This is a question best posed to Silk. Western Power is not privy to the particular assets of Silk.
(1)(d) Not Applicable.
(2) The shares in Bright were sold to Silk, not individual assets.
(2)(a) Bright's value to Western Power was assessed at between $Nil and $1,061,000.
(2)(b) Not applicable.
(3) 2003/04 $Nil
2004/05 $142,943
2005/06 $1,031,138
(3)(a) Not applicable.
(4) This information is covered by a commercial confidentiality clause in the Share Sale Agreement, however we can confirm that the sale price exceeded the value of Bright to Western Power.
(5) No, as explained above, the shares in Bright were sold, not individual assets.
(6 & 7) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(1)(a) The telecommunications licence did not have a market fair value, as they are not traded in an open market. The telecommunications licence was not a separable asset of Bright and as such did not have a separate value attached. Rather, Bright was valued and sold on a 'whole of business' basis rather than as individual assets.
(1)(b) The value of the Bright business as a whole was assessed as part of the due diligence process.
(1)(c) This is a question best posed to Silk. Western Power is not privy to the particular assets of Silk.
(1)(d) Not Applicable.
(2) The shares in Bright were sold to Silk, not individual assets.
(2)(a) Bright's value to Western Power was assessed at between $Nil and $1,061,000.
(2)(b) Not applicable.
(3) 2003/04 $Nil
2004/05 $142,943
2005/06 $1,031,138
(3)(a) Not applicable.
(4) This information is covered by a commercial confidentiality clause in the Share Sale Agreement, however we can confirm that the sale price exceeded the value of Bright to Western Power.
(5) No, as explained above, the shares in Bright were sold, not individual assets.
(6 & 7) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.