Page 842 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would urge members not to support this motion. If you are supporting an attack on, in effect, a $19m dividend, unless you live in Mooreland you have to say where we should get that money from. No-one has come up with that, apart from Mr Moore's Henry George fantasy.
MS SZUTY (4.53): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that this issue does raise difficult questions for both Mr Moore and me. On the one hand, we have agreed to support the Government in its Supply and Appropriation Bills, which includes, I believe, the right of the Government to determine its budget. On the other hand, we have witnessed significant increases in electricity, water and sewerage charges, which no doubt will impact significantly on the most disadvantaged in our society.
I wish to reiterate two points I made in my speech on the matter of public importance. Firstly, I realise that the Government cannot be asked now to find yet another $19m to supplement the budget. Secondly, I am pleased that on Thursday of this week the Government will be introducing the Essential Services (Continuity of Supply) Bill, which will go some way to redressing the needs of the socially disadvantaged in our community about whom I talked.
I have resolved the issue of the moment in favour of the Government for the above two reasons, and I will not be supporting the motion or the amendment proposed. In conclusion, may I say that I am pleased that ACTEW will participate in the Estimates Committee process this year.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.54): The Minister made a number of comments which I feel need to be rebutted. He said, for example, that Mr Kaine had in some way indicated in the public arena on ABC radio that there would not be any attempt by the ACT Opposition to raise this matter in the course of debate on these questions in the Assembly. It is a typical tactic of Mr Connolly's to take a position set out by, in this case, the Opposition with a number of shades of explanation to it, oversimplify it to the extent that it becomes absurd, and then attack it.
That is not what Mr Kaine said. Mr Kaine said that we would not be moving in this Assembly to disallow the rate increases proposed by ACTEW, nor do we in the motion that is before us today moved by Mr Westende. What we do in this motion is urge the Minister to go back to ACTEW and say, "This is not an appropriate level of increase. Please suggest another one". Of course this Assembly has no power, as the law currently stands, to force the Minister to do anything - at least, not in this area. If the Minister is inclined to ignore a resolution of the Assembly, it would not be the first time this Government has ignored the view of the majority of members, be it in this Assembly or the last Assembly.
Mr Kaine has been perfectly consistent about this. We indicated that we would stand up for what we believe is the right of ACT residents to have essential utility services such as electricity and water provided at reasonable cost. In this case we do not have those services being delivered to the people of the ACT in that fashion. What Mr Connolly said, as I understand the argument, was something like this: There needs to be provision of a $100m dam in the course of the next few years; ACTEW needs to make provision for that because ACTEW has to provide it; therefore ACTEW needs to put up its rates to cover the cost of providing that dam.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .