Page 1212 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We were criticised, I seem to recall, last sittings for not having enough Bills before the Assembly. Now we are being criticised for the brisk pace of reform under this reformist Follett Labor Government. So it is very difficult to please these people. Nonetheless, the Bill before the Assembly means that the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust can start on the job of assessing applications and distributing funds which were, through successful negotiation between the Government and the NRMA, returned to the community of the ACT. This was really a first in negotiations between a government and an insurance company, and again I commend the NRMA for their sensible approach.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
ESSENTIAL SERVICES (CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 18 June, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WESTENDE (4.52): Madam Speaker, the beginning of my speeches might start to sound monotonous to Mr Connolly, but this Bill is another very good example of the Government pushing through legislation without due consideration and consultation. This Bill looks, on the surface, to be a simple matter - one of extreme goodwill and one that is sensible. However, this Bill is in fact quite complex, with many inherent problems. Madam Speaker, the Government, in attempting to push this legislation through, is taking for granted the process of this Assembly and the role that we all play in it. Much has been said in this Assembly recently about the seriousness of the policy being adopted by the Government in not allowing due time for consideration of Bills. The most recent Dog Control (Amendment) Bill moved so quickly through the Assembly that there was hardly time to read it, let alone assess it. Now, on this occasion, we agreed to let the legislation proceed because of the timing requirements of its introduction. However, it is not our intention for this to become in any way common practice. It is not democratic and it is bad management.
In terms of the intention of the Bill before us, we believe that ACTEW already has discretionary powers in the area of leniency with the payment of bills. The same is the case with AGL in the supply of gas. AGL is already extremely lenient with its clients. They seem to be managing this very well. They monitor delays in payment and they offer extensions. AGL encourages people to always keep them informed when they are faced with a difficulty in meeting an account and they, AGL, adopt a very lenient approach. AGL has a view that it is better to have late payments than none at all. This approach seems to be working, and I believe that AGL sets a very high standard in community relations. We see no reason why ACTEW and other government bodies could not proceed in the same way as AGL.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .