Page 1219 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accounts. A further 772 did not pay, and many shot through, leaving ACTEW with a $120,000 write-off. That is about 4.4 per cent of revenue from domestic accounts every two months that ACTEW has to chase and recover. It is estimated that if the proposed review committee decides 1,000 cases a year the cost will be around $100,000. If, for the sake of the argument, we take all ACTEW disconnections recommended in 1990-91 as being for unpaid bills and assume that all these went before the committee for a similar outcome, this would mean a cost of $216,000. From these figures, the review committee must be a bargain.
Another issue which has been addressed by the Community Law Reform Committee report is the fuel usage of Canberrans, as contrasted to users in other capital cities. In Hobart, for example, homes use only 10 per cent less electricity than Canberrans; in Melbourne, they use about 22 per cent less; and in Adelaide, 30 per cent less. The report stated that submissions to its inquiry had indicated that substantial problems existed with the thermal efficiency of public housing stock. The report made six recommendations on the design and fitting out of public housing. While this will take a considerable time to achieve across the whole range of housing stock, I know that the Government is moving to rectify the situation, and I congratulate it on these efforts.
AGL has argued that people who have accounts with that organisation are not totally dependent on the provision of that service, as other forms of cooking, water heating and room heating are available, and a substantial proportion of defaulters pay once legal action is taken. If this indicates an understanding of the situation in Canberra, I can only assume that AGL is not paying attention to the coverage of welfare organisations, which are saying that an increasing proportion of the Canberra population is seeking help in paying bills and buying food. At least some small percentage of these people seek help with gas bills, as disconnection would leave them without heating, hot water and/or cooking facilities.
I also welcome the inclusion of telephone services within the scope of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, many housebound people are increasingly reliant on this form of communication for basic services. I also fear that, as more and more people are discharged from hospital after ever decreasing recovery periods, and as the dependence on day surgery increases, the telephone will become an even more important part of our health system back-up structures; and, as our aged population increases, I expect that telephone communication will in some cases supersede a lot of social interaction as many elderly people choose to stay in their own homes.
Turning to the legislation itself, my one wish is that it be gazetted and the necessary forms be also published before increased electricity charges are introduced on the 1st of next month. I am pleased that the committee did not recommend differential rates or a voucher system, for all the reasons stated in its report. I am also pleased that the pleas of ACTEW about the possibility of increased costs were not found sustainable and that the committee rejected the notion that the evaluation of claims of exceptional hardship should be made within the welfare system at a cost to the welfare budget. In my view, the lack of flexibility in the service delivery organisation, where costs are incurred before payment and there is little way to gauge consumption, is one of the causes of hardship, even taking into account the arrangements which ACTEW has for people to meet large electricity bills and unpaid rates. It would seem to me that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .