Page 2033 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to move now, Madam Speaker, to the two issues that I said earlier I would like to concentrate on in the debate today, as my colleague Mr Moore has covered a number of other issues. I have been fully supportive of the community consultation process embarked on by ACTEW to address the very real issues of water conservation that the Territory needs to come to terms with. The production of the draft strategy paper is an indication of ACTEW's commitment in this area. I have reviewed the document recently, and I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly to two matters in particular. I refer to table 1.1 on page 11, the expected variation in ACT consumers' water bills for different pricing models. Members will note that there were five different water pricing models presented in that report. The text of the report on page 10 states:
As a means of maintaining the ability to compare the different options to the present pricing structure, charges were selected for each option on the assumption that there was to be no increase in ACTEW revenue.
This is not a true statement, Madam Speaker. Subsequent mathematical calculations that I sought out indicated that model No. 5, with a base water allowance of 175 kilolitres, a base charge of $130 per year and water used over 175 kilolitres being charged at 67c per kilolitre, is not a revenue neutral option. In fact, calculations indicate that ACTEW would lose revenue if this option were decided upon. Mr Lamont is shaking his head, but I have the calculations with me. I would be happy to show them to you, Mr Lamont, so that you can verify what I am saying.
Mr Lamont: The simple fact is that we have gone for 350 kilolitres.
MS SZUTY: This is one of the options presented as a revenue neutral option, which it is not. What, then, does this say about the overall quality of the ACTEW draft strategy, if one of the fundamentals of the strategy is fundamentally wrong?
Madam Speaker, I was pleased to see the extensive summary of strategy tasks outlined at the conclusion of the report. What was missing from this very lengthy timetable, however, was any indication that alternative water pricing structures would be introduced by 1 July 1995. Yet, if the report is read carefully, it can be seen on page 7:
Accordingly, it is intended that a new pricing system will be introduced for the 1994/95 financial year, on a revenue neutral basis.
When I sought a briefing on this issue, Madam Speaker, Dr Mike Sargent, the chief executive officer of ACTEW, generously made available to me a copy of the report of the independent consultation which was commissioned by ACTEW to look at alternative water pricing arrangements. I have also viewed this document carefully, Madam Speaker, and it seems to me that it was very much an enabling document. In other words, Quadrant Research knew what the client, ACTEW, was looking for from its community consultation process and Quadrant delivered the result accordingly. I have since sought independent expert advice about the details of the report, which I received yesterday and which confirms all the reservations that I had about this so-called independent research. The independent expert is someone of considerable standing in the community. An independent expert has reviewed this document very carefully, and I am very confident of the advice that I have received on it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .