Page 2801 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine wrote to the then Prime Minister in 1991 on the issue. In 1992 and again last year Ms Follett, as Chief Minister, wrote to both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy at that time, Mr Griffiths, expressing concern at the lack of consultation with the ACT on the Snowy reform. The Chief Minister also approached both the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers. Both gave an assurance to consider ACT concerns on the matter, but we have no basis for knowing whether these undertakings have been honoured in relation to those private discussions amongst the parties who will now have equity in the corporatised Snowy.
Despite many attempts by this Government, the ACT has not been successful in being included in the Snowy reform process in its own right, regardless of the indisputable fact that the Snowy is of much greater importance to the ACT than it is to New South Wales or Victoria, because it is such a major source of our electricity supply. Indeed, guaranteed supply of electricity to the ACT from the Snowy is enshrined in Commonwealth legislation. The Chief Minister has again written to the Prime Minister seeking undertakings about the ACT's position.
The Commonwealth Government, which would obtain a similar equity to New South Wales and Victoria in a corporatised Snowy scheme, should not pocket benefits that have been paid for by the citizens of the ACT for some 40 years. The Commonwealth Government is part of the negotiating process only to protect the interests of the ACT. What we are seeking is equity in the new Snowy scheme like that granted by the Commonwealth to New South Wales and Victoria and compensation for higher electricity prices which we believe will be forced on the ACT because of the slow progress being made in deregulation of the national electricity system.
Mr Acting Speaker, it would come as no surprise that we call upon the Commonwealth to enter into meaningful negotiations which will recognise that the power entitlements, which it is threatening as if they belonged to the Commonwealth, were intended under the Snowy agreement to serve the needs of the nation's capital. Mr Acting Speaker, I think that succinctly sums up the position that has been represented to both State Premiers and the Prime Minister, and that is: Because of the process that has been adopted in the corporatisation of the Snowy, the Commonwealth Government has usurped - and I use that word not lightly - the role of the ACT and the benefit that should derive to the citizens of the ACT in the corporatisation process of the Snowy.
That is a matter which they can deal with on one of two bases, as I have outlined. In the first instance, we believe that we should receive an equity in the corporatised Snowy arrangement so that there is a long-term return to the Territory which offsets what may be increased power charges through that arrangement. In addition, we should ensure that we are not disadvantaged by lack of reform in New South Wales. I will outline Mr Pickering's comments. They were that in New South Wales they will not be able to achieve 1 July 1995 as the date upon which they break the monopoly position of Pacific Power as far as electricity generating and distribution in that State are concerned. The proposal is to split up Pacific Power into each of its generating modules and to allow those modules to compete within the national electricity grid for electricity services to States and particular clients. That simply cannot and will not occur, on the acknowledgment of New South Wales, by 1 July next year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .