Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3515 ..

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.51), in reply: Mr Speaker, I do not think any speaker has actually addressed the Bill. Obviously, Mr Speaker, you and others did not think that was important today. This Bill does not change in any way the capacity of ACTEW or any other Territory-owned corporation to borrow. They have always been able to borrow from the market generally; as, by the way, can our statutory authorities. The problem was that our statutory authorities could borrow via the Central Financing Unit but, because of a drafting error, our TOCs could not. They could only go to the market. That seemed pretty silly, Mr Speaker. So we looked at it, and that is what this amendment is about. It is that simple.

ACTEW at this stage certainly have not had to borrow with regard to the $100m or anything else that they might be thinking of investing in the future. ACTEW are quite open about the fact that they are trading very nicely at the moment, due to electricity prices on the grid. That nasty national competition policy seems to be creating some very significant profits for ACTEW, as it did last year, which, interestingly, are being plugged back, at least to some extent, into the ACT community, particularly in areas like health, education and community services. So it is interesting what national competition policy can actually do in a very real way.

Mr Speaker, the thing that was quite interesting about the debate, even though it was not relevant, was the fact that it seemed that all members of the Assembly on the other side and possibly even the crossbenches seemed to believe that the return on investment that the taxpayers of the ACT get from ACTEW is acceptable. Mr Speaker, it is under 3 per cent. I have to say that, if I were investing the sort of money that we as taxpayers have in ACTEW, I would be wanting more than 3 per cent. But it appears that those opposite do not. I thank everybody for their support for this piece of legislation. It is a sensible approach. It makes sure that our TOCs can have the same sort of access to the Central Financing Unit as statutory authorities.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

MR MOORE (11.53): Mr Speaker, I present Report No. 34 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment entitled "The Protection of Amenity Rights (such as sunlight and views) of Residents from the Impact of Satellite Dishes and Cables which are associated with Pay Television", together with a copy of the extracts of the minutes of proceedings. This report was provided to the Speaker for circulation on Tuesday, 7 October 1997. I move:

That the report be noted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .