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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3567 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

say that the only reason the public score any mention at all in COAG documents is to create the impression that their opinion matters a damn. Clearly, it does not. Yet, equally clearly, the changes will affect them, even if the policy boffins at COAG are uncertain how.

One thing the changes call for is the removal of cross-subsidies for metropolitan and town water. What does this mean? It could mean that, in some instances, water prices for domestic consumers will rise. But do not be afraid, because the same document says, in perfect bureaucratese, that the impact will be offset by cost reductions and more efficient customer-driven service provision. Bull! I seem to recall that this is almost exactly what was promised when the banking sector was deregulated.

Do you remember how we were all going to benefit from the brave new world of competition because competition meant service, it meant efficiency, and it meant choice? And what a load of codswallop that turned out to be! Thirteen years on, banking competition has delivered higher charges and no significant threat to the domination of the big four banks. Those banks rarely break ranks to any significant degree on either interest rates or customer charges. And the poorest pay the most for the privilege of putting their few lousy dollars at the disposal of banks. Deregulation of the banking industry has been a boon. It has been a boon to the already rich and to those who run banks. But it has been a nightmare for the poor. Today, if you have a few hundred dollars, you are actually better off keeping it under your mattress. At least there it would not be rapidly eaten away by bank and government charges.

Water is a far more basic need than money. A person can live without much money but he or she cannot live without water. Mark my words, the competition policy Bills mean that the price of water, gas and electricity will rise for ordinary consumers, while big business and the big privately-owned utility companies will reap the benefits. We are told that this Bill will be good for the environment. It may well be on some fronts, such as regulating environmental flows; but I know the Greens have some doubts about that. I am sure if they turn up we will hear them. I will leave it to the Greens to explain their concerns, but I make one observation. Markets reward those that use them most. In essence, markets reward gluttons. The really big users of water will inevitably pay less for their water than small users because the water providers will offer discounts to attract their custom.

Part of the rationale for this Bill is to remove the burden from those poor, put upon dears in big business who are, we are told, subsidising the water uses of mums and dads in the suburbs. I have no doubt that subsidy will quickly disappear under these proposals because it will be reversed. The mums and dads will end up subsidising the gluttonous use of water by big business and government. So how does building a system that rewards excessive use do anything at all for the environment?

Although paying more for water may be inevitable, and in some cases even desirable, the public should be told what the possible outcomes are and given an opportunity to have its say. Since I raised my concerns about the Water Resources Bill a few short weeks ago I have been approached by some of the managers of the ACT's golf clubs. These organisations are usually in a better position to scrutinise government decisions that affect them than most ordinary punters because they have the resources to do so.

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