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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3581 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I think that the thrust of Mr Osborne's matter of public importance is that somehow or other there is no scrutiny. Mr Speaker, I have to say that, in connection with electricity, there has been plenty of opportunity for that. I do not know on what basis Mr Osborne or anybody else asserts that there has been inadequate scrutiny. The process has been going on, in connection with electricity, for about five years now. There have been many phases of it. All of the appropriate documents and agreements have been tabled in this place. There has been quite some discussion here. All the way through, members have been involved in what is going on.

When we introduced the regulation of ACTEW's charges a little while back - following, I should add, Mr Osborne's amendment to the ACTEW corporatisation legislation - there were briefings for all members of this place. All Assembly members were provided with our issues papers on how we might move to introduce competition into electricity retailing. Later on, in May this year, I wrote to all the non-Government members of the Assembly and I urged them to take up the opportunity to be briefed on our electricity reform package. The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitecross, did take up that offer. Subsequently, after we had introduced the legislation, briefings were provided to the Greens, to Mr Berry, to Mr Moore and to Mr Osborne's office. I repeat, "to Mr Osborne's office" - not to Mr Osborne. He chose not to be briefed.

I understand that my office has provided further information as it was sought. I further understand that the members were happy with the outcome of all of those briefings and had no further questions at that time. All of that was in addition to the exhaustive consultative process conducted by the National Grid Management Council and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I think it demonstrates an incredible effort to ensure that everybody, including members of this Assembly, was informed. Claims now of inadequate briefing, I think, Mr Speaker, are pretty hollow.

In his matter of public importance, Mr Osborne adverts specifically to the national competition policy. Let us review the facts. We had presented to this place a Bill called the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995. Some of us were so concerned that we formed a select committee to look at it - specifically, Ms Follett, Ms Tucker and me. We submitted that Bill to exhaustive review and we reported to the Assembly on the matter. That report, or aspects of it, were debated in this place on four different occasions. Where was Mr Osborne during that process? He did not want to be on the committee. He made no submission to the committee. He did not appear before the committee. In the four debates that followed, Mr Osborne's name does not get a mention in Hansard. If he was so concerned about it, where was he when the competition policy was being debated in this place?

It is not good enough, Mr Speaker, 11/2 years after the exhaustive process of consultation and debate in this place, to get up and say, "I did not have enough opportunity to put in my two bob's worth". He had the same opportunity as everybody else in this place had, and he obviously chose not to take it. So, I do not accept from Mr Osborne his argument that he has not had the benefit of due process and he has not had the opportunity to make the input that he might have chosen to make, either on the national competition policy specifically or in connection with the evolving processes and systems that we are putting in place to ensure an adequate supply of electrical energy to people who live in Canberra,

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