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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3705 ..

MR OSBORNE (11.51): I will save most of what I have to say about the series of national competition policy Bills for the debate on the Water Resources Bill. However, I do want to make one observation about this Bill which I believe speaks volumes about the Government's deceptive approach to this whole debate. In 1995 this Government introduced a Bill to corporatise ACTEW. It was the second time in the brief history of self-government that a government tried to corporatise the Electricity and Water Authority. Yet there was a significant difference between the first and second Bills. The first Bill established an independent pricing commissioner, but the crucial role of the commissioner was a notable omission from the second Bill.

The Government - just to refresh their memory - sought my support for the Bill, and I said I would support it as long as the Bill was amended and an independent pricing commissioner was introduced under the legislation to act as a pricing brake on ACTEW. The Government was, initially, openly hostile to the move, from memory, and the previous Minister, who, unfortunately, is not here today, told me that it was completely unnecessary. In fact, the former Minister told my office that the move would wreck the Bill. My office was bullied to drop the issue. In the end, under the threat that I would oppose the corporatisation legislation, the role of commissioner was introduced. Since then the commissioner has turned down some outrageous demands for electricity and water price increases made by ACTEW. It is funny how the Government now loves the commissioner. I do not make this point simply to bang my own drum; but I will. I do it for another reason, that is, to demonstrate the gap between what the Government says is necessary and what is not.

The outstanding thing about the absence of a pricing commissioner from the second ACTEW Bill was that it was actually a requirement of competition policy. The Government was seeking to breach the national competition policy agreements it now holds up as holy writ. They want me to believe now that the fate of the Territory rests on passing these Bills today. I do not believe the Government or its Ministers. I will be supporting this Bill, but I will also be supporting the amendments.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (11.54): Mr Speaker, I presume that all members wishing to speak have done so. It is interesting that members generally support the concept of an independent pricing and regulatory commission as outlined in this Bill. It has become necessary, of course, because of the move towards national infrastructure in the areas for which this commission is specifically designated as being the price regulator, that is, in such things as electricity, water and gas. It relates specifically to that kind of utility where there is a significant, predominant or sole government ownership of the activity.

It is necessary that we move in this direction because we will, in future, be part of the national infrastructure. We will no longer be able to operate independently as though the ACT is somehow not connected to New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the rest in terms of the supply of these commodities. There will be an open market. Competitors can come into the ACT and, conversely, the ACT can, if it wishes, go beyond the boundaries of the Australian Capital Territory. That imposes upon government the

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