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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3753 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The benefits of retail competition are less obvious -

"less obvious" -

for small customers than for larger customers. For one thing, retail margins for small customers are low, as are overall electricity bills. The costs of contestability, for example, the need for adequate metering, may appear higher in relation to possible savings. In addition, it must be remembered that customers in this group, particularly domestic customers, have been the beneficiaries of cross-subsidies from other power customers. The Energy and Water Commission's current inquiry is considering the phased removal of these subsidies.

As we know, ACTEW did not entirely get their way from the commission in relation to that matter. The document goes on to say:

It is clear that further work, in consultation with the other states, needs to be done closer to the possible date of contestability. One crucial question from the ACT's perspective is whether there would be unnecessary burdens on consumers in choosing their own energy supplier that would not be outweighed by benefits. Until this work is undertaken, the date shown in the ACT timetable -

for customers below 160 megawatt-hours -

is indicative only.

That is the Government's own consultation paper. We have heard, as I said, quoting from the NECA annual report for 1996-97, that customers in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria are not going to be contestable until well after the July 1999 date that the Government is currently talking about.

I can also quote from the Government's timetable as of September 1997, which says that the introduction of competition for customers below 160 megawatt hours is a possible timetable only, with a need for consultation with other jurisdictions. I, and I think others in this Assembly, believe that there needs to be consultation not only with other jurisdictions but also with the Canberra community and also with members of this place, who are representatives of the Canberra community, as to when, whether, and in what form, competition should be introduced for customers below 160 megawatt-hours. For that reason, I believe that we have to have provision in the Bill to ensure that the introduction of competition for customers below 160 megawatt-hours can be the subject of further deliberation by this place.

Originally, I circulated an amendment that made disallowable all determinations under clause 39, which is where the Minister purported to give himself the legislative power to make these determinations. After discussions with officials and in a spirit of generosity, allowing the Government to keep to their own timetable, I will not be proceeding with that amendment, but will be proceeding with another amendment I have circulated which makes those orders disallowable only where they relate to customers with consumption

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