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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3755 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

If there had been a strange turn of events 21/2 years ago and Mr Whitecross were sitting over here in my seat today, would he still be arguing in the same way, saying that somebody was trying to stuff up his program, or would he be grasping this with both hands, running with it and demanding that we, in opposition, keep up? I suspect that he would be. It is very interesting that, because he sits over there, he seems to take the view that, somehow or other, this is not a national program; this is an ACT program - specifically, it is a Liberal Government program and we are worried that he or somebody else might stuff it up. That simply is not the fact.

Mr Whitecross was the Leader of the Opposition for a little while. Obviously, he did not acquaint himself with the facts about this program any better than his successor has. They both seem to be, somehow or other, back there five years ago and not up to the mark on it. It is a pretty poor performance for somebody that pretends to be part of an alternative government. Mr Whitecross dealt at some length with the ACT Government's timetable for moving to competition in the retail sector. Somehow or other, he seems to confuse that with the program of getting legislation into place to allow this program then to be developed. He draws comparisons with what Queensland and Victoria are doing. Our legislation will be in place after today. Mr Whitecross spoke about the benefits of competition. Surely, we would want to get this competition in place as quickly as we can, rather than waiting to fall in behind the big States, which are going to take years to get there because of the cumbersome processes that they have to go through. If we are capable of moving more quickly and of moving into open competition much more quickly than they can, given his recognition of the economic benefit of it, why would he not want us to do so? I simply do not understand the logic. I suspect that it is more Whitecross economics, which are a bit obscure to everybody but Mr Whitecross. I think we should move as quickly as we can, and we have set an earlier timetable than the larger States.

Mr Whitecross talked about the fact that a discussion paper went out and people had to respond while they were on holidays. I am with Mr Moore on that. I was around working hard, too, and I think a lot of other people were as well. But the simple fact is that the time for comment was extended into March in recognition of the fact that certain people were away on holidays and may have wanted to make some comment. We gave them additional time to do so. I do not see that that is reflective of a government that tried to choke off consultation, tried to prevent people from making inputs if they had any input to make. The facts simply do not stack up with Mr Whitecross's interpretation of them. Finally, Mr Whitecross talks about his amendment being put forward in a spirit of generosity. I accept Mr Whitecross's amendment in the same spirit, and we will get to that when we get to the detail stage.

I have some general comments on the Bill before the debate concludes and we vote on the matter in principle. I think I need to reiterate a few points. First of all, wholesale trading through the national electricity market will deliver community and industrial benefits to Canberra. There is no doubt about that. We have set in place today the legislation that allows that to happen. But the story does not end there. We have then to move into the retail market, where the benefit really accrues to the individual consumer.

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