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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4987 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There has been quite a deal of negotiation on this issue since lunchtime, when I indicated to other members that I would be moving this motion. If it is the will of the Assembly, I will have no problem in complying with the question being divided under standing order 133. It is my understanding that members generally oppose paragraph (a) but will support paragraph (b), although I am now going to seek to be so persuasive that members will support the whole motion.

The first issue, covered by paragraph (a), is that the independent pricing commissioner be asked to report on pricing matters for not only the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, but also the period 1999 to 2001. The argument put by Mr Kaine and the officer from his department - once again, I have to thank Mr Kaine for making that officer available at such very short notice - was that it is appropriate for the commissioner to put a protocol into place so that there is a known system of how the commissioner is working. I think I am presenting that fairly. I would argue that the commissioner is able to put that into place and demonstrate that as part of his earlier report. I will stick to the amendment that I have moved. However, I must also emphasise that I do not see it as a major issue. If it had been the only issue, I would not have sought to amend the instrument. I would have worn it.

I said to my staff member yesterday, "We need to look at those subordinate laws because if ever a government is going to try to sneak one through this will be the time". We then got particularly busy on other issues and unfortunately did not get back to the subordinate laws until today. When we saw this one we thought, "Yes, this is one that they are trying to sneak through". I am sure that Mr Kaine is going to argue differently, and I will be interested to hear him.

The concern I have is that I believe paragraph 3 of Instrument No. 267 of 1997 effectively undermines what this Assembly decided only a couple of months ago when we passed the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission Act. We set out in section 20(2) a series of issues that the commissioner should take into account when making a decision on ACTEW pricing. What the Minister has done is consistent with the Act. I do not say that the action is not consistent with the Act. It clearly is legal. I am not suggesting that it is not. But the Minister has added a whole series of other things. The instrument says that the commissioner should "consider the desirability of the following matters". Section 20(2) says that the commission shall have regard to:

(a) the protection of consumers from abuses of monopoly power in terms of prices, pricing policies (including policies relating to the level or structure of prices for services) and standard of regulated services;

(b) standards of quality, reliability and safety of the regulated services;

(c) the need for greater efficiency in the supply of regulated services to reduce costs to consumers and taxpayers;

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