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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4994 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

is all about the needs of the corporation, all about the problems faced by the corporation, all about looking after the interests of the corporation but not about looking after the interests of the consumer. It seems to me and it seems to other Labor members that these requirements ought not be specified in the Minister's terms of reference.

ACTEW Corporation are perfectly capable, in their submission to the commission, of looking after their own interests. ACTEW is a very big corporation and is perfectly capable of going to the commission and saying, "We think you should set prices in this way for these reasons". They can deal with all these issues. They can deal with all the issues of cross-subsidies, full cost recovery and the viability of the corporation, and I am sure they will. I am sure that the directors and the executives of ACTEW would want to do that because that would be consistent with their obligations under the Corporations Law. But I think the pricing commissioner should not be guided by the Government to give precedence to the interests of the corporation over the interests of the consumers and the other interests outlined in subsection 20(2) of the principal Act.

That is why I will be supporting Mr Moore's proposal to delete requirement No. 3. I think the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission ought to be given the opportunity to approach this in a balanced way, taking account of all the requirements of subsection 20(2), and not be guided to give precedence to the interests of the corporation over other interests as the Government have sought to do with requirement No. 3.

MR OSBORNE (6.09): I will be supporting Mr Moore's motion and Mr Whitecross's amendment. Quite obviously, the Government thinks that Mr Baxter is not up to the job. That is the only way I can justify what they have done here. I hope you apologise, Mr Kaine, to Mr Baxter for doing this. I would like to thank Mr Moore for digging up this low attempt to try to sneak through a change to the role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission at the death-knock of this Assembly. To the Government and to you, Mr Kaine, all I can say is shame, shame, shame. You were sprung. If the Government had tried this without the shenanigans of ACTEW when the pricing commissioner handed down his last decision, we may well have been fooled. Quite obviously, ACTEW are not happy with the fact that they have a commissioner in place. They do not like the fact that they are not able to do as they wish. The Government is trying to draft the terms of reference for the pricing commissioner in such a way as to tie his hands. Quite clearly, the Government wants to put the interests of ACTEW above those of the people of the ACT.

Let me remind you, Minister, why it was that I pushed for the pricing commissioner when the ACTEW corporatisation Bill was before this house in 1995. Before I do, I might say that the Government and ACTEW were steadfastly opposed to the role of the commissioner. The former Minister told my staff that including a pricing commissioner would wreck the Bill. This is despite the fact that the role was included in the legislation when the first attempt was made to corporatise ACTEW, under the Alliance Government. Did you think people would forget what was in your first corporatisation Bill proposed by your previous Government, Minister? Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame!

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