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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4995 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

The Government opposed my call for a pricing authority even though the role of the pricing commissioner is central to the nationwide push towards competition policy. Mr Speaker, it seems that the Minister is happy to take on those aspects of competition policy which suit him and ignore those which do not. Shame on you, Mr Kaine. You were sprung.

Those matters aside, the pricing commissioner was established to look after the interests of consumers. The role is crucial because ACTEW at the moment is a monopoly. The commissioner has already proved his worth, knocking back some outrageous attempts by ACTEW to hike prices. Without the commissioner, we would be at the mercy of the corporation, and I am afraid I have no confidence that it would behave like a benevolent dictator. The commissioner was not set up to go in to bat for ACTEW as the Government is attempting to make it do. I am sure that ACTEW can look after itself.

Mr Speaker, I am finding it hard to contain my disappointment and my anger on this one. The Minister must bear responsibility for this. In saying that, I do realise who is pushing the agenda on this. Let me say to those people at ACTEW that if I return to this Assembly next year I will be paying much closer attention to every regulation, as Mr Moore has done, every piece of legislation and anything that comes through this place with ACTEW's fingerprints on it. This whole situation has come up as a result of what Mr Baxter did last time and as a result of ACTEW's disappointment at not being able to get the money that they wanted.

In summing up, I would like to thank Mr Moore for bringing this to the Assembly's attention. I think it was a great job on his part. I will be supporting his motion and supporting Mr Whitecross's amendment. Shame on you, Mr Kaine, and better luck next time.

MS TUCKER (6.14): I am going to be supporting Mr Whitecross's amendment and Mr Moore's motion. I am pretty concerned about this. I noticed in the Liberal Party's policy statement - - -

Mr Moore: The Liberal Party's policy statement?

MS TUCKER: That is right. I will quote it. It actually has scales on it. We have already had pictures of scales today, have we not? Here are some more scales. These scales are balanced, giving the impression that we have a really strong, balanced statement. The statement is:

Subordinate instruments such as regulations, orders, manuals and the like shall only prescribe the most mechanical of operations and in no circumstance should a subordinate instrument create a criminal offence, effect a fundamental change in the law, or redefine rights, obligations or liabilities.

I find this worrying because I do believe that this regulation is significant. I do believe that it could easily impact on rights, obligations or liabilities. I am pretty concerned also by the timing of it, and I am very glad that Mr Moore, or his office, picked it up.

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