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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1033 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

While I acknowledge the Government has no choice but to remove the levy on gas sales, following the 1997 High Court ruling that prevents the ACT from raising revenue from a quantum of sales, I strongly believe the ACT Government should establish another fund to ensure that research and development activity into alternative fuels and energy options can continue. I have written to the Minister for Urban Services urging the Government to put in place an ongoing fund to finance research and development of alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources, as well as energy efficiency projects for the ACT. I also asked the Minister a question on this yesterday and he indicated that, within his budget, he did not feel that he could do this. I think that the Government needs to understand the future cost benefits and opportunities that come from supporting this sort of research and development. It is about being clever, if governments put money into this sort of research.

Mr Speaker, Australia is seriously lagging behind many other countries in terms of developing a sustainable energy sector. And it is no wonder, when government and some parts of industry continue to lock us into old technology like coal. This is environmentally and economically damaging to our country. It is ironic that earlier in the week we were debating legislation about subsidies for diesel fuel. While the Federal Government saw fit to abolish the Energy Research and Development Corporation, which had a budget of around $12m, they continued to provide $800m in diesel fuel subsidies to the mining industry. The fact that we continue to subsidise old technologies is a big part of our problem. We are not going to develop a strong sustainable energy sector until we stop subsidising old technology.

One of the problems with applying national frameworks such as this is that the ACT has effectively delegated a major decision-making power to a national body. It is not particularly desirable that the gas pipeline access legislation be not amendable by this Assembly; but I am prepared to live with it, for the reasons that have been put forward and in the interests of having a national gas market. As members are aware, one of the ways this Assembly is dealing with the increasing number of intergovernmental laws and agreements has been by passing the Administration (Interstate Agreements) Act last year, which requires Ministers to consult with other members about legislation that is negotiated and agreed to in national forums such as COAG. Over the longer term, I hope this will enable the views of all members to be incorporated in the development of national legislation.

However, the Government is also proposing amendments to make the pricing regulator for the transmission pipelines the ACCC. I will be opposing the Government's amendments. I understand that Mr Osborne will be moving an amendment - which I am quite happy to support - which will actually keep the regulation with our own Pricing Commissioner. We are quite happy for the ACCC to be the regulator for the transmission pipelines, but it is the local regulator who has knowledge about local conditions and issues and should, therefore, determine distribution prices. The local regulator also has to address certain issues, including protection of consumers, the principles of ecologically sustainable development, standards of quality, reliability and safety. I do not feel confident that the ACCC would take environmental sustainability into consideration, and I do not like handing over this power to the ACCC. We have our own pricing regulator. It is quite appropriate that this commissioner consider both electricity and gas. I urge other members to support Mr Osborne's amendment.

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