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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 47 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, in all of the discussion over the proposal to sell ACTEW, most of the focus has been on the corporation's electricity business. The Government also proposes to franchise that side of the business that supplies water and sewerage services. The length of the proposed franchise, 50 years, is unusual. But the truly bizarre aspect is the proposal to sell the distribution system, the pipes. What happens at the end of the franchise when the supply reverts to the ACT? Inevitably the community will have to pay to have the water it owns distributed to the houses and businesses of Canberra.

It defies logic that the Government would propose to sell the very aspects of ACTEW's operations over which it holds a natural monopoly - the power, water and sewerage distribution systems. These systems will not be replicated ever. Canberra will never have two sets of power poles. There will never be two sets of water mains. ACTEW will retain the natural monopoly and will continue to profit from it no matter where the supply is sourced.

The Government, of course, has used the threat of competition as the centrepiece of its desperate attempt to scare the community into accepting its argument. It has chosen to ignore the simple fact that the risk of competition cannot apply to a natural monopoly. The whole of ACTEW will not fold under the weight of competition to which the relatively small retail electricity side of its business is exposed. It simply will not happen.

There is another pertinent aspect to the Government's shabby handling of this issue that demands comment, and that is its arrogant neglect of the views of the Canberra community. If one thing has been evident throughout this public debate, it is that Canberrans do not want ACTEW sold. They do not want their largest asset sold. They are fearful of price hikes, of a decline in service, of the risk of the types of crises in supply that have been evident elsewhere. They want the Government to listen. That, of course, is a bleak hope. And the Chief Minister's response? She told ABC radio on 22 January:

Well, it's always been there, this community opposition, this dislike of privatisation. Nothing new in it. But people have to understand there are tough decisions to be made and this Government will not resile from them.

In other words, "We know what you think, but we do not give a damn. We know what is best. Just leave it to us. Just trust us. We know what is best. Trust us. We are the government". But the community wants to know about the tough decisions ahead. The community does want to know about the necessity to address serious problems. (Extension of time granted) The community wants to know about the options available and the reasons for governments leading communities along certain paths. Surely this is the truism of contemporary politics. Surely the Chief Minister is an astute enough politician to have recognised this fact. Yet she went to the last election with the sale of ACTEW off her public agenda. She kept the community in the dark and then - - -

Mr Smyth: No, not true.

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