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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 70 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

because the real risk in the electricity business rests in generation, where there is an oversupply and where there is fierce competition. On the distribution side it is far less so. Authoritative opinions are given that there is some danger that there will not be real competition at the domestic retail level.

After a lot of hyperbole and a lot of claims and counterclaims in this oscillating debate, it is now fairly well established that it is only the retail arm of ACTEW that faces a market risk that represents any significant change from its position right now. Let us remember that right now it is doing very well. The remainder of ACTEW remains a natural monopoly. How many times do we have to say it? The water and sewerage is not going to be subject to any competition whatsoever.

We have heard some junior-nomics on the economies of scale. Well, let me say that from my limited experience over at ACTEW the database for electricity does not have a one-to-one match with the database for water, and if there are any economies of scale to be wrought in the supply of water and sewerage services it would be to marry them with rating services where there is almost a one-to-one relationship. But I guess at this particular stage, at this desperate stage, we are prepared to make any claims.

I also want to remind people of the bizarre proposition that our leader, Jon Stanhope, referred to - that we are going to sell water and sewerage networks and we are going to franchise dams, water plants and sewerage plants. Now, they are all one system but we are just going to sell the bit in the middle. The only analogy I can think of is that you have a one-storey house and you are going to sell half of it, the top half. There is just no point in claiming that we are not selling the dams when they are tied to a network that is sold. They are virtually the sole province of the owner of the networks.

Being concerned about this, I asked the Chief Minister in this place what would happen at the expiration of this franchise. The answer was: "Chortle, chortle, I don't know; I won't be around in 50 years". That is one of the most telling comments in this debate. We are setting up a system and we do not know what it is leading to. It does not matter. It kind of paints a furry edge on flogging off our water system - some pretence that it is still remaining in public ownership. Absolute, entire nonsense! This proposition to sell ACTEW is a proposition to sell water and sewerage completely, forever.

Let us just spend a passing moment on electricity distribution. It also is a natural monopoly. There is no possibility of someone coming in and building a parallel system and competing. I think Mr Smyth rightly pointed out that we just operate as toll collectors. That is what we do. There is no value added to the electricity that we buy and sell other than to break down the voltage in the distribution system, and there is not much chance of us expanding our physical system elsewhere - this sort of nebulous growth that we are going to get if we sell it off to corporate Australia. Again, it is arrant nonsense.

We have had some revisiting of the ACTEW dividend. The Government wants to sell ACTEW and forfeit the dividend. We want to keep ACTEW and use it. The Government says, "No, you can't; it's for other purposes". That is crazy logic. The Government says, "We are going to sell ACTEW; take $770m and put it away; devote it to emerging superannuation, have a little slush fund, and pay off some loan". The only net benefit is paying off some loan. Now, I agree with Mrs Carnell - let me stress, I agree

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