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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 336 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Assembly a Bill which comprehensively responds to those issues and deals with a capacity both to have independent pricing oversight where appropriate for things like monopoly services and to examine competition issues generally in the ACT.

I have to express considerable surprise at Ms Tucker's comments that the Government has not adequately taken into account community concern about these issues. With great respect, the only things that she has proposed to amend in this legislation deal with who pays for references in certain circumstances and some small changes to the composition of the commission. With respect, it is a bit rich to be told that there are all sorts of problems with the Government's model, that we have not taken into account community concern, that there are all sorts of unaddressed issues and that we need a more consultative model, when apparently members are not prepared to put forward any other model.

The Government has put forward a three-person commission which has a broader focus than the narrow economic focus, which was a criticism sometimes levelled at IPARC, the predecessor to this new body. It is able to examine a range of critical issues in the ACT concerning competition policy. That is the very kind of issue that members in this place have complained about on a number of occasions. It is there in this legislation. I say to members that if you do not like it do not vote for it, or amend it significantly.

The issues that were raised in the standing committee report to which Ms Tucker referred have been dealt with. We have proposed, for example, a three-person commission, with the capacity to appoint other commissioners on an ad hoc basis. There was originally a call for five commissioners. I think we have argued successfully that a five-person commission would be an unnecessary expense to the ACT community. The evidence of that is that there are not any amendments to change that basis. I hope that before Ms Tucker goes out and makes these criticisms she explains why it is today that she is prepared to support this Bill if she does not believe these issues are adequately addressed in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Government accepted the preference of the Standing Committee for the Chief Minister's Portfolio for vesting the commission with more than one commissioner, but we considered that a large board would prove administratively cumbersome and very costly. The model proposed in this Bill meets the spirit of the committee's recommendation by creating a structure of a senior commissioner and two assistant commissioners and provides for the appointment of any number of extra temporary associate commissioners where the nature of an inquiry requires specific skills or experience not held by the standing commissioners.

I should correct one thing that Mr Quinlan said. He suggested there was only capacity to appoint a further two temporary commissioners. That is not the case. There can be any number of temporary commissioners, and that capacity would be exercised if there were a range of inquiries going on.

Mr Quinlan: I just had a fixation on five.

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