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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 491 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Assembly to not privatise ACTEW, things went very quiet. Interestingly, now that the Government is putting forward a new proposal to virtually sell off half of ACTEW, the regulatory framework has now resurfaced and there is a new rush to get it all finalised.

I do not think this is a good enough reason to rush this legislation through. Assembly members need the chance to go through the pile of papers that make up the legislative package and the associated documents - the utilities services licence, the consumer protection code, the benchmark customer contract, the drinking water quality code and the codes of practice. We also need to go back and see how it compares with the earlier work done on the regulatory regime.

Community groups have not had the chance to see how their earlier comments are reflected in the final legislation and the associated documents. It is also the case that the original work only covered electricity, water and sewerage services. This latest package, however, includes regulation of gas services, which we have not had a chance to examine in detail yet. I also note that the scrutiny of Bills committee report contained seven pages of comments on the utilities package which also needs to be reviewed.

I think the ACT community, which depends on these essential services, would expect the Assembly to make sure that their interests are adequately addressed before we move further down the path of opening up ACTEW to further commercialisation and increased competition, so I also express concern now if we are being asked to vote on the enabling legislation at this point. I think this committee, which has the responsibility of looking at the detail of the regulatory regime, must complete this work to our satisfaction before we are asked to vote on such a significant piece of legislation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.23): The Government supports the motion that Ms Tucker has moved. I am struck by how curious it is that, despite having introduced legislation which extremely comprehensively deals with the problem of utilities operating in a relatively unregulated environment, despite the fact that there are no common rules between different utilities and different classes, despite the fact that we have taken an enormous step forward in regulating this area and that we have indicated willingness to put this to a committee to be consulted about, we still have criticism from Ms Tucker about the approach that the Government is taking on this matter.

Ms Tucker: I thought you wanted a committee.

MR HUMPHRIES: We do. We are quite happy for that to happen, but I heard a number of criticisms in your speech just now of the Government's position. I have to say, again, that I wonder what we are supposed to do to avoid that sort of criticism. Perhaps we should not bother to expect anything less, but the fact is that we have put this on the table expecting it to be dealt with in this way by an inquiry. We fully accept and expect that.

I think I heard Ms Tucker say it is ridiculous to expect that we should deal with this Bill in the space of a fortnight. I put it on the record very clearly, Mr Speaker, that the Government has never suggested that these Bills should be dealt with in the space of

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