Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 608 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Australia Institute takes a similar line. But the fact is, Mr Speaker, that they simply do not understand, with great respect, the changes which are clearly taking place with respect to a whole range of Australian institutions and markets. For example, yesterday I was speaking to a couple of representatives of the Commonwealth Bank who commented on the fact that Internet trading in stocks and shares has been an innovation in the Australian stock market in recent years. As a result of that, a massive number of stockbrokers are losing market share to ordinary traders who are going straight to the horse's mouth for their access to shares. The idea that the market is not changing as a result of those sorts of new competitive opportunities is quite bizarre. Clearly, it is changing and it is changing dramatically. Mr Speaker, we are told by the Australia Institute as well that - - -
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I do not mind if Mr Humphries wants - - -
MR SPEAKER: I assume that you are taking a point of order.
Mr Berry: Yes, I am. I do not mind if Mr Humphries goes up to his office and seethes about the Australia Institute, but I wish he would answer the question that Mr Hird asked him, that is: "Are you aware of this press release?". It seems as though the answer to that is yes. The second part was about the evidence. I suppose the evidence was in relation to ACTEW. I do not know whether what is happening with the diesel fuel excise and so on and so forth has got much to do with his portfolio.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. The point is taken. I am listening carefully. Mr Humphries is - - -
Mr Stanhope: Waffling.
MR SPEAKER: No, he is coming around to answering the question. Mr Humphries is an experienced answerer of questions.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am answering the question as asked, Mr Speaker. The question was: What evidence is there for the Australia Institute's claims? I am pointing out that there is no evidence for their claims. That is the point I am making; there is no evidence for the claims. For example, they claim that the hedging arrangements that ACTEW has entered into to protect the value of its share of the market by protecting the price are perfectly satisfactory and can continue into the indefinite future. The Australia Institute fails to understand that, since the introduction of contestability into the national electricity market in 1996, New South Wales and Queensland, between them, have lost something like $2 billion in taxpayers' money from the introduction of contestability.
Mr Hird: Two billion dollars!
MR HUMPHRIES
: Two billion dollars. We have not got $2 billion to lose in ACTEW, but losses of that size, proportionate to the size of our marketplace, are perfectly possible once contestability fully impacts on the ACT. They are perfectly possible. Indeed, Mr Speaker, sooner or later they are very likely to occur. Why would avaricious enterprises anxious to increase the size of their market share overlook a small, ripe plum which the ACT market represents, a very compact market, a market with a high
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .