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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 632 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the bat and ball and be really cross because we have been obstructionist in some way. That seems to me to be a totally unsatisfactory argument for not continuing to raise the concerns felt.

If, in fact, there was genuine concern in this Assembly about what this sale, merger or whatever it is going to be would result in, of course we would have to keep saying what those concerns were and would have to express those concerns in this place. I would be very surprised if our actions have totally frightened off every person who is involved in the business sector. I can understand there being some frustration about a couple of proposals that have been put forward, but the issue today clearly is whether we agree as an Assembly that the risk is in the retail sector and that it is a reasonable thing to look at some other arrangement for the management of that side of ACTEW's business. That is why I have put forward my amendment.

I think that it is not a strong argument to say that because there has been consistent disagreement about selling the whole lot, going into a joint merger, franchising or whatever. Basically, what has been consistent in this place is the disquiet that has been expressed about what is happening to our essential services. That is why I have moved my amendment, which is putting a clear position to the Government. The Government likes to say that we are all just being negative and to ask us what we want. I am telling the Government what I want, the Greens want and many of the people who have contacted my office want, which is a guaranteed quarantining of these essential services. We recognise the risk in the retail sector, but we see no need to do any more than that. We are very cynical about the claims that have been made about guaranteeing the future of those essential services.

It is generally acknowledged, even by the Government's ABN AMRO study, that the only part of ACTEW that is subject to significant financial risk is the retailing of electricity. We know that ACTEW's electricity network business - the wires - and the water and sewerage businesses are all natural monopolies. There will never be a competitive market for those services, unless someone wants to construct a second set of wires, pipes or dams, which is extremely unlikely. The electricity network, water and sewerage businesses provide around 90 per cent of ACTEW's earnings and, being regulated monopolies, they will continue to return a steady, if regulated, profit. There is no need for the Government to give away control of these businesses in the guise of minimising risks to ACTEW. The Industry Commission has said that the public sector manages natural monopolies as well as, if not better than, the private sector.

The Government keeps pushing the line that, unless ACTEW grows, somehow it is just going to wither away. That is dubious logic. It ignores the fact that it is okay for an organisation just to stay in a steady state. That does not mean stagnation as it is always possible to change the nature of an organisation's functions to meet changing circumstances. In fact, there are concerns that once you enter into a contractual obligation the flexibility will not be there for you to address issues relating to, say, new standards or new technology that may be developed in this field. There are concerns about how flexible the industry will be to be able to meet changed circumstances.

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