Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 768 ..
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am not saying that it could not continue to occur. Of course it can. But the point is that a system that is based on individuals getting some technology - presumably they buy the technology and install it in their homes - - -
Ms Tucker: ACTEW could provide it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Let me finish Ms Tucker. They buy the technology and install it in their homes to recycle their own sewerage. They do not do this by just digging a big hole in the backyard and moving the pipes themselves. The technology has to be installed to make that happen, right? And ACTEW can continue to do it, and it is at least theoretically possible for them to continue to develop that kind of system, but the point is that, because it is not linked to a territory-wide reticulation system, others can do it as well. This is the point. And if the technology becomes available, you no longer depend on the territory-wide supplier of water and sewerage services to deliver that kind of technology. Others can come in and deliver it just as well. Just as you do not need ACTEW to supply you with solar hot water. Lots of companies can supply solar hot water these days.
Ms Tucker: So you compete and you do it well, and ACTEW can.
MR HUMPHRIES: I know that ACTEW can, but they will have competitors. The point I am making, Mr Speaker, is that competitors can enter the marketplace.
Ms Tucker: So what? What is wrong with ACTEW competing?
MR SPEAKER: Do not respond to the interjections. Be quiet, Ms Tucker. You have asked your question and your supplementary.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the answer to "so what" is that, if competitors enter ACTEW's marketplace for supply of sewerage services and they take some of ACTEW's share of the marketplace, obviously the dividend which ACTEW pays the Government and the community on the basis of its profits is at some risk. If Ms Tucker cannot understand that then I am sorry, but I cannot explain it any more clearly.
MR OSBORNE: My question is to the Chief Minister again and I hope it is another short answer.
Ms Carnell: I have been good, haven't I?
MR OSBORNE
: You have been good. I went over Hansard yesterday, Mr Speaker, in relation to a question that I asked the Chief Minister about ticket sales for Bruce Stadium, and I asked for the exact number of tickets and the answer from the Chief Minister was that there were 10,558 sold. What you said, Chief Minister, was that this was the number that were actually paid for. You then said that the cut-off figure for break even was 7,811 but, in answering that, you said "if the average ticket sale was $71". Would you just confirm the average ticket price for the 10,558 tickets that were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .