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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 838 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It was a strange answer. It makes me extremely concerned about the environmental implications of this arrangement if the Minister thinks ACTEW could not do this because it would not want to minimise use of its pipes. There is a huge opportunity for ACTEW to develop this technology and compete across Australia. People from across Australia could be purchasing energy services from an ACTEW using best practice and cutting edge technology, which is where I was hoping ACTEW would be headed and where it is heading in several areas.

I turn to the idea that the only way ACTEW can progress is to grow rather than just maintain equilibrium. I have to object to this view of the world. The idea that there can be endless growth in a finite world is just rubbish. We are fortunate that so far the earth has been able to absorb the pressures that have been placed on it from industrial growth around the world. But the signs are there that the earth's ecological systems are under great strain and in places are starting to break down.

That is why the whole idea of ecologically sustainable development has grown in importance. I should point out that ESD is totally different from what some people refer to as sustainable growth, which is an oxymoron. Even from an economic perspective, it is impossible for all businesses to continue to grow unless the demand for their products continues to grow. What we are seeing instead is the increasing concentration in the various industry sectors of smaller and smaller numbers of very large companies. As these companies take over smaller companies or as companies leave the market because they cannot compete, diversity is being sacrificed at the altar of economic growth. So much for having perfect market competition, which economists theorise about.

It is acknowledged that in the Australian electricity market there will be a major shake-out as deregulation progresses, with about only eight electricity distributors left within the next decade. Of course, ACTEW is hoping that it has picked a winner, that AGL will be one of those distributors, but it is certainly not guaranteed. The Government says that if we do not do something with ACTEW as a whole then ACTEW's water and sewerage businesses will be dragged down if the electricity retail business goes under in the face of competition.

But if you turn this argument around, why do we want to take the risk of dragging down our water and sewerage operations if the deal with AGL does not work out? The Government says that we will still retain ownership of ACTEW's assets, and Mr Rugendyke is very convinced of the value of this line of argument. But what happens if these assets are run down or stripped over time by the joint venture? How will the Government ensure that the assets that may be returned to the ACT at some future time will have the same value as the assets that we will be passing over to the joint venture now?

I remind members of what I said initially when I spoke to this amendment. It is absolutely clear that a business corporation has to look at risk management as part of how it operates. Managing risk has had disastrous consequences in the management of essential services. (Extension of time granted) Longford was an example. The issue of risk management in the private sector cannot be disregarded when people in this Assembly are arguing today that this is a healthy environment for essential services.

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