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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 839 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I reject that notion. I see what happens with risk management over and over again with private sector companies. You can say that this is not a private sector company, but it is exactly the same as Telstra. This company will have to operate as a business. ACTEW already has been told to operate as a business, and we have seen a disintegration or a diminishing of services as a result of that corporate approach.

We have had concerns about the way in which the environmental concerns have been managed, particularly with sewerage and so on. We have had constant complaints from the plumbers association about the lack of diligence that has been shown by ACTEW compared to what it used to be. The whole issue of even corporatising ACTEW has had an impact on the quality of services.

When I listen to the arguments from the other side and from members supporting the motion, so much of it is focused on commercial viability. Once again, the environment and equity issues are seen as external. They are externalities. We are told, "Do not worry. They will be looked after in the Utilities Bill". I am worried. I referred the Utilities Bill to a committee so that hopefully we end up with something in the Bill that reflects the concerns in our community about these so-called externalities - that is, social equity and the environment, to name just two.

These are incredibly important issues, and the regulatory environment is a very important factor in this debate. But we will not have the opportunity to see that regulatory environment put in place before this deal has gone through. People have faith. Mr Kaine referred to good intent or good heart. I think that is not okay. We need on-the-ground facts about the regulatory regime. Even seeing that regulatory environment clearly for what it will end up being, I think there are still issues but at least we should be seeing how these issues are going to be handled. But we have not had the opportunity to do that and I am very disappointed about that.

The issue of the assets is really important. If you look at international experience, you will see that private sector companies or companies with a strong business focus that have managed utilities have let the infrastructure and the assets run down. It is very difficult for a monitoring agency or a regulatory agency to check. It is basically about pipes that are under the ground.

If this Government is totally committed to ensuring that our assets are not run down, they need to give us some analysis of the costs of ensuring that in fact the assets are not being run down and tell us how they are going to do that. Mr Hargreaves was asking for a cost-benefit analysis. What is going to be the cost of ensuring the integrity of this activity from this merged organisation? We do not see the cost of that. I do not think the Government has done that analysis.

ACTEW has also confirmed the calculation by the Australia Institute that electricity retailing constitutes only 10 per cent of ACTEW's profit, or about $4m. ACTEW would continue to earn around $38m, even if it had no involvement in electricity retailing. However, under the AGL merger, presumably AGL will take half of ACTEW's profit, or some $20m. The Government has still failed to justify why we need to lose half of the control of ACTEW and half of its profits just to fix up one small aspect of ACTEW's

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