Page 1275 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
equivalents of $54 million over the same period. It was only the other day when I raised my concerns in this chamber that we began to see poor solution after poor solution from the government, and today’s bill confirms that it is no exception. Because of Mr Barr’s bungling, we are now faced with having to pass a law to make the government’s version of the truth valid. And not supporting it means further uncertainty to the territory’s financial position and further uncertainty on water and sewerage prices and service delivery.
We are faced with the reality created by the government. We will be supporting the bill. Let us hope the Treasurer gets it right next time, but we certainly will not be validating poor process, we certainly will not be validating poor decisions by the Treasurer and we certainly will not be validating his ineptitude.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.04): This matter comes about today as a result of the Auditor-General’s report into the water and sewerage pricing direction. The audit was concerned with the processes and systems used to set the price direction, not the actual prices themselves, and that is the origin, as I think Mr Smyth has touched on, for why we are here today.
The third recommendation of the audit was:
The Government should address the issues associated with the potential invalidity of the current price direction.
Again, that is what this bill seeks to do. The recommendation was made on the basis of advice from Mr Peter Hanks QC to the Auditor-General’s Office that the price direction could be invalid, as it did not specify a regulatory period for the price direction. The ICRC set a price direction for six years, and I note that the ICRC does not believe that the price direction is invalid as a result of this.
So we have a situation where—and I note that the Treasurer also thinks the same—it is essentially varying legal opinions. The response to that by the government has been to introduce this legislation to ensure that the price direction is valid, and the bill explicitly removes any doubt that the terms of reference would have effect as if a period was specified in the terms of reference.
So I think it is prudent of the government to accept the advice given by Mr Hanks via the Auditor-General and ensure the validity of the price direction. It seems a preferable outcome, where we have got essentially lawyers at 20 paces putting different perspectives, and it is prudent for the government to come to this place and clarify the intent.
I do not think it is worth the risk of it being challenged and being found to be invalid. While there is disagreement about the legal opinion, I think this is a prudent approach to ensuring absolute clarity, and that is the basis on which I will be supporting the bill today.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (11.06), in reply: I thank members for their
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video