Page 995 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ESSENTIAL SERVICES (CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY) BILL 1992
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.09): Madam Speaker, I present the Essential Services (Continuity of Supply) Bill 1992.
Title read by Clerk.
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
This Bill came about as a result of a formal reference to the ACT Community Law Reform Committee in September of 1990. The Community Law Reform Committee was requested to review the laws in force in the Territory with respect to the withdrawal of essential services as a means of debt recovery. In undertaking the reference, the Community Law Reform Committee considered whether the providers of essential services, such as ACTEW, AGL and Telecom, should withdraw or threaten to withdraw essential services in order to collect debts.
Cold Canberra winters - and we know a lot about those - impose a greater financial burden on families than in any other capital city. The practice of disconnecting an essential service to force payment of a bill has a severe impact on individuals and families. To date, in recognition of this problem, the Government provides electricity concessions to pensioners, war widows and veterans who satisfy eligibility requirements. These concessions provide continuing but limited assistance to alleviate the circumstances of those in need. However, there is no systematic treatment of social and financial problems which arise when an essential service is threatened or disconnected.
The Housing and Community Services Bureau and other welfare agencies can sometimes apply very limited cash reserves to meet emergency costs. In some cases, ACTEW and welfare agencies or customers are able to negotiate some relief through extended time for payment of a bill. However, lack of a systematic approach in this area is imposing additional pressures and costs on welfare agencies, service providers and, most importantly, those people directly affected by disconnection.
The Community Law Reform Committee's report dealt in detail with the two main options facing government. The first option would be that the ACT could introduce a voucher scheme similar to that introduced and operating in New South Wales. Alternatively, the ACT could create an independent tribunal or committee to consider applications for relief from persons threatened with disconnection from an essential service, which was an option originally flagged by the Australian Law Reform Commission in the mid-1970s.
I will address the voucher system. New South Wales partially deals with this problem by issuing vouchers to welfare agencies to distribute to those who cannot meet the cost of a bill. However, after considering the New South Wales experience in detail and hearing first-hand accounts of the way the New South Wales scheme operates, the Community Law Reform Committee recommended that a voucher system should not operate in the ACT. Some of the problems introduced with voucher systems include the misuse of vouchers, including
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .