Page 1285 - Week 05 - Thursday, 25 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
GAS BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 18 June 1992, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WESTENDE (12.09): Madam Speaker, here we have a very substantial Bill which, in principle, we agree with. It is generally sensible to provide a regulatory system for the supply of natural gas in the ACT. This Bill will provide important price controls, it will establish standards of safety, and it will provide for continued research and development of energy resources. While creating a monopoly, the licensing of AGL to be the sole distributor will provide stability, and the price control provision will ensure that prices should remain competitive. These aspects we are generally in favour of.
However, Madam Speaker, the Bill is far more substantial and contains more than some general points of intention. It is a very detailed Bill. It has some 55 pages in all and it requires detailed assessment. Once again it has been impossible to assess each clause of the Bill thoroughly. There certainly has been no time for us to consult anyone on the implications of the Bill. We could make various comments about the Bill, and I will make some shortly, but they by no means reflect a studied assessment. The pushing through of these Bills with such unnecessary haste obfuscates perhaps quite significant and important considerations.
I was absolutely astonished by a comment made by Mr Connolly in the house yesterday about our concern about the lack of due time for consideration of new Bills. He said that we complained about the lack of Bills in the last sitting of the Assembly, and that we were now complaining about getting too much legislation. Madam Speaker, it is not the amount of legislation we are complaining about; it is the lack of sufficient time to consider it properly. So, Madam Speaker, Mr Connolly's comment was quite ridiculous and not appropriate utterances of someone who is the Attorney-General. Perhaps, on further reflection, he may regret saying something so stupid.
Madam Speaker, by way of general comment about the Bill, I would first like to raise the question of why this Bill requires such urgent attention by the Assembly. We can see no reason why this Bill could not be adjourned to the August sitting. Madam Speaker, we have some concerns about aspects of the Bill. One concern is the power of the review panel. The Bill empowers the panel to do all things necessary and convenient in connection with the conduct of its investigations. What does this actually mean? What does "to do all things necessary and convenient" mean?
We also are concerned about the research and development levy. This Bill establishes an energy research and development trust account, but it does not provide any indication of how these funds are to be disbursed. The only provision is that all authorised distributors have been consulted. Of course, this means AGL. The Bill does not indicate the criteria for research and development projects. The Bill does not indicate any integration of research and development by this trust with other similar bodies in Australia. Is having AGL the sole distributor for 20 years a good idea? Would it be better to license them for 10 years with an option of a further 10 years?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .