Page 2697 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I have, indeed, told the people of Canberra that, and I have done so on many occasions. Mrs Carnell will not remember, because I do not think she was around, that at the time the corporatisation of the Snowy scheme was first mooted the ACT had a struggle on its hands to get to the negotiating table on that matter. I was a part of that struggle, and I think that Mr Kaine was a part of it as well. The reason why we fought so hard to be a part of that decision making process was to try to protect the ACT's supply of electricity from the Snowy Mountains scheme. At the time, there were press releases put out - I am pretty certain that I put one out - which indicated that, if the ACT were to lose that preferential treatment, it could have an impact on the pricing of our local electricity. I might say that our pricing regime is amongst the best, if it is not the best, in Australia. So, Madam Speaker, it is wrong to say that I have not warned the community of this. I have done so on many occasions.
The reason why the Territory is not a part of that negotiating process is still not clear to me. The process is one that is taking place between the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments. I know that at one time or another there has been a kind of agreement from Victoria and/or New South Wales that the ACT should enter into that negotiating process. The Commonwealth, however, considers that it represents the ACT and stands by what it perceives as its legal position to do that. The ACT has, formally and informally, contested that position. It is our view that the Commonwealth is a part of that negotiating process only because the ACT did not have a body which could represent it. The Commonwealth is there only to protect the ACT's interests. There is a liaison process that is continuing - Mr John Turner is the ACT official involved in that - but it is not the same as having the Government represented in that process. That is a matter about which I have continued to make representations, so far without success.
Why that is so important in the scheme of the electricity reforms that I spoke about yesterday is that the corporatisation of the Snowy scheme appears to be proceeding more quickly than other reform in the electricity industry. Once we have the national grid, the ACT will be able to negotiate nationally for the best deal for electricity from any source. It appears to me that the Snowy reforms are proceeding much faster than other reforms. For that reason, the ACT electricity supply could face an increase which we might not face were all the reforms to proceed concurrently. I have made that quite clear, Mrs Carnell. I know that a lot of other people understand it. The debate that was held over the early days of the Snowy scheme probably preceded your entry to the Assembly, and for that reason it might not be as clear to you.
MRS CARNELL: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Chief Minister, is it not true that the corporatisation of the Snowy scheme will cost the ACT an additional $25m in increased supply charges for Snowy power? Even when the proposed national grid is in place, that will save only a maximum of $15m for the ACT. There will still be a $10m gap which the ACT will have to pay for. Will that be paid for by the ratepayers, or have you managed to do a deal with your Federal Labor colleagues for a compensation package?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .