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

None . . Page.. 857 ..

possible environmental standards, we would meet and exceed standards for anywhere else in Australia, and we would be the model citizen when it came to being a custodian of Australia's inland river systems. Again, that did not happen out of the blue, and that is one of the concerns we have. When you go down the process of setting up a body like this in a corporate form and removing it from those levels of control, those levels of political direction, you do run the risk of problems emerging.

I would remind Michael Moore that one of his concerns in the First Assembly was ACTEW pricing structures. He was very concerned that ACTEW should appear before the Estimates Committee. ACTEW was not entirely enthused about that and said, quite correctly, as a matter of law, “We are an off-budget agency. Why should we appear before the Estimates Committee?”. As Minister, I said to ACTEW, “You must appear”. Since then, quite properly, ACTEW has appeared before the Estimates Committee, and members of this place have had that forum in which to examine, probe and test ACTEW’s performance. What is going to happen with those sorts of mechanisms?

The decision about the long-term future of ACTEW is a massive one. It is an organisation which, as I said initially, does impact on every Canberran at all stages of every day. In simple economic terms, it is our biggest turnover. It is our most significant business, if you need to look at things in the context of a business. It is our largest single asset in the sense of the value of the hydraulic and electricity assets there, and environmentally it is our most sensitive, single area of ACT government activity in the sense that it impacts entirely on Australia's inland riverine system. Much of this debate has been focused on Hilmer and electricity, and Mr Whitecross has made some remarks about that. We note that Hilmer apparently is having some second thoughts at the moment; but, for all of this debate, the focus virtually has been solely on electricity and not on ACTEW’s water and hydraulics business, and that, environmentally, is by far the most sensitive area of ACT government operations, and an area that requires deep and careful study.

I found offensive some of the remarks the Government was making. It was really saying, “How dare the Greens have the temerity to ask these questions. You people have been lazy. You should have gone away and done your homework. You should not need to ask these questions”.

Mr De Domenico: I did not say that at all.

MR CONNOLLY: It was pretty much what Mr Kaine was saying. That is an inappropriate response from the Government. This is an enormous decision that you are asking us to make and we have had two weeks to look at the legislation. If you believe that that is the appropriate way to proceed on matters of this significance, you are pushing your credibility with members of this Assembly and members of this Canberra community.

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