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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3702 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I am also concerned that there are unresolved issues which we will have to return to in relation to infrastructure ownership, namely, the issue of duplication of infrastructure. Because there is no monopoly provider of gas infrastructure, it is theoretically possible for there to be multiple providers of infrastructure for gas. That seems to go against the spirit of the planning regime we have in the ACT whereby we do not duplicate infrastructure needlessly just because retailers cannot agree on infrastructure arrangements. I am rather concerned at the possibility of having multiple retailers digging up the streets to lay down gas pipelines in competition with each other, which is possible. That is not a matter which relates directly to this Bill, but it is a matter which we will have to return to if we are to ensure that we maintain a sensible planning system and that competition in industries such as gas does not lead to the absurd results that we have in the States whereby we have multiple telecommunications providers running cables around suburbs.

Mr Speaker, there is one other issue about which I am concerned, that is, that in clause 3 of the Bill we have a definition of "regulated industry" as electricity, water or sewerage services or "any other industry declared to be a regulated industry under section 4". However, Mrs Carnell, in tabling this legislation, has accorded to herself the right to declare an industry a regulated industry without any scrutiny by parliament. I think it is completely inappropriate for the Minister to accord to herself the right to declare an industry a regulated industry without there being any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny to consider what the implications of that declaration might be for the conduct of affairs in the ACT.

Having said that, I note that the terms of reference under clause 16 for any inquiry ordered by a referring authority, which is basically a Minister, are disallowable. That provides an opportunity for the Assembly to have a say about inquiries that might be ordered under clause 16. However, I think that, to a certain extent, that is jumping in after the game has already started. A more appropriate time for a debate about the declaration of a regulated industry is when the original declaration is made under section 4, not when the Minister subsequently decides to order a review under clause 15 or clause 16. When we come to the detail stage of the Bill, I will be proposing an amendment to ensure that that matter is properly dealt with. I note, too, that Ms Tucker has circulated a number of amendments which I will seek to understand. Some of those amendments seem to throw up some worrying things and to have some worrying implications. I look forward to hearing Ms Tucker's arguments in support of her amendments at the appropriate time.

MS TUCKER (11.42): The Greens will be supporting this Bill, but with some important qualifications which I will talk about later. I understand that this Bill establishes a single commission to investigate prices and access agreements in industries which supply monopoly or near monopoly infrastructure services in the ACT. At present, these are primarily the electricity and gas supply sectors. The new commission will also take over the role of the existing Energy and Water Charges Commission and the existing commissioner will become the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commissioner until the expiry of his current term.

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