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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 594 ..

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 10   	NOES, 6

Ms Carnell  	Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell  	Mr Corbell
Mr Hird  	Mr Hargreaves 
Mr Humphries  	Mr Quinlan
Mr Kaine  	Mr Stanhope
Mr Moore  	Mr Wood
Mr Rugendyke  
Mr Smyth
Mr Stefaniak
Ms Tucker

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, after the comments I made a little while ago I received some advice from my department on the amendments which Mr Stanhope has just circulated in the chamber. Although I have not seen the amendments before, it appears that my department has them. It may be that they were received by my office and sent to the department before I had a chance to see them. I do not know whether my office has or has not received them at this stage. I still have not seen them, but I certainly apologise to Mr Stanhope for suggesting that my office has not received them.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. In answer to a question from the Labor Party about contestability in the domestic electricity market, the chief executive of ACTEW, Mr Mackay, said, among other things, that 15 competing suppliers had won contracts in the ACT and ACTEW had lost competitive load. The 1998-99 annual report for ACTEW, however, reports the chairman of the board as saying that the corporation continued to cope well with the challenge of competition. He went on to say:

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