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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (5 June) . . Page.. 1975 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I think I talked about this in my speech-which is at arms-length or is an arms-length contractual arrangement.

In my first question I asked how long was the government prepared to continue the phase 1 contract if an agreement could not be reached with AGL in the terms of the phase 2 contract by the proposed date of 30 September 2004. I asked whether the phase 1 contract could be terminated by Actew if no agreement could be reached in a reasonable time on the terms of the phase 2 contract. I also asked whether the phase 1 contract could be terminated for any reason independently of the rest of the ActewAGL joint venture; and if so, I asked for a full description.

The answer to my first question was:

The government is prepared to see the arrangements stay in place while they benefit the ACT community. However, this is primarily an issue for Actew and I am advised that negotiations are under way in respect of the stage 2 contract. Actew expects that the negotiations will be completed sooner rather than later.

We are told that these arrangements will stay in place while they benefit the ACT community. How is this going to be determined? When we had the original debate, Mr Quinlan said-and he just said it again today-that he has got some concerns about this hybrid model that we have to work with. This is a new Assembly, this is a new government, and it was not a satisfactory process in the last Assembly. I believe that we need to have a really open process to determine whether or not, in fact, the arrangements do benefit the ACT community. There are a number of ways in which we could do that. In fact, even a committee of this place could involve the community in that discussion.

But what we are told is: "It's primarily, however, an issue for Actew and I am advised that negotiations are under way." As Ms Dundas said, it is concerning how much the government is prepared to just leave it to Actew. This is a government that says they are committed to consultation and open processes. Mr Quinlan is a shareholder, of course. That point has been made in questions asked by Ms Dundas about greenhouse emissions. Another one of my motions, the subject of which I cannot remember, expressed the same concern that basically Mr Quinlan was not sure what his role was.

So what I am asking basically in this motion is that we investigate options for returning ACT's water supply to us. I am asking that we take the opportunity to look at whether the present arrangement is in the public interest now and in the long term. We have to acknowledge that we are putting management of water services into an environment that will be increasingly commercial. The second phase requires a more arms-length contractual arrangement. If we agree that water is basically one of the most precious assets we have and is absolutely essential for life, we should have concern about it being put into a commercial environment.

This is a discussion that is occurring around the world. In fact, there will be strong focus on this at the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg and a proposal to proclaim a commons for water will be put from societies around the world. There is a need to stop any further commodification and privatisation of water because this has been seen to deliver extremely poor environmental and social results. Water should never be put into the

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