Page 822 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
wants to go its own merry way, at great cost to the community - a community that has entrusted it with the responsibility to serve. This is a government that is not the slightest bit interested in hearing the views of anyone who does not agree with it.
On every sitting day of the Assembly so far this year I have heard examples of this Government's abominable and purposeful lack of consultation. On every aspect on which I have addressed this Assembly to date, I can recount instances of blatant lack of consultation or, indeed, of any sign of interest by this Government in what the community is trying to say to it. This goes for industry, it goes for academics, it goes for the Opposition, and it goes for the community at large.
These are not hollow criticisms. I did not enter this Assembly to sit here and make cheap shots. I am here because I have some significant experience in the business world that can be of considerable use in the achievement of real micro-reforms in the administration of government services in the ACT. It amazes me that, following requests I have made to the Government to be included in some consultation processes, I have not received a response.
This is a government that is constantly on the defensive. It is certainly not one that demonstrates confidence. It finds the concept of bipartisanship abhorrent. It places its dogma and ideology above the needs of the people it serves. While I realise that, once again, the Government may not wish to listen to what we on this side of the Assembly have to say, perhaps it could take some time to read it in Hansard and reflect on the distinct possibility that we may have something important and significant to offer.
Madam Speaker, the ACT must go down the path of corporatisation or, indeed, privatisation with its major public utilities or inflict on this community some very real financial and service delivery problems in the not too distant future. Corporatisation will tighten up the running of these organisations and put them on an autonomous and commercially viable basis. Let us be clear about what I mean by corporatisation. Corporatisation is the creation of a normal limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Code and the transfer to that company of business conducted by government. Ownership and control remains with the government. The assets and liabilities are owned by the company and the company makes profits or incurs losses, but the government indirectly controls the company by virtue of its share ownership. Accordingly, it is entitled to the dividends; but, conversely, it is the only entity that a company can call on for contribution of capital or shareholders' loans when required.
The company is directed by an independent board of directors, in the same way as any other company. Examples of corporatisation in Australia are AeroSpace Technologies of Australia, Australian Defence Industries Ltd, AOTC Ltd, Australian Airlines, and the Hunter Water Board of New South Wales. The Hunter Water Board has been corporatised for only five months and it is therefore not possible to analyse to the full extent the benefits to date, but we are informed that it is achieving micro-reforms. It recently released new tariff schedules which reflected reduced charges to small business and to the general community. This is within five months of corporatisation. The decision was a commercial one, not a political one. Pensioner rebates are explicitly reimbursed by the State Government to the Water Board. It now also provides a chemical collection service in the community, which not only preserves the quality of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .