Page 824 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have provided only a brief expose of the developments occurring both in Australia and overseas, to indicate that corporatisation is clearly not something new and that there would be some real value in this Government focusing more attention on ironing out the inherent problems of inefficiencies in a number of our government-run bodies in the ACT. Quite clearly, it would be an entirely good move to corporatise ACTEW, as was intended. Approximately $0.5m was spent by ACTEW in preparing for corporatisation, in the form of legal advice and documentation, consultants' advice and the like. This was yet another waste of money and resources.
We could have seen many benefits accrue from a move to corporatise ACTEW, including a reduction in the number of unions; improvement in productivity through decreases in its work force by voluntary redundancy packages and natural attrition; savings from superannuation, which would not have exceeded 15.4 per cent whereas the CGS scheme is 20.5 per cent; and changing from Comcare to a commercial workers compensation scheme, which could save between $1m and $1.5m. Under corporatisation many of the body's assets, such as dams, could be depreciated. These funds could be parked in a reserve and utilised to build up funds for future construction of new dams. At present, this would have to come from capital works.
Furthermore, as in the case of the Hunter Water Board, the new corporatised body could look ahead with more certainty in relation to future water and electricity demands and it could strike a much more successful communication link with its customers by maintaining reliable tariff rates and conservation strategies. Its clients would certainly not be confronted with sudden price rises. Any price rise would be linked with developmental programs further upstream.
Instead of this rational approach, however, this Government seems to have no compunction about increasing prices by stealth. This is an insidious approach. It is an abhorrent way to treat the community, and it is bad management. While the inflation rate has been dramatically reduced through the recession we had to have, this Government, instead of allowing that benefit to flow back to the community or to improve the efficiency of its enterprises, sees this as an opportunity to rectify its budgetary shortfalls in other areas. This year's projected increases are well above the annual inflation rate. In fact, ACTEW, after incorporation, expected price increases to be 2 per cent less than the consumer price index.
I refer also to another government-run enterprise - ACTION buses. The Government, in their usual dismissive way, would not see ACTION as presenting any real problem. The Minister responsible for transport, Mr Connolly, will simply say, "All public transport costs governments heavily in subsidies. We are doing our best. We might even save $2m this year". Well, $2m is just not good enough. As my time is running out, I foreshadow that at the end of this debate I shall seek leave to move a motion that I will circulate.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.48): The Liberal Party has a touching faith in corporatisation and privatisation as some sort of panacea for the world's ills. It is a naivety in approach to public policy - - -
Mr De Domenico: Even Mother Russia in Victoria agrees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .