Page 3871 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACTTAB seems to be doing all right. As Mr Berry said, it is providing over $5m per year in terms of turnover tax and a further $3m in other sources of income, but all of a sudden he finds that it is too successful. It is too successful; we have to bring it back into the public service so that we can control it, so that we can tell it what to do. We can tell it what to do about its industrial practices. The question that needs to be asked by this Assembly is, "Why change?". Certainly, the people involved have not been consulted. They do not want any change. It seems that Mr Berry and perhaps a limited number of his advisers are the only people that want change.
Let us have a look at the situation elsewhere in Australia. Perhaps Mr Berry is arguing that under mutual recognition we will have to get back to what the rest of the country is doing. It is a fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the ACTTAB set-up is being looked at by many other States and Territories as the one to base their changes on because it is running very well. In fact, Western Australia, which does not have a Liberal government, as people are aware, is even thinking of going a step further and privatising their TAB set-up - selling it - because that is the best way that they can maximise profits.
I am suggesting, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that ACTTAB should be left alone to make sure that it continues to provide the valuable service to the punter. After all, we on this side of the house are not interested in Mr Berry's orgy of ideology; we are more concerned about who is going to get value for money out of a well-run corporation, as it is now. Before you start changing things, Mr Minister, have a good look and see what the facts are; do not just base any changes on your political ideology, because it is not going to work.
Let us look at some other matters. It also has been suggested, apparently, Mr Deputy Speaker, that ACTTAB Ltd be converted not back to the usual statutory authority, as Mr Berry's statement said this afternoon, but to a corporate role structure without a board responsible directly to a Minister and subject to the Public Service Act. Mr Berry in fact said that he is going to be bringing it back to the Public Service Act. The other question to ask is, "Why?". I believe, and the Liberal Party believe, that this may be a retrograde step.
Let us look at the ACT terms and conditions of employment, for example. The only time that they were directed by this Minister to do anything was to consult with him on industrial practices. When we look at the terms and conditions of employment we find that they have never been aligned with the public service. As an organisation whose main trading day is Saturday, for example, it is essential that it not be bound by inappropriate Monday to Friday conditions if profitability is to be maintained. ACTTAB Ltd has its own industrial agreement. It has been negotiated with the Federated Clerks Union and it has been based upon the conditions applying in other Australian TABs. The agreement has been in place for many years and has the support of the company, the staff and the union, as an appropriate basis for TAB employment. The TAB as it currently is structured is happy, the staff is happy, the union is happy, and every other TAB in the country, working on the same agreement, is happy. The only person who seems to be unhappy is Mr Berry.
So, we ask, "Why is Mr Berry unhappy?". Quite obviously, it is because Mr Berry has been informed that he needs to get a bit more ideological in the way he looks at things. He has not been doing enough, apparently.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .