Page 1845 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What conceivable measure of control in the management of ACTTAB is presently lacking from the Government's hands? What can the Government not do which affects the good management of ACTTAB which it would want to do under this legislation? I would suggest, Madam Speaker, very little. Madam Speaker, I have to repeat the question, too: Where does this Bill leave Totalcare? Why is Totalcare not re-established as a statutory authority when ACTTAB is? I have heard the reason put across the chamber - because ACTTAB does not face any competition, it is a monopoly, and Totalcare does.
Mrs Carnell: But it does compete with other TABs in the other States.
MR HUMPHRIES: Precisely. It does face competition. It is not a monopoly, in effect. Apart from all of that, what does being a monopoly have to do with the establishment of a statutory authority? Again, we expect reasons. We expect some argument, but we are not hearing it. It is just not there.
Madam Speaker, I think that the time has come for the Government to recognise that its image is at stake. Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister is very assiduous about protecting her image. The image she presents of this Government is of a pragmatic and consultative government. This legislation is neither pragmatic nor consultative. The Government has ignored the interests of the community which are affected by this Bill. It has ignored the very plaintive and very logical and coherent arguments put forward by those in the industry who say that this Bill is not necessary. This Bill is counterproductive. What is more, it smacks of a hardline ideological stance. Mr Berry is the ideologue of this Government. He wants control over these things for control's sake, but he has not justified that control in any meaningful sense. For that reason, Madam Speaker, we should support the motion put forward by Mr De Domenico.
MR MOORE (10.21): Madam Speaker, I find many of the comments made by the Liberals with reference to this committee ironic, to say the least. On 29 November 1990, Madam Speaker, Mr Kaine tabled the Territory Owned Corporations Bill 1990. Just two weeks later, on 11 December 1990, that Bill was pushed through this house by the then Alliance Government using its numbers. The question that could well have been asked then was, "What are going to be the ramifications of this?". All those questions that have been asked here could well have been asked then, Madam Speaker. I did not see the members of the Alliance Government rushing to get that issue before a committee.
There is a big difference as well. Returning the TAB to its pre-November or December 1990 state will cause very few difficulties. There is some evidence as to what will happen. There are some significant advantages, as cited by Mr Berry, not the least of which is the risk and the uncertainty about privatisation. That is not the least of them at all. For some of those people who were part of that Government - in particular, Mr Humphries, whom we just heard - to say that we cannot possibly make this kind of a change without sending this issue to a committee really is hugely ironic. The issue was discussed at length. During the January break, in particular, there was a series of articles in the media about the pros and cons. In fact, Mr De Domenico quoted from the Canberra Times just a short while ago. Obviously there was very public debate and discussion. After all that, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that it is inappropriate for us to send this to a committee. I am quite happy to lend my support to this Bill in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .