Page 3611 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 19 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a great pity that the Chief Minister had such difficulty in translating this laudable principle of micro-economic reform into such areas as the ACTION bus service, certain areas of parks and gardens, and areas in ACT Health, to name but a few. In her speech she admitted that competition produces lower prices, but due to pressure from her left-wing union mates she refuses to make any of the necessary changes to allow competition into ACT government services. Possibly, she believes that the ACT public sector could not cope with real competition. Certainly, we do not believe that that is so. The ACT has many talented public servants who, given the right conditions, could compete well with the private sector. The real winners would be the people of the ACT, who would get more cost-effective services produced more efficiently. This Labor administration seems to be wedded to an ideology, despite the facts.
The recent Hilmer report, which I think was discussed at the COAG conference, was described by the chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, Professor Allan Fels, as an "important historic opportunity to adopt a national competition policy which will benefit all Australians". He said that State governments should not fear the effects of competition policy and the winding back of current monopolies in areas such as electricity and agricultural marketing boards; that the resulting increase in competitive pressure will bring benefits for the State economy as a whole. That is a fairly definitive statement, I would have thought; but what was the Labor Party's response to questions on the use of competition, questions they were asked regularly during estimates? The response was no, no, and no again - no, it is not party policy; therefore, regardless of the outcomes, regardless of efficiency, regardless of price, no, it is not on.
Mr De Domenico: What did CIT say?
MRS CARNELL: That is the one. It was quite interesting in estimates that Minister Connolly was heard to say that competition would lead to lower prices for goods and services, but unfortunately he was bound to party policy, to ideology.
Mr Connolly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. First, it is out of order to quote from a committee that has not reported yet - - -
MRS CARNELL: I did not quote. I said that you said that.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Let Mr Connolly make his point of order.
Mr Connolly: The point of order, which you ruled on earlier today, is that it is out of order to refer in debates in this place to what is alleged to have been said in a committee which has not yet reported. It is also, I presume, out of order to misquote and make such a patently nonsensical statement. What you are saying is not what I ever said, Mrs Carnell, and I will serve it to you with both barrels when you finish this pathetic little speech.
MRS CARNELL: I am exceedingly happy to withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Carnell.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .