Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 620 ..

some benefits for the ACT, and I am open-minded about that. What we want to do is understand what those benefits will be and ensure that that is explained in this Assembly before the process is taken up by the Government. That is why I will be supporting this motion.

Mr Connolly: We thought you were having a go at us.

MR MOORE: Of course I was having a go at you. Whenever I have an opportunity to have a go at either Labor or the Government I will do so, and that was a perfect opportunity with the ridiculous privatisation slogan you run, particularly Mr Berry. With that in mind, Mr Speaker, there are some serious issues that run a little deeper than that simple concept. We know that the Government is not talking about privatisation at all. In a situation where there is a privatisation of such public services I believe that government does lose control, and that is something I do have an ideological objection to.

However, there are some concerns in how this motion might be interpreted. For that reason I think it is important for me to run through my interpretation, so that the Government can understand, when they are considering the motion and the implications of such a motion, how they need to interpret it. The motion states:

That the Government must receive the support of the Assembly before taking any measures towards corporatisation of ACTION ...

I think “taking” can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted as finalising an action or it can be interpreted as meaning to begin a process. As far as I am concerned, on my interpretation, it is only the finalising of the process I am talking about. If it were interpreted in one sense, a literal sense, nobody could even draw up a proposal for measures for corporatisation and nobody could prepare legislation. I think that would be a silly interpretation of this motion. I do not think that is the intention of it. It is certainly not my intention in supporting it. I do not believe that it was the intention of the Greens in putting it up, and I see that they acknowledged that it was not their intention. It is about making sure that there is no finalisation of any proposal. I think that is clear from Ms Tucker's acknowledgment, and I would hope that Ms Horodny in her closing speech would also support that.

The other part of the motion that I think could be interpreted in a range of different ways is the last part, which reads:

... or giving approval to any other operators for the provision of regular scheduled public transport services within the ACT.

The words “other operators” could be taken in one of two ways. It could be other than ACTION or it could be other than those who are currently operating. I think that is something else that needs to be interpreted. In this case, I would also go for the broadest interpretation. I understand that there are a couple of bus services that run regular school services, which one could interpret in a narrow sense as scheduled public transport services. I would argue that we are not talking about interfering with the ones that are currently operating. We understand that they are currently operating and I do not think it is our intention to interfere with those.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .