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

None . . Page.. 622 ..

I heard Ms Horodny say that she does not wish the Government to stop preparing plans, only that it has to put those plans before the Assembly prior to taking decisions that will change the way in which ACTION operates. I think that is a welcome progression. We had a debate about Namadgi yesterday and we will have another one about it this afternoon. These sorts of things will happen from time to time, but I repeat that it is important to be able to put things on the table and talk about them. There are very few, if any, areas of government policy in this country that are not subject to serious questioning and review at this present time. We have to accept that that is the spirit in which our nation is moving and we have to be prepared to move and make decisions in that environment. One of the consequences of this, of course, is that, as other States rationalise services, as they provide for lower costs of providing those services and as they make decisions about the way in which these things are operated on a more efficient basis, in many cases the cost of providing services goes down and the platform on which the ACT's funding is measured through processes such as the Commonwealth Grants Commission lowers as well. So, rather than having a defined gap that the ACT has to bridge between what it has been receiving and what it would receive under State-type funding, that bridge is having to get larger and larger as the gap widens. If we do not make decisions towards micro-economic reform and other States and Territories do, that certainly is a great risk we face.

Let me say quickly what it is that we see as being the essence of corporatisation in ACTION's case. First of all, it is not innovative and it is not different. ACTION's corporatisation is in line with changes towards public transport structures that are occurring all over this country, indeed all over the world. It is part of a national transport reform program that every jurisdiction, in some form or another, is engaging in. For us not to do something along these lines will put us at odds with colleagues in other States. That might not be a reason to do it, but it is a fact that we need to be aware of. Most States are adopting this very model of corporatising their public transport systems, or components of them, as a way of dealing with what have been notoriously inefficient and ineffective deliverers of services to the people of their States.

We know that we cannot proceed to make these changes without extensive consultation with staff, with unions and with management in these areas, and we must work towards building a consensus about where we go with this kind of service. It will not be easy, I must admit, in the case particularly of organisations representing the industrial interests of their members. We have been told very clearly that that is going to be a sticking point, but we will be working very hard to try to achieve it. We will also try to explain the experiences and build on the experiences of other jurisdictions, so that when we make a decision we have learnt from whatever mistakes might have been made by other places in Australia.

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