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

None . . Page.. 623 ..

It is important to note that what we are talking about here is retaining ownership and ultimately control of our public transport system. No-one is talking about selling buses directly to other organisations or private companies; no-one is talking about ceding control of the way in which our public transport system delivers the services. We would be able, under this model, to set fares, for example. We would insist on being able to set standards of service and routes. There is no question of a new operator being told, “You have Belconnen”, and him running off and then cutting it back to three or four profitable routes and forgetting about the rest of Belconnen. We, as the Government, would be able to say, “No; we have set certain standards. You deliver these services to these people at this cost. You provide that service and we pay you for that service”.

The reason that corporatisation is important in this regard is that it introduces an element of competition. Mr De Domenico went through a list of the organisations the Federal Government is corporatising and has corporatised since 1983. It is interesting, if you take an example such as Telecom, that what has been important in the corporatisation of Telecom has been the introduction of competition in its structures. Think back to five or so years ago when we did not have a corporatised Telecom and there was no competition in the market. Telecom was an appallingly inefficient service to the people of this country. Today we have competition, costs of calls have fallen and the range of services has increased enormously. It is in every sense of the word a step in the right direction. We think the principle of applying competition and a corporate model for these organisations to operate in is very important. You cannot introduce competition if the body you are competing with is not operating in a corporate environment. That is why you have to have corporatisation of the body in order for it to do that job efficiently in that marketplace.

Ms McRae: Nonsense!

MR HUMPHRIES: Those opposite say “Nonsense”, but I remind them that their Federal colleagues and their colleagues in both New South Wales and Queensland are going down this path. They have argued that there needs to be this model to be able to work this way. Queensland, for example, has corporatised such things as Suncorp, regional electricity authorities, port authorities, gas pipeline authorities, the TAB and their major public transport system, Queensland Rail. They are doing all of those things. With respect, the ideology that is coming from those opposite is that it cannot be done with corporatisation. Please be open-minded about this. Do not say, “Our policy says no corporatisation; therefore it will not happen”. We are saying to you: Be open-minded about how we might achieve this with corporatisation, as your colleagues in other States are doing at the moment.

Mr Berry: It is the apples and bananas argument, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: Why all ACT public services are apples and those in every other jurisdiction in this country are bananas I do not know. I look forward to having it explained to me during the substantive debate. Those are the issues, Mr Speaker. We have a challenge ahead of us - not just this Government, but everybody in this community.

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