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

None . . Page.. 658 ..

The concept that Mr Humphries is looking at is what I think is normally referred to as outsourcing, in the current jargon of the particularly dry economists. Mr Speaker, I think that outsourcing does have a role to play in a number of places in the work of governments. However, when it comes to Namadgi National Park, I do not think that it is acceptable. We have seen no reasons at all yet to consider taking such drastic action. If Mr Humphries still really believes that we have a financial problem in the way the park is managed, then I think it is appropriate for us to look at where savings might be made, as it is always appropriate for governments to look at where savings might be made in management.

That leads me into the original suggestion and Mr Humphries's response at question time yesterday about having two options with ideas. One of them is to float an idea by flying a kite. The other is to carefully develop an idea until it is complete and then present it. I agree that in some ways he has a problem whichever way he goes. If you fly a kite, then people say that the idea is not fully developed, you have not consulted and so on. On the other hand, if you fully develop an idea and start to explore it and it gets out, then everybody asks why you are operating in a secretive way.

It is perfectly reasonable - I have no criticism - for Mr Humphries to fly a kite, to float this idea. At the same time, if you float an idea and the rest of us find that concept unacceptable, stupid or entirely inappropriate, then that is what we are going to say. If it worries us enough, then we are going to say, “You floated the idea. Understand that the trail you are following is simply not acceptable”. If you still believe that what you say is the best way and if you are able to convince members of the Assembly that that is the case, then continue your negotiations with the National Parks and Wildlife Service if you like. On my reading of Mr Berry’s foreshadowed motion, there is nothing to stop you doing that, provided you do not hand the park over to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and say that they can manage the service that we are currently operating in the park, even if they can do it for half the cost and can deliver an excellent service. After that, come back to us and talk about it and perhaps we will consider it. It may well be that even under those circumstances we say, “No; we want our own public servants to do it because we want full control of our national park and we want you, as Minister, to answer for how well that national park is looked after. We want you to answer if there is a problem with the management”.

Earlier in my speech I indicated that I was not aware of any problems with the management of Namadgi National Park over the last three years, but I now recall - and I would hate to mislead the Assembly in any way - some problems associated with a car park near the Aboriginal rock paintings.

Mr Wood: That was Urban Services, which came in.

MR MOORE: Mr Wood interjects that it was a problem with the way the matter had been carried out by Urban Services. Nevertheless, the management of that issue was relevant to the management of the national park, and we held the Minister accountable.

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