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

None . . Page.. 913 ..

Members will appreciate that corporatisation is not any new phenomenon. Since 1983 the Federal Labor Government has corporatised or is in the process of corporatising OTC, the Office of Defence Production, AIDC, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the Government Aircraft Factories, the Federal Airports Corporation, Aussat, Australia Post and Telecom. Mr Speaker, these changes have not resulted in a cataclysm, as the members opposite would have the community believe is a natural consequence of corporatisation. These valuable community assets have been enhanced. In fact, these reforms have resulted in better performance by the corporatised body and hence a better return to the community. For example, the corporatisation of the Government Aircraft Factories resulted in an increase in sales of 24 per cent.

On a local level, corporatisation is not a radical or ideologically driven issue. Totalcare is a home-grown example of a government business enterprise that has successfully corporatised under this legislation. Totalcare was corporatised on 1 January 1992 by a Labor government, and within six months it had turned itself round and was recording a profit. It is estimated that since corporatisation Totalcare has saved $1.4m per annum for the taxpayer through improved efficiency, with no reduction in the quality of service.

The constant chant from the detractors of this reform, primarily the Labor ideologues, is: Why corporatise ACTEW when it is performing satisfactorily in its current form? It is a variation on the “If it ain't broke, why fix it?” claim. In the present regulatory environment ACTEW and other utilities enjoy a monopoly in their respective areas of operation. In this environment ACTEW has performed efficiently and responsibly. However, as of 1 July 1996, perhaps even 1 January 1996, barriers to competition will be removed. In this new environment ACTEW, unless corporatised, will not be in an optimum position to protect its market in the Territory and compete in other jurisdictions. In short, corporatisation is a commonsense response to a changing economic and regulatory climate.

Rather than face this challenge, Labor hopes against hope that the consequences of competition will pass us by and that a decision need not be made. This Government cannot adopt this irresponsible course of action, because of the impact of such a course of action upon the Canberra community. The harsh reality is that if ACTEW loses market share jobs may be at risk. For example - Mr Osborne quoted this example - if it were to lose a $10m contract, which is equivalent to the contract to service Parliament House, 20 to 30 jobs may be at risk. This is a risk that this Government cannot and will not accept. The Parliamentary Labor Party, in its response to this proposal, has shown itself to be the repository of the conservatives in this Assembly. The members opposite would prefer to ignore commercial reality if commercial reality conflicts with their outdated and outmoded ideological baggage.

The fact is that corporatisation will provide better value for money. With ACTEW’s asset base of $1.4 billion, taxpayers deserve a commercial return on that investment; and that can best be achieved by allowing the business to operate along commercial lines, thus becoming more competitive, while still maintaining its commitment to its community service obligations. These two objectives are not inconsistent. Corporatisation provides the best means of letting ACTEW reach its full potential as a vibrant player in the open market while still retaining ownership in the hands of the Territory.

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