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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (24 October) . . Page.. 1914 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

In other ways, the effects on the ACT of the National Competition Policy Reform Bill will be not considerable but at this stage are still difficult to determine. Since the Trade Practices Act has always applied to the ACT, the impact of the new legislation on the ACT will be confined to the area of government business activity. First, let me make quite clear what this legislation does not do. It does not require a program of privatisation of government enterprise or of corporatisation. It does not encourage governments to privatise or corporatise. It does not provide a basis to argue for privatisation or corporatisation. The Minister appeared in his introductory speech to indicate that it did. The legislation is about competition. It has nothing to do with privatisation or corporatisation.

When the former Chief Minister debated this within COAG, she made this quite clear, as did other State leaders. Federal Minister Gear, in his speech to the Federal Parliament, said:

... privatisation and the introduction of competition are entirely separate decisions. It is possible, and in many cases clearly desirable, to introduce competition and to realise its economic benefits while retaining public ownership.

This legislation, and the agreement the current Chief Minister has signed, have nothing to say on the question of public or private ownership. In indicating the Opposition's support in principle for this Bill, I make it absolutely clear that the Government should never seek to argue that the Bill provides some form of backing for a program of privatisation, of corporatisation or of outsourcing. I say again that the issues are quite separate. Nor does this Bill have anything to do with the broad range of government activity - for example, with education, health, welfare and so on.

For some time, the Chief Minister's Department has been examining the ramifications on government activity once this legislation is passed. The Minter Ellison report was commissioned some time ago to develop that examination. I said that this Bill relates to government business activity, not just government business enterprises. The competition code will apply to ACTEW, Totalcare and certain other major areas of government business; but, further than that, it is likely to impact in a range of ways on a whole range of activity that is now to be scrutinised - such matters, for example, as pathology and public relations, land development, and environment protection services. There are legitimate concerns about the continuing provision of quality services to all consumers. What is and is not defined as business will need to be carefully clarified to ensure that those core services I mentioned are not adversely affected by new provisions.

The same concern must be expressed about that host of aspects of government business activity identified by the Minter Ellison report. Again, we expect that this community will require that there be a continued delivery of high-quality services. I expect that we all agree that there are many areas where competition should not be the overriding feature for the delivery of services. Access and equity considerations must come first. Some governments, and the Carnell Government appears to be one, are so obsessed with the bottom line that they think contracting out services, or outsourcing, is the answer to everything. That approach usually means a reduction in services.

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