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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (24 October) . . Page.. 1915 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

While the Opposition supports the introduction of the competition code, I must further express my concern at some of the comments in the Minister's introductory speech. He indicated that agency heads were to provide options for outsourcing. He used his speech to draw on the impetus he claims this Bill will give to the Government's so-called reform program. Outsourcing, like privatisation, has nothing to do with the Bill. It is a separate issue. In his speech, the Minister said that the competition policy will ensure that resources are allocated in an efficient way. He should not assume that outsourcing or other changes will automatically do that or that the outsourced function was inefficient in the first place. There is ample evidence to show that public enterprise can be very efficient and that private enterprise can be highly inefficient. The outcomes are due to management rather than the location of the enterprise in or out of one sector. When the only response to service costs is to cut services, at some point those services will be cut to such a degree that they become pointless. For example, a bus route that is poorly utilised will be used even less and subject to closure if the response is to cut services further.

There has been debate about the need for monitoring the results of this legislation to see what the effects of the change might be. Obviously, our Consumer Affairs Bureau is not established to handle such issues. As the legislation takes effect, we will need to be confident that consumers do not suffer adverse effects. If there are concerns, consumers must have clear and strong avenues to protect their interests. Consumers may no longer have access to such procedures as an approach to the Ombudsman, freedom of information, or even a complaint to a Minister or member. Let me give you an example of what may happen. I want to quote from a letter from the Griffin Centre, which I think all members received. This tells us of the problems that lie ahead. The letter reads:

On the 4 August, 1995 members of the Board met with the Chief Minister, Mrs Kate Carnell to discuss a number of matters of concern.

One of the matters discussed was a concessionary rate for electricity, water and sewerage for the Griffin Centre and other community facilities in the ACT.

The Chief Minister advised that ACTEW, as a corporate entity has responsibility for decisions relating to rates for electricity, water and sewerage and suggested that the Board -

that is, of the Griffin Centre -

made representations direct to ACTEW on this matter.

In reply ACTEW stated "While there may very well be some reasons of public policy for concessions, ACTEW is not, as a service provider, qualified to determine such matters. Instead ACTEW pays very substantial dividends to Government which, as an elected body, is best able to decide on community priorities and fund them accordingly".

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