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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1624 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In its response the Government referred to the competitive tendering and contracting guidelines for use by the ACT Public Service. These guidelines basically enshrine the very notion that competition is the norm and that any exceptions must be proved. I would like to read something from this:

Remember also that no benefit can accrue to you by virtue of being government owned or having unfair or preferential access to other government facilities. Just as external providers have commercial rules to follow, so too will you, to ensure a level playing field for all competitors.

This is a major shift in the culture of the public sector. It is a shift from seeing the Government as a provider of services to the community to a set of businesses whose purpose is to provide an output to customers. Even so-called in-house competition, which is being implemented through the purchaser-provider model, imposes this level of competition into every aspect of government activity. (Extension of time granted) I would say that this is fairly blunt; not, as the committee recommended, a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of introducing competition. The committee recommended that competitive tendering and outsourcing be accompanied by a public interest test. The Government has responded by saying that this will be applied where appropriate. Who decides where it is appropriate?

As for the recommendations about community service obligations, there were a number of concerns raised about the process for developing community service obligations. I have to say that I think the whole concept of community service obligations is of great concern. For example, how do we assign monetary values to the non-commercial functions of government? This is of particular concern where many of the so-called benefits are less tangible and may not be able to be cashed out. But, once again, the horse has bolted, and CSOs are here to stay, at least until the next fad comes along. If there has been a public consultation for the development of CSOs, the organisations who came to speak to the committee certainly have not been involved. About the development of CSOs for ACTEW, I would like to remind the Government that it was ACTEW who said that they thought it was just for government to determine what their CSOs should be. I think it is quite serious that ACTEW was corporatised before these CSOs were made explicit, and a year after corporatisation ACTEW still does not know what they are.

Mr Speaker, the role of government is more than just the delivery of services in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. It has broader obligations in terms of access and equity, environmental protection, and also support for policy development and advocacy. All these roles will frequently mean the provision of uneconomic services, and that is why we have governments providing these services in the first place. In all this enthusiasm to emulate the private sector, I think it is worth remembering that even the private sector treats competition with caution. Do we really believe that BHP or Woolworths or News Ltd, or any other number of private sector firms, do not wield huge amounts of market power? But, suddenly, it is evil for governments to hold any market power.

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