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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2177 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the facts are that earlier this year, when I assumed the responsibility for this ministry, it was obvious to me that there were difficulties within ACTION. Unlike Mr Whitecross, the latter-day convert and latter-day transport expert, I do not consider myself to be an expert on transport; so, I commissioned an expert consultant to examine ACTION and tell me and the Government what was wrong with it. They did that. Now, with that report on the table, Mr Whitecross, with all of that information before him, becomes an expert on the subject which, three months ago, he knew nothing about. To come into this place now and claim to be an expert just shows how shallow Mr Whitecross is. He talks about all of the things that the Labor Party has focused on in ACTION over the last two years. Mr Speaker, we heard nothing about public transport from the Labor Party until February of this year, when I commissioned an inquiry to look into the matter to see whether there were some fundamental problems. Now they start crowing about their two-year record. I would be interested in hearing about their record before two years ago, when they were the Government and when they began the process which they now describe as running ACTION down. They started the process, not us.

Mr Speaker, there were one or two particular matters that Mr Whitecross referred to, both of which came out of the Graham report. He talks about the work practices. He says, "Why have the Liberals not done anything about these work practices?". Mr Speaker, it is a bit rich, since it was his Government that incorporated all of those work practices into ACTION in the first place. Then he says, "Why did the Liberal Party not do anything about them?". Unlike Mr Whitecross again, I am not an expert on transport matters; and it was not until Mr Graham noted this point as being one of several factors - not the factor - that the Government needs to look at that I became aware of them. We will look at them; we will address them over time. But, as I have pointed out before, there are a number of restrictive work practices. Each of them has been negotiated over many years into the conditions under which ACTION employees work, and each of them, I suggest, is going to take some time to negotiate out, because those negotiations will have to take place with the trade unions. It is not going to be done quickly. But we will address them, and we will do our best to negotiate them out, to the extent that they are constraining the efficiency and the effectiveness of ACTION.

Mr Whitecross says that the Government is blaming management. I have never blamed the management of ACTION for anything. This is another one of those fanciful fabrications that Mr Whitecross comes up with from time to time. He even went so far as to say that Mr Flutter was a scapegoat. Mr Flutter was not a scapegoat. I absolutely refute that suggestion. The problems in ACTION had not even been identified by Mr Graham when Mr Flutter left. I simply refute Mr Whitecross's assertion on this matter. There is no substance at all to it, and he would do better to address some of the real problems that the Government is facing and show a bipartisan approach, rather than the approach that he adopts at the moment.

I initiated an inquiry so that I could know what were the problems in ACTION. I have that report. I have given an indication to this Assembly that I intend to implement the recommendations. The Government has adopted a program to implement them.

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