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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (29 April) . . Page.. 165 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

In fact, I look forward to receiving Mr Berry's detailed methodology for the evaluation of jobs and Mr Corbell's methodology for the evaluation of social benefits. We are asking for that input, Mr Speaker. At the completion of each strategic review, the report will be publicly released and tabled in this Assembly, and therefore debated in this Assembly. This process will ensure that the Government is well placed to make informed decisions about the appropriate strategic policy direction for individual government business enterprises.

Further, the Assembly will have the benefit of a detailed and comprehensive report prepared by independent experts, rather than relying solely on the advice provided by the Government and the various government business enterprises themselves. Or worse, Mr Speaker, members may choose to sit on their hands, oppose everything and jump to ill-informed conclusions as per those opposite. I can guarantee that that would be a recipe for loss of service, loss of custom, loss of assets and loss of jobs. Under the arrangements I am proposing, the Territory as a whole will be much better informed as to the standing of individual government business enterprises.

I would also like to make clear the Government's position on privatisation. That is a word that causes some people - such as those opposite, I have to say - to react with what seems to be a conditioned reflex. But, Mr Speaker, the time has come to become more analytical and to focus on what is best for the people of Canberra. Understandably, privatisation is a major topic of debate in the face of the privatisations that have been undertaken or that are being contemplated to be undertaken elsewhere, particularly those in surrounding New South Wales, where the Government is being run by the Labor Party. Governments of different political persuasions are all going down this path; but those opposite have not asked themselves why.

Mr Speaker, of course, it is possible to give up an uncertain stream of financial distributions generated by government business enterprises to make certain reductions in debt or to fund major infrastructure works. But this Government is not about to embark on some "quick fix" solutions in pursuit of some ill-defined, short-term gains. It all comes down to what is in the best interests of the community. This is why this Government remains fully committed to delivering responsible financial outcomes. Actual ownership of government business enterprises may not matter, provided that prices are competitive, that services are of the right standard, and that there are adequate community safeguards in place. Of course, jobs are extremely important to this Government.

There are, however, major changes taking place in the marketplace that signal increased risk for many government business enterprises. The Government clearly needs to understand the inherent risks associated with owning any business in the face of rapidly changing markets. For instance, the Government and the community need to know whether a relatively small operation such as ACTTAB can continue to operate successfully in the wake of the privatisation of TABs interstate and other changes taking place in the gambling industry. We are all only too familiar with the former ACTTAB's failed attempt to respond to market changes through VITAB - something that cost the ACT dearly, Mr Speaker.

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