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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2065 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I know that Mr Thurston has spent a good deal of his time and energy and professional skills on progressing the Graham report. I believe that, as the Leader of the Opposition says, a great deal of progress has been made in that. To put on it a time limit of 14 months - even if there had been 14 months of negotiations - and say, "We have been at it for 14 months; that is it; we are going to go and do something else", is hardly a reasonable response. There is still a process that I think the community would expect the Minister to go through. There is no doubt that the TWU and the other unions involved still believe that there is a process that should be gone through. I think that is the fact of the matter.

At the end of the day, however, after the whole negotiating process has concluded, if, in an attempt to deliver the bus service that the people want at a price that they can afford, the Government still is of the view that it has to take a different course of action - privatise, contract out, do something - that is a legitimate decision on the part of the Government. But it has to make sure that everybody involved understands the justification for it; why they are going in that direction. That is, I think, the missing link in this discussion today.

The Minister seems to have become frustrated with the negotiating process and has said, "We have had enough. Fourteen months is enough. The unions are being awkward. We are going to contract the service out". I do not believe that is enough justification. As I say, if the Minister finally gets to the point where he believes, and the Government is firmly of the belief, that that is the only way to go, then there is still the consultation and negotiating process to be gone through - not to simply announce, "We have advertised in next Saturday's paper to contract out the driving services", or any other aspect of ACTION. I am not necessarily convinced that contracting out the driving only is the best solution. What other options did the Minister consider? He has not told us. Are there any other options that he has considered?

Until I know the answers to those questions, I am not prepared to give any precipitate action on the Government's part the tick. That is why, Mr Speaker, I support the motion put forward by Ms Tucker, that at the end of the day, if the Government has gone through a logical process to arrive at a decision and can justify it and if the Government can set the details out on the table and explain to us and to the community what they want to do and why they want to do it, then I will listen to that. But I want to hear it. I want to hear the argument and I want to hear the detail before the Minister comes up with a fait accompli and says, "This is the way we are going to go. This is the way we are going to do it. No further discussion; no further debate; all over and done".

So I support Ms Tucker's motion. I have some reservations. I think that Mr Hargreaves, at the end of the day, was seeking to get to the same point, but I think in some elements of his motion he has gone a bit further than I could accept as being reasonable. It was like the curate's egg, Mr Speaker. There were some parts of it that were well done. I certainly support the very simple proposition put forward by Ms Tucker, that this place needs to be fully informed before the Government goes ahead with any action so that we can be satisfied that what it is proposing to do has been justified and is the right way to go.

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