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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2322 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I think this urban services budget is extremely valuable. I believe that the treatment of the problem of roads is excellent and I hope that the Assembly will support it.

MR BERRY (9.17): Just one comment in relation to the joint ventures that Mr Humphries seemed needled by. If it were not for the lowered land values caused by the slump in the ACT, created by you and the Howard government when you got stuck into the respective public services, you might not have had the difficulties that you had in Harcourt Hill because land prices plummeted as a result of your activities.

I am pleased Mr Humphries moved his amendment tonight because it reminds me of the impossible management of WorkCover by this government, and the political interference that occurred. It needs to be recorded at budget time that nobody could have confidence in a government which created the atmosphere of political interference in that very important agency over all of the years it has been in office. We've seen this from the days when staff from the minister's office interfered in the operations of that agency, to the days when we heard criticism from the coroner about high-level public service attempts to interfere in the operation of WorkCover inspectors who were dealing with, as it turned out, the tragic hospital implosion and tried to get them off the site because they could be an embarrassment. If I was the minister, I would be extremely embarrassed every time WorkCover was mentioned.

I hope that the government is able to cope with a new and independent WorkCover, which has been the creation of this Assembly and which, if left to its own devices and properly resourced, should never fall into that trap again. It has been another achievement of this place that we have been able to take the agenda from the government and put in place an appropriate model for WorkCover, to prevent those levels of political interference occurring in this important agency in the future.

Nowhere else in this country would a minister survive the sort of activity that occurred in that first instance, when WorkCover inspectors were interfered with by a staffer from the minister's office. I can't imagine how a chief minister or a head of government would survive anywhere else where senior public servants had attempted to interfere in the judgment of WorkCover either.

Enough on WorkCover. There has been much debate about the issue. We wish it well, and trust that it will travel well. The amendments that deal with that issue will, of course, be supported and they will ensure the independence of WorkCover now as an independent department acting on its own initiative, one would hope.

Another issue I want to raise in relation to this department is this sort of fundamentalist zeal with which the minister has dealt with the issues of privatisation and outsourcing. Many commentators have criticised the loss of expertise that is occurring in government because of this fundamentalism, which is affecting governments, particularly conservative governments, throughout this country. This government can't escape that either, and I think the tragic hospital implosion is an example of how the Kate and Gary show has let us down in this regard.

How many engineers have been sent on their way by this government? How many experienced public servants who know about proper contracting arrangements, and perhaps could have taken action that might have prevented that tragic outcome, have

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