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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3777 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I say to the Assembly, Mr Deputy Speaker, in unambiguous terms, that there are no such plans. I can assure Mr Berry of that. Cunning or otherwise, there are no such plans. That being the case, what is the point of putting this restriction on Totalcare? It is not proposed for any other part of government. It doesn't affect Actew, ACTTAB, or any of the GBEs or any of the TOCs. It affects only Totalcare, and no doubt will be used, in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker, as ammunition for Mr Berry to go out after today and say, "The Assembly stopped the government's plans to privatise Totalcare. We have headed them off at the pass. We knew what they were up to, and the Assembly has moved to stop them."

Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact is that there are no such plans, and the purpose of this motion is, therefore, completely unclear. If it was just Mr Berry being hairy - chested and showing us that he is really in favour of protecting this valuable asset Totalcare, that he will anticipate the secret plans of the government by taking this step to somehow prevent the government doing what it is planning to do, it is not clear how this is supposed to occur. How is this supposed to stop the government from doing this anyway? It really isn't clear to me. But, okay; there is some secret plan which he has not told us about which he wants to anticipate by this motion. If that was all he was doing, simply firing a shot across the government's bows, there might be some point in the motion. I would concede that at a very great stretch.

But what this motion does is much less innocuous than that. What it does is restrict the flexibility that the government might otherwise have to deal with the business which is Totalcare in periods when the Assembly is not sitting. For example, Mr Moore might want to speak to this later in the debate, but Totalcare from time to time bids for the work of other agencies of government. Totalcare is a government business; it is a business enterprise. It goes out and it bids for work in the private sector and the public sector. It bids for work from agencies of the ACT government. On this motion, if Totalcare were to win a bid for government work, it would not be able to accept it until the government could come back to the Assembly and seek the approval of the Assembly for that to take place. Now, what is the point of that, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Let us suppose that Totalcare goes out and wins a contract to provide services to ACT Housing. That would be expressly excluded by the terms of this motion, would it not, Mr Berry?

Mr Berry: What was that?

MR HUMPHRIES: If Totalcare went out there and won a contract to provide services for ACT Housing, an agency of the ACT government, as I read your motion it would be prevented from doing that until the government came back to the Assembly and passed a motion to have approval for that to take place.

Mr Berry: Why would that be the case?

MR HUMPHRIES: Because, to answer your question, your motion says, "This Assembly requires that no transfer of government assets, activities or services to Totalcare occur -

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