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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3781 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

we will have to support this motion to allow the sale of Totalcare"? It's a nonsense. (Extension of time granted.)

I thank members. This is not a principle that the Assembly has debated before, and if the Assembly takes this step why shouldn't it be limited to other areas of activity as well? Mr Berry has postulated, without any evidence whatsoever, that there is a plan to get rid of Totalcare. Why shouldn't he postulate the same about any other area of government, Actew, ACTTAB or anything else in the ACT government, and pass a similar motion? And if we have done it once, why wouldn't we do it in those cases as well, based apparently on the say - so of Mr Berry that there is some threat to Totalcare if we do not pass the motion?

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this is just stupidity. It is nonsense. I ask members not to do this. If they pass this motion it will potentially cause Totalcare to lose contracts. We cannot afford for that to happen. This is not a principle that the Assembly has embraced before. It has never done this before, and it shouldn't start to do it today.

MR CORBELL (4.42): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this is an important motion. It is important in the context of the government's continuing strategy of seeing government purely as a business to be performed in the marketplace like any other business. Not only is that philosophy fundamentally flawed; it also is one which does not reflect the broader aspirations of the Canberra community. Canberrans want government that provides services effectively and efficiently, certainly, but also in a way which is accountable and in which they feel they have ownership and control of them. Canberrans know that services that are contracted out, services which are privatised, run the real risk of losing a level of accountability they previously had and that it does not always result in better service delivery.

So what Mr Berry is saying today with his motion is that we are not convinced as an Assembly that this government should continue to transfer government functions to an organisation run along private sector business lines without the government coming to this place. That is what we are saying today.

The reason why we are saying that, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, is because we know that when a government shifts a function of government from a government department to an organisation like Totalcare we will see a diminution of public accountability and that in many respects the move is a precursor to eventual sale. No - one said it better than the architect of national competition policy, Professor Fred Hilmer. He said, first of all, that any government service is a possibility for privatisation. He left that door open. But then he said that prior to any privatisation it should be subject to a reform process.

Now, what does the reform process mean? The reform process means making it work like a private sector entity, like a private business. How do you achieve that in Canberra? Well, the way you achieve that is you take a function previously delivered by government and shift it into an organisation like Totalcare. You do that because Totalcare is required by law to operate like a private sector company. Then you can say to this place and to the broader community, "Well, they just run it like a private sector company anyway. Surely we should ask other private sector companies if they can do the same work that Totalcare currently does for us." Before you know it, it is not even run by the government any more; it is privatised. That is why Mr Berry has moved his motion

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