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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3782 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

today - because we do not want to see that happen. We do not want to see a further diminution of community accountability for the delivery of services.

The Chief Minister made the point, ill - informed as it was, that he felt this would constrain Totalcare in its normal business activities. Well, that is patently false. It is patently false because the motion is quite clear and explicit. It says the Assembly "requires that no transfer of government assets, activities or services to Totalcare occur without prior approval of the Assembly".

The important word here is "transfer". Transfer from a government agency to Totalcare does not mean award a tender from an agency to Totalcare; it means to physically transfer that function, or that asset, or that service from a government agency to Totalcare so that instead of the government agency running it Totalcare runs it.

A tender is not about who runs it. It is about who delivers it. When we talk about lawnmowing in the city we all know that that has been tendered out in a number of respects to a private sector company, Excel. But who is still responsible for lawnmowing in Canberra? The Department of Urban Services. Even though they have a contractor, Excel or CityScape, who does the physical work, who is responsible for it? Who has responsibility for that function? The Department of Urban Services. So that is the difference, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. It is a fairly simple difference. This motion is not about not allowing Totalcare to bid for work from the government or the non - government sector, but it is about saying we will not want this government to shift any responsibility for the delivery of a service or to transfer any asset or activity to Totalcare without our approval. So the nonsense that the Chief Minister presented is just that, nonsense.

This motion does not restrict Totalcare in its business operations. What it does do is far more important. It says to the government that we are not prepared to continue to accept this backdoor, slowly creeping strategy towards the privatisation of government services, facilities, assets and activities. We will not allow the government to use a backdoor method to set up a government function so that it can be justified for privatisation down the track. That is what this motion is about. Every member in this place should be prepared to support it because it says once and for all that the government is going to have to justify it if it believes something should be run in Totalcare rather than being delivered by the government direct.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (4.50): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that might be the intention of the motion but that is not what the motion does.

Mr Berry: Oh, come on.

MR MOORE: I hear Mr Berry say, from outside the chamber, "Now, cut that out." Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there have been a number of occasions previously when the government has warned Mr Berry about the ramifications of a motion where the legislation -

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Moore, will you address your remarks to the chair?

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