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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3785 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Berry has particular concerns about the transfer of government assets to Totalcare. I have also a concern about the commercialisation of government services that is implied by this type of transfer. His motion to require the government to seek the prior approval of the Assembly for the transfer of assets to Totalcare seems an appropriate mechanism for allowing the Assembly to give more direct consideration to this issue.

In response to Mr Moore's argument for Mr Humphries' arguments that we have just heard, they are both crying foul because they are saying that passage of this motion will prevent the tendering processes that can occur. Mr Moore has just gone into some detail to describe a couple, in particular, from the hospital.

As with any debate in this place, if there is something unclear about a particular motion or legislation, it is the interpretation of it. To clarify what happens, whoever is there to clarify it or interpret it, whether it is a court or whoever, goes to the debate that occurred in this place by the members of the parliament who supported the legislation or motion. What has been made quite clear by Simon Corbell, and I understand it will be made quite clear by Wayne Berry - this is my understanding of this, and I want that on the record - is that this is not about tenders. That is absolutely not the intention of this motion. For that reason I will support it.

If Mr Moore and Mr Humphries are going to go away from this place and say, "You have just stopped tenders," that will make a farce of this whole process, because the person who put up this motion and the people who support it are saying that they understand this is not about tenders. So if the government says, "You just stopped a tendering process," they are just being bloody - minded and playing politics with it. That is their right, but it will be quite clear that that is what they are doing.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR KAINE (5.01): For the last couple of hours I have been trying to satisfy myself in my own mind as to what Mr Berry's motion means and to what it is directed. I am not certain of what the motivation is. The motion talks about no transfer of government assets, activities or services. I thought Mr Berry might give some examples of the sorts of assets, activities or services he might have in mind which the government might wish to transfer to Totalcare, and why he might think they would want to transfer them. Without that clarification I am still uncertain as to what the motion is about.

I thought it might be that Mr Berry is aware that certain assets or government functions might be transferred to Totalcare to make it more attractive as a privatisation proposition or to enhance its potential for privatisation in some way, but, frankly, I cannot think of one. It is not as though Totalcare is actually a saleable commodity. It has never exactly been a money raiser, a money spinner. It took some years after it was turned into a statutory authority to break even, and it has done very little but break even since.

In fact, at the Estimates Committee last year I asked the representatives from Totalcare what their plans were for turning themselves into a money - making entity, and whether they had a forward strategic plan through the implementation of which they would

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