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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3786 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

become a more profitable organisation. I must say that I was somewhat concerned at the responses to those questions because there didn't seem to be a forward plan, nor even the understanding that such a plan might be necessary. It is not an organisation that I see as having the potential for doing an Actew and returning a significant amount of money to the ACT consolidated revenue.

So I do not have an understanding of what assets, activities or services Mr Berry thinks might be in the minds of the government for transfer, or the purposes for which he thinks they might want to transfer them. Given my own understanding of Totalcare and how it operates, and what kind of an entity it is at the moment, I do not think there is much justification for any concern on Mr Berry's part at all.

I think, as Mr Moore suggested, that there are other ways of dealing with this. If it were to appear that the government had some plan to realise on the asset that is invested in Totalcare, although I am not too sure what it would realise as an operating entity, if there were genuine concerns based on real information that the government had such a course of action in mind, I think the Assembly could take appropriate steps to make sure that if that were to be done it should be done in a proper way, if it were to be done at all. I am not satisfied that the effect of this motion, if it were to pass, would be anything worthwhile. For that reason, and because of my doubts about it, I will not support the motion at this time.

MR BERRY (5.05), in reply: Mr Humphries said they had no plans about assets that might be disposed of, or privatisation. That has an ominous ring to it because I remember the former Chief Minister saying that the sale of Actew was not on the agenda before the last election. But it was not long after that that something happened. When Mr Humphries said he had no plans, I thought to myself, "That sets the alarm bells ringing." So, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that is one issue of concern that I think needs to be talked about.

Both Mr Moore and Mr Humphries came in here and argued that there was a long record of my putting faulty matters before this Assembly and that is why members ought to be cautious. I will give you two examples of where the government used the same old argument - that these particular proposals are faulty.

One was my move to restore the right to prosecute under the occupational health and safety legislation. That was argued to be faulty by the Attorney - General in a very dishonourable way. It was argued in a way that does not suit the standard usually set by his profession. Interestingly enough, that move got through with the support of this chamber. People have now been charged under the provisions which I put forward in this place.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, another one that I raise is the issue of the establishment of the independent Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner. That was said to be faulty. That was supported by this chamber and that instrumentality has been set up. I have no doubt that the government will be doing its darndest to try to demonstrate in some way that there was something wrong somewhere along the way with those issues.

Mr Moore: What about the cleaning industry long service leave bill?

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