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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3787 ..

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, you have the call.

MR BERRY: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the cleaning industry long service leave bill was opposed in principle by this government because they said it was not necessary. It has proven to be necessary. It was supported by this chamber. It is now in place and will be providing services to cleaners notwithstanding.

Mr Smyth: Notwithstanding that it needs amendment; that it doesn't work.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Smyth, order, please. Mr Berry, address your remarks to the chair, please.

MR BERRY: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, if you would stop interfering and interrupting me I would get a chance to direct some remarks to somebody, even you.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

MR BERRY: The government goes on these searches for small amendments to try to prove a point. Of course, the government never, ever, has to come back in here and amend something it has done wrong!. No, not ever. Not ever. It never happens. They are never wrong - Bruce Stadium, the futsal slab, the Floriade fee, Feel the Power, the V8 car race. They are never wrong. They never get it wrong at all.

Mr Kaine asked me to draw into focus some issues that might be of concern. Let me say first of all in this debate that this is not about the privatisation of Totalcare. Let's wipe that off the agenda straightaway, and let's not be distracted by that argument. It is not part of this debate. This is about the transfer of ACT government assets. There has been a play on words. The motion hasn't got ACT in it, so it might mean the United States government, or the Russian government, or something like that that Totalcare is actively pursuing. This is about the transfer of ACT government assets, ACT government activities, or ACT government services to Totalcare. That is, the ownership and control of them to Totalcare. Do I have to explain that? I think that is pretty clear to everybody.

If the government seeks to be bloody - minded about this and try to pretend that this is something other than what it is, they will be reminded of it shortly thereafter. If they go out there and say, "No, this means that Totalcare cannot tender any more," or they rush off and get a tame legal opinion that says, "This means that Totalcare cannot tender any more for government work," well, they are misleading everybody concerned. No, this motion has nothing to do with the business activities that Totalcare is now involved in, and will continue to be involved in. I will say this to make it very clear: it is not intended to upset the business activities that Totalcare is normally involved in at all.

The wording of this motion is clear. No transfer of government assets - that is, buildings, vehicles, tools, et cetera - activities performed by the government currently, or services provided by the government - that is, not services that are provided by Totalcare. So this is not about preventing Totalcare from securing contracts. That has been a mischievous play on words designed to undermine a motion which the government really doesn't have an answer for.

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