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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1016 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

allowed ideological administrations to place public sector agencies on a moving footpath-get on at corporatisation and fall off at privatisation. Of course, the Carnell/Humphries ideologues grabbed at it, just as their heroes Howard and, even before him, Margaret Thatcher did. It became a world trend, one that Australia took up a little behind the pace. It is notable that that trend is rapidly becoming discredited.

It is interesting that in California the government looks set to buy back the electricity transmission system it privatised less than five years ago. In New Zealand the Labour government is beginning to reverse the privatisation trend that that country set out on years ago. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is on record as saying that New Zealand's experiment in market fundamentalism has failed. The rush to privatise has thrown out of balance the economic and social priorities that governments have to address. This government, of course, says it is committed to paying more attention to social concerns, concerns that it quite clearly abandoned over the last five years, and naturally is found committed to again in this an election year, and even those claims are not the case with what it apparently wants to do with Totalcare.

Totalcare has a long history of providing quality services to the territory, and in an efficient manner that has returned profits and dividends; but the insistence on exposing the company to unfettered market forces when the company itself is constrained exposes it to the inevitable risk of failure. If Totalcare is to be a player in the market it has to be able to play on a level playing field. That was the mantra the corporatisers chanted when they sang their song of market efficiency.

The government cannot have it both ways. Totalcare prior to 1997 was making great headway in improving efficiency. It was paying its way. Since then, since clients were untied whilst Totalcare's own hands were tied, the wheels have started to fall off.

Some of the debate through questions and answers that we have heard in this place as a result of the decision that was taken to not grant to Totalcare the tender in relation to facilities and maintenance for ACT Housing has been interesting. We have had exposed in this place the extent to which Totalcare has achieved significant and creditable approval for its performance as the facilities manager or the manager of ACT Housing. There have been approval ratings of 99 per cent, and in some cases 100 per cent. There has been no concern with the standard of performance of Totalcare.

But we are aware that, despite the enormously good service that Totalcare has provided, over the last couple of years it has lost its outdoor maintenance contracts. It could not meet the requirements either to renew its hospital linen contracts, and now, as I have just said, it has lost a major contract to another government entity, namely, the ACT Housing contract-a contract that has been let to a Sydney company.

The purpose of this motion is to give the government a public opportunity to explain just what it is doing with Totalcare and exactly what its agenda is. What is the government's level of commitment to Totalcare? What commitment is the government prepared to make here today, as called upon by this motion, to detail its clear commitment to Totalcare and to Totalcare employees? That commitment needs to be made in light of promises made, I think, before the last election in relation to ACTEW.

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