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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2413 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

What happened was that, for a multitude of reasons, the questioning process got delayed and we did not recall at all. I think the process was poorer for us not being able to do that. I suspect there were a number of reasons why that was the case-I might address a couple of those a little later.

One of the areas where we did sort of diverge was recommendation No 17, which talks about briefings for the impact of wage decisions on the territory's finances. There were two issues there. One was trying to extract from the government the number of dollars it had been setting aside for wage increases. Certainly the majority of members, if my memory serves me correctly-I am happy to be corrected-agreed that any revelation along those lines would jeopardise any wage case negotiations.

This recommendation is that, when a wage case decision is concluded, members of this Assembly having some concern about its impact on the budget can receive briefings on the matter. I have no problem with that, in general terms. I think one could count on the heel of one's foot the number of members who would want such briefings. I do not think there are too many of them, but it is nice to have it. I must say that, in my experience in opposition, every time I ever asked for a briefing on any subject at all, in saying that I would keep that confidence, it was given. I see no reason why this government ought not to honour the same sort of approach because, at the end of the day, it is all based on trust. Refusal of such briefings indicates a distinct lack of trust. That would not be a good precedent to set.

Recommendation No 19 talks about the ICRC looking into Totalcare's operations, to make sure they are consistent with national competition policy guidelines. There are two issues on this one. Firstly, there is no need for anybody, under the guise of the ACCC's charter, to look into anything, if there is no public benefit to come out of it.

If people want to use the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission to determine whether there is a public benefit, and therefore whether we should change the legislation to enable open competition, I would mention two things: I am not aware of legislation which bars the private sector from competing for contracts that Totalcare undertakes-quite the opposite. Indeed, Mr Speaker, when I was employed as a public servant, I can remember the horrors at the thought that Totalcare's operations would be opened up to the private sector. I thought, "Oh dear! What's going to happen?"

Then I realised that the services at that time-around 1994, 1995 and 1996-left a lot to be desired and cost an absolute fortune. So, in hindsight, the introduction of the private sector into that was probably not a bad move. But that has already been done-so I do not know why we would need to do it.

The other thing is the track record at the moment. We are looking into changing legislation to remove monopolies from the ACT. Monopolies such as those in the milk industry, for example, leave an awful lot to be desired.

What happened in the milk industry is that the prices went up and 600 kids lost their jobs. All I can say is congratulations to the guru who thought that one up! I think we ought to be having a good, hard, look at the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission itself, because I have to express, in this chamber, a distinct lack of

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