Page 1851 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
SUPPLY BILL 1990-91
Debate resumed from 3 May 1990, on motion by Mr Duby:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (3.14): As Mr Duby pointed out when he introduced this Bill, it is purely an administrative piece of legislation which is designed to continue the funding of the ACT Government until the budget is passed. So it provides for some five months of such funding and, as is usual, there is no provision for new policy.
Mr Speaker, I wonder whether it is even necessary for this Government to produce a supply Bill, as it seems to me and to many other people that the real budget was handed down yesterday afternoon by the Government's property developer mates, in the form of the PRB report. It seems also that that is a budget strategy that is designed to destroy the provision of services in Canberra. I think we can expect future supply Bills under the Alliance Government to look totally different from the one that we have before us today. There will merely be a one-line appropriation, made out to "the ACT Department of Contract Management".
Mr Speaker, all the talk that we have heard of efficiency gains from contracting out and the Priorities Review Board has simply failed to take into account the most comprehensive study of contracting out that has ever been undertaken in Australia. That report, which I believe is called Breach of Contract, was recently released by the Evatt research centre. There is a very good reason why the PRB did not take it into account, and that is because it does not accord with the PRB's proposed sell-off of Canberra. That report found that contracting out, particularly of municipal services, is not the great success that it is made out to be. In many instances, it has been found to cost more, not less. It has also been found to involve more non-pecuniary interests.
Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I thought the subject for debate today was the Supply Bill, not the Priorities Review Board report, or the budget. The Supply Bill deals with only five months' worth of money.
MR SPEAKER: Your objection is overruled. Please proceed, Ms Follett.
MS FOLLETT: As I was saying, Mr Speaker, the report to which I referred found that contracting out, particularly of municipal services, is not the great success that it is often made out to be. As I have said, it has been found to cost more, and that does not even include the non-pecuniary costs of things like a reduced quality of service and reduced accountability.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .