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

None . . Page.. 614 ..

Ms Horodny also talked about the ideology, I suppose, of corporatisation. That gives me an opportunity to talk about corporatisation as well. Might I say that we are not the only government in the country that uses the word “corporatisation”. There seems to be a lack of understanding about the difference between corporatisation and privatisation. It is always thrown back to any conservative party or Liberal Party. As soon as the Liberal Party mentions the word “corporatisation”, the people opposite start talking about privatisation. It is very interesting how quiet those same people are when the word “corporatisation” is mentioned by people such as Paul Keating, Laurie Brereton, Bob Carr, Michael Egan and Wayne Goss. It seems to me that, if a Labor government corporatises, it is okay; but, if the Liberal Party does it, it is skull and crossbones stuff. We all know that the Federal Labor Party has gone one step further: It sold the Commonwealth Bank, for heaven's sake, and many other things. That seems to be okay. We do not have members opposite standing up and screeching when Mr Keating sells off the Commonwealth Bank.

I think it is important in this debate to talk very generally about corporatisation in words that people can understand. What is corporatisation? Very simply, corporatisation creates a business out of a bureaucracy. It allows the organisation to focus on improving customer service rather than on following bureaucratic processes. We are not corporatising for the sake of corporatising, because it happens to be the in word at the moment. It has been proven on most occasions that corporatising actually improves customer service, and it improves customer service because the service is provided at the time and place the customer wants to use it. For example, you will not have buses running round, as they do from time to time, with nobody on them; they might run along routes when people want to use them. That is one of the things we need to say about corporatisation.

A corporatised business continues to be owned by the Government. We are not saying that we are going to sell off anything. A corporatised business continues to be owned and controlled by the Government but is run along commercial lines. By being separated from the broader public service, the business is freed up from bureaucratic constraints and can compete more effectively. There is nothing wrong with competition. It happens all over the country, not just in the ACT. We are not coming out of left field. It is something that is occurring quite successfully all over the country. The place where it is not successful is Victoria, and it is not successful in Victoria because Jeff Kennett has gone a step further in certain respects and has privatised. It seems that when that happens - and it is not across the board - things go wrong.

We do not have a chainsaw in each hand and we are not talking about selling off the jewels. We are talking about a commonsense approach to providing a public transport service that satisfies the needs of the people who want to use it. The Government remains responsible for the strategic direction of the enterprise, including the community service obligations. You will find that in every corporatised body around the country there are very stringent and strict community service obligations in the legislation. That happens whether it is a Labor government that corporatises or a Liberal government. Corporatisation allows an ACT Government-owned business to compete freely and pursue opportunities beyond the ACT. For example, if there is a possibility of ACTION providing a service into Queanbeyan - we all know that Deane's Buslines, a private company, provides services into Canberra from Queanbeyan - what is wrong with

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