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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (22 May) . . Page.. 1619 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Business, Employment and Tourism) (3.15): Mr Speaker, in presenting the Government's response to the report, I noted that, although the committee was established to inquire into and report on the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995, its report addressed many issues not directly related to the Bill or to the national competition policy and its implementation. This included its examination of and recommendations on such issues as community service obligations. Nine recommendations were made by the committee, including the recommendation that the Assembly enact the Bill. That recommendation is obviously welcomed by the Government, and I congratulate the committee on recognising the necessity and value of this legislation.

Many of the remaining recommendations related to the processes for enabling the Assembly and the community to scrutinise or comment upon the implementation of competition policy reforms and the development and delivery of community service obligations. Government initiatives, such as the financial management reforms still to be debated and finalised, annual reporting by agencies, and the customer commitment program, together with specific reporting commitments in the competition policy agreements, already provide an adequate level of public and Assembly scrutiny. The Government believes that the combination of these mechanisms, together with established consultative forums and advisory groups, provide sufficient opportunity for public scrutiny and input. No new competition policy- or community service obligation-specific consultative mechanisms are therefore required.

MR WOOD (3.17): Mr Speaker, broadly, the emphasis on competition outlined in this Bill is supported. It is claimed that it will bring efficiencies and lower costs to consumers and assist both national and local economies. The Opposition accepts the Bill on those grounds. Notwithstanding that, there are significant concerns about the delivery of services. It is our view that the aim of the Government should not be just to maintain the services at the existing level, but to use the efficiencies, should they be delivered - and I expect that they will be - to enhance the services delivered to the ACT community. If this is the case, there will be a clear benefit to the consumers through that combination of lower costs and improved services.

I believe that the select committee report was well done. It examined, I believe, very effectively and comprehensively, the impact of this legislation and came forward with sound recommendations. It indicated, as I have seen elsewhere, the likely areas of government business to be affected. They are indeed very wide ranging. The Bill relates to government business activity, not just to business enterprises. Therefore, not only will ACTEW, Totalcare and such organisations be impacted upon, but a whole range of activity will be affected. The Analytical Laboratory, the Pathology Service, ACT Milk, ACT Landscape, ACT Capital Works, EPIC and Bruce Stadium are just a few that have been outlined.

It is important to note that this Bill does not include core service areas such as health, education, welfare, employment and so on. Some components of the departments running those may be affected, but those core services are still required to be delivered. It is important to note that the Bill does not restrict the duty of government to deliver services. It is clear that a government's entitlement to deliver a public service at a cost

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