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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1017 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We all remember, of course, the government's promise that the sale of ACTEW was not on its agenda. I think it is moot, having regard to this government's history in relation to its promises to public facilities such as ACTEW and its now blatantly breached promise in relation to ACTEW, namely, that it had no intention of selling ACTEW, that it do declare its commitment to Totalcare.

Having regard to the history of this government's actions and activities in relation to Totalcare, and its apparent lack of commitment to Totalcare and its continuing health and future, it would be appropriate that the government declare its position in relation to Totalcare. What is its level of commitment? Does it intend to provide a set of circumstances where Totalcare is dismembered bit by bit, so that we arrive at a situation where there really is nothing left but a very empty and hollow shell that it has no intention of maintaining?

The government also has a need today to express its commitment to the employees of Totalcare. The government needs to declare today whether or not it understands the insecurity that it has generated amongst Totalcare workers. I have received representations from people from Totalcare, and I am sure other members have. I hope the government has, and I hope the government is prepared to listen to the dreadful insecurity that has been generated as a result, in particular, of the failure of Totalcare to attract a significant ACT Housing contract, one which it has performed at the highest levels.

At every stage of its performance of the maintenance contract for ACT Housing, Totalcare and its management of that maintenance program has been accorded an approval recognition of 99 to 100 per cent. That was despite the efforts by the minister for housing to explain how it could be that Totalcare was not successful in that tendering process. He confused Totalcare's performance with his own performance, in effect, in terms of the Productivity Commission's view that there were significant gaps in clients' satisfaction with the performance of ACT Housing and client gaps of satisfaction in relation to the quality of ACT Housing itself, and the availability of housing and public trust housing administration in general.

It is interesting that the minister for health chose, quite deliberately, I think, to confuse the two levels of satisfaction with housing, namely, that of clients with ACT Housing and public trust housing in the ACT and the level of satisfaction of ACT Housing clients with Totalcare and Totalcare's performance of its obligations. It is an issue which is yet to be appropriately explained.

The one aspect which continues to be of grave concern is the number of people in Totalcare who are now facing redundancy. It is a significant number. Numbers between 70 and 100 are being mentioned as the number of Totalcare employees in the latest round who no longer will have a job once the housing maintenance contract is transferred to the new out-of-town tenderer. These are people who have given faithful service to the ACT as public sector employees. They have a right to know what their future is. Not just those now facing the chop as a result of the loss of this major tender but also those other ever dwindling number of employees of Totalcare must wonder whether or not there is any future at all in being employed by Totalcare.

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