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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1035 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

successful tenderers will now be required to deliver enhanced services and value in accordance with their contractual obligations. If the government and ACT Housing in particular had not pursued this approach, then there would have been a clear example of the government not being committed to the ongoing delivery of quality services and value for money to ACT taxpayers.

About three weeks ago, following the announcement of the outcome of the ACT Housing tender, I met with representatives of the successful tenderers to encourage them to strongly consider ensuring that those present Totalcare staff whose jobs were at risk by virtue of the loss of the contracts by Totalcare are considered for employment in the successful tenderers' ventures. They have, after all, considerable experience in the field in which those tenderers are now to operate. Meetings have been held between Totalcare and the two successful tenderers and I understand-this was certainly the gist of the undertakings to me-that many Totalcare staff will be exploring the opportunities the new tenderers will have on offer. With government support, Totalcare is also working with its staff on transition issues, and senior Totalcare staff have travelled to Sydney this week to explore opportunities for Totalcare staff there.

As I have said, there are two important elements about this motion. One is the question of commitment to Totalcare; the other is the question of commitment to quality services. It may be on occasions that there is some conflict between those requirements. I hope that that will be a phenomenon that occurs very rarely. But if it does occur, the obligation on the government is to ensure that ACT citizens receive value for money and are having quality services delivered to them across the obligations the government undertakes.

I believe our first obligation must be to the community. In saying that it is not therefore necessarily above the community, a commitment to particular government enterprises does not mean that there is any lack of commitment on the part of the government to Totalcare or indeed any other government activity.

I put on record today in this debate that the government is totally committed to assisting Totalcare to restructure its activities in such a way as to face the future with greater confidence than perhaps it has at the moment. Clearly the loss of a major contract and the threat of loss of employment at Totalcare come at a cost to morale of employees in Totalcare. I acknowledge that, and it is important that we work to relieve that.

We do not relieve it by cacooning government enterprises which are working in the marketplace. I distinguish between those things we do which are community services and the things we do which are basically commercial. We do not enhance our assets by protecting them from competition. If we are to expose them to competition, we are obliged to acknowledge the obligation that falls on us to work to lift the performance of such bodies to allow them to compete in these circumstances.

I am very pleased about the efforts made by Totalcare in the fields of the Williamsdale quarry and the Stericorp potential joint venture, because they demonstrates the capacity of Totalcare to focus on things that they can do well, where they can be competitive in every sense of the word and where they can provide safety and security for their employees into the long foreseeable future.

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