Page 1083 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007

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

oppose it on the ground that there is insufficient evidence that the sale of Rhodium, which is the aim of this motion by Mr Stanhope, will produce the best outcome for the ACT and for management of the fleet available to ACT government.

Perhaps it has been very convenient in a sense, though I do not think anyone would have welcomed it, that there has been so much evidence of lack of probity in the management of Rhodium in that it has provided a reason, an ostensible reason, for the sale of Rhodium. Nonetheless, I suspect that it was always, or has been for a little while, on the agenda; that the government intended to sell Rhodium and that it may have been uncomfortable about this territory-owned corporation for some time.

If indeed the issues that have been talked about in this Assembly and that the Auditor-General identified about the management of Rhodium are the reasons why the government wants to divest itself of Rhodium, I would like to hear those outlined—and I have not yet.

I am concerned, of course, that the proviso that would be necessary to ensure that any new owner continues to assist the ACT economy and society by sourcing vehicles locally is yet again one of those things that, if added to a tender, may be seen as contravening the will of the market. We know that is the case. We have just recently heard Mr Mulcahy arguing somewhat that way in relation to an earlier amendment.

We are moving into unknown territory with the sale of Rhodium. A number of employees are concerned about what their future will be under any new management structure. I believe the potential existed for the ACT government to make Rhodium as a territory-owned corporation one that worked well in every way for us. It was there, was not explored and now we will not know whether it was possible. So for those reasons I oppose this motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Training and Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2007

Debate resumed from 8 March 2007, on motion by Mr Barr:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.11): The opposition will be supporting the Training and Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment Bill, which effectively amalgamates the Vocational Education and Training Act 2003 and the Tertiary Accreditation and Registration Act into a new act.

The bill makes few substantial alterations to the existing state of law in this area except to remove reference to the Vocational Education and Training Authority, which as an advisory body was scrapped in the 2006 budget to make way for the Skills Commission. While the opposition support the notion of ensuring that we have ourselves entirely geared up to be responsive to skills shortages, we are still not entirely convinced of the merit of doing away with a range of bodies and supplanting

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