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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4084 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

look at, and it provides a precis of the Government's response. What the Government has submitted has been, I think, faithfully summarised and incorporated in the report, in the interests of balance.

I can also happily report to the Assembly that it seems that since this inquiry started the level of activity in abiding by the implementation recommendations and the assiduousness with which those recommendations are being implemented have heightened somewhat. I know that at least two more commissions were given to Mr Craig Johnston to introduce issues and a further report, and we have also had newsletters and the distribution of material.

In the overall context, I recommend that members interested in this topic read beyond the recommendations themselves. We tried to be relatively economical in the recommendations that were made - in fact, economical in the whole content of the report.

Recommendation 1, which reflects upon the way departments have gone about their role in introducing the purchaser-provider system, is that seminars be conducted to allow departmental officers to focus on the impact on the provider organisations. There is a considerable gap between the department and the provider organisations. In an inquiry such as this, it was disturbing to find that provider organisations wanted to be heard in camera in preference to being heard in a public hearing, because they feared retribution in terms of continuity of funding for the programs and support they provide to the community.

A couple of the recommendations ask for further explanation of some of the terms used by government in justifying the process of purchaser-provider. There are throwaway lines like "It enhances consumer sovereignty". We want to know what that means. It is not good enough just to use those terms. Having worked in this sector for some time, I cannot just off the top of my head see how "purchaser-provider" translates immediately into "have some impact upon consumer sovereignty". I am happy for the Government or the departments to explain that.

There are also claims that purchaser-provider will enhance efficiency and effectiveness and delivery of services. We rather thought that we might get a little bit more detail from government on the areas where they were seeking to find economies and efficiencies in a sector in which many people work very hard for not much intrinsic reward for what they do. I believe that they deserve the empathy that is implied in our first recommendation.

In talking to these organisations, there seemed to be a gap in their understanding of what government wanted. The Government and department made their submission. It included details of the various services that were delivered and details on whether they would be contestable or not. That was under the heading of the mapping exercise, but the mapping exercise is far from complete. For the majority, the jury was still out. We think priority should be given to that mapping exercise, which may result in a lot more of the programs remaining protected and the people who deliver them happily going about the good work that they do without the fear that is quite obvious now. If we are to

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