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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2729 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the community would be better served if this government changed its attitude to the way it treats community organisations. At least let them independently represent the community interests that they were set up to serve. The government has set out from the day that it came into office to undermine the authority that these people had as representatives of community wishes in terms of social outcomes.

Undoubtedly, Mr Speaker, there is more than a little concern amongst these community organisations about the arrogance and thuggish behaviour which we have come to know exists with the Carnell government. There is no use in denying it any further.

MS TUCKER (12.06): On that issue, I would also support the concerns that have been raised by Labor. I have been communicating recently with two organisations on a particular issue-and I will not name them. They have said to me that, while they were supportive of the issue I was raising, it would not be in their interests to take a political position on it at that point in time because they had a perception that this would impact on the likelihood of their being funded. I certainly would not name them. Obviously you do not name them. So, if Mr Humphries is implying that I am not truthful here because I will not name them, then he can say that, but this is what I was told by two organisations in the last month.

I would also like to comment on what Mr Humphries said in his response to Mr Quinlan at one point, "What do you expect? Organisations like to ask for more money; they do not think they got enough." There is actually a really serious issue here about fair pricing of services. If Mr Humphries were to think back a little bit he will remember a report-I think it was More than the sum of its parts; from memory, it was an ACTCOSS/government joint report, but maybe not-in which an analysis was done on how you deal with the quantitative issues of services when you are developing contracts. It is about specification of services. The issue of fair pricing was a major item in that and in the follow-up document as well.

So what Mr Quinlan is referring to is the issue of fair pricing of services, and that is related to the issue of quality and service provision. And that is related to the fundamental question about how you write contracts for services, and that is related to the fundamental issue of the purchaser/provider split and the concerns that have come out in terms of how well this has been thought through by this government.

To its credit, the government has actually acknowledged that there are issues and there needs to be development in this area, and they have actually undertaken some work to look at it. So it is an inadequate response from Mr Humphries to just glibly say they always want more money, because there are some really serious issues here, which this government actually has acknowledged. I just want to remind members that this work has been done and it is an ongoing issue; the issue of fair pricing has not been resolved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered that Executive business be called on.

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