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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3150 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As Mr Kaine said, there is a real problem if you have open-ended contracts. Because there are quantifiable performance indicators, Mr Stefaniak is claiming this is a good contract. The whole point of this debate, and the point I was making in my speech, was that there is more than quantity to be looked at here. In fact, if you actually are interested in that-and this government claims they are, and I quoted at length reports which support this government's position-you do not have a tender document that looks like this.

I hear Mr Stefaniak say that there is now a tender assessment group. I am glad, but the point is that group should have been brought in before this, so that your tender document and this program is informed by those groups' views. Those people are not happy with this process. I am glad they are involved now, but it is quite possibly going to be too late.

For example, my motion says "parameters and principles". Are you going to tell me that the Australian Education Union and the P&C council said they want user-pays in this program? Do you want to say that? I give you leave to speak here, though no-one will, I am sure. Is that what you are saying? The whole question of user-pays in what is meant to be a health program for all children in primary schools has not been addressed. You also did not respond to the inherent conflict of interest in the whole structure of this document.

As Mr Kaine said, you have contradicted yourself. You said, "We could not have a working panel like that, because they might not agree with each other," but you are happy to have a working panel to assess who gets the tender. Clearly, if you are afraid they will not agree while developing a tender process, you should be very afraid that they might not agree on who actually gets the tender. That is also totally inconsistent with the fact that you have set up many other panels over the years to look at important issues. I can think of one example, which was the working party on drug policy in schools. That is really quite an inconsistent argument to use.

You seem very, very horrified that we would consider intervening in any way in a tender process. You wonder, "How could we dare to be involved in a tender process, and why would we?" We would because the majority of members in this place are focused, I hope, on the community benefit. If we do not think community interest has been properly served in the development of the tender process, I am sorry if it causes extra expense for your department. I regret that, but you should have done the work properly in the first place.

Mr Stefaniak: I think you will find they have.

MS TUCKER: Mr Stefaniak raised the issue of children from overseas. You have a little loose thing in this document. Not, as I said, in the inconsistent request for tender, but in the draft agreement. On four lines you talk about, as I said, "children with special needs", whatever that means. Perhaps that means children from another culture. Perhaps that means you will be culturally sensitive in the delivery of this service. That is an important quality issue.

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