Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3157 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
They advise me that they are determining exactly how many agencies are affected; to what extent; and then determining what level of additional resources is required to ensure that levels of service delivery are not adversely affected. I think that is an answer you will find very consistent with the one that was given by the Chief Minister yesterday.
MR WOOD: I would certainly expect it to be. Part of the prompting for the question is that, when the SACS award was increased some time ago, it seemed not to work through very easily to agencies, and it is still very problematic how much assistance was actually received by agencies. Can I have your assurance that this is of the highest importance and will be acted upon before the election, for example?
MR MOORE: Can I say to Mr Wood that our purchasing contracts work in this way: we're purchasing a particular set of services from particular agencies. The responsibility for SACS awards and all those things is, indeed, their responsibility. However, when you are making that purchase, you have to negotiate carefully and make allowances for those things; and it is done in a two-way street. It is not just a simple: I walk into a shop, I give you some money, you give me 55 widgets.
What we are interested in doing is making sure there is a proper negotiation that takes into account the fact that the Industrial Relations Commission has followed through the three awards-the Social and Community Services Award, the Community and Aged Care Services Award and the Community Services Home Care Award. We refer to those three.
Mr Wood: Have you got a number of contracts coming up right now?
MR MOORE: The department has been in negotiation in the normal way right across the whole range at this time of year; once the budget is passed, the department then goes into the process of purchasing services from a wide range of people. What we won't do is simply say, "Okay, if you tell me the SACS award is going to cost an extra $50,000, here is the $50,000." We actually go into a negotiation about how services are delivered.
It may well be that if another service deliverer is able to offer that at a lower price we would purchase that service from there. Why would we do that, Mr Wood? The reason we would do it is: if we can get a service from somebody else at a lower price, provided it is as good a service, it means that we have more money to purchase more services. We do not take out money from the sector; the whole purpose of the exercise is to deliver the best possible services to the people who need those services. That is where the focus will be.
It is not a black and white situation. I want you to understand that we are working to try to deal with the SACS award and to recognise that people are dealing with that. It is not just a simple: "Here's the extra money for you."
Mr Wood: It does sound like the cheapest price prevails, does it not?
MR
MOORE: Mr Speaker, just before I sit down, I will say that I hear an interjection from Mr Wood that goes something to this effect: "You just go for the cheapest price available." To be fair to him, it sounds a bit like: "You go for the cheapest price
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .