Page 3080 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
but basically of all models—models that could be provided through community groups and through the private sector.
One of the things that we have added here, both Ms Hunter and I, in our comments is that we believe that a proportion of that $500,000 allocation should be allocated to fund the $250,000 in the budget submission that Carers ACT have put forward to have that examination, that full examination of models of housing for people with disability. I think this is particularly relevant.
One of the issues that were discussed through the hearings was the national disability insurance scheme, which is obviously going to have quite an impact on the way we deliver services to people with disability. The theory behind that too is that people then will be able to have more choice in terms of the sorts of services that they can access. That is why both Ms Hunter and I believe very strongly that this recommendation we have made is important.
I would note in relation to that that we felt that, given the expertise that Carers ACT had, there was sufficient justification under the Government Procurement Act 2001 to exempt this contract from tender or quotation processes and award it on a single-select basis and note that there are numerous examples of community organisations having funding allocated to them. For example, in 2010-11 there were 58 contracts awarded to the community sector. Thirty-one of these contracts exceeded $200,000 in value and were exempted from the requirement to seek public tenders. In 2011-12 there were four contracts awarded to the community sector and three of these contracts exceeded $200,000 in value and were exempt from the requirement to seek public tender.
So I think it is worth noting that this is not an unusual practice and that under the act this can actually be accommodated. And that is in relation, as I said, to the additional comments from Ms Hunter and me.
Going through the recommendations here, as I said, there are quite a lot of recommendations and obviously they are something we will draw on more fully in responding to the budget itself. I know other committee members will obviously look forward to seeing the government’s response to a number of these recommendations.
I will go to some of the health issues in particular, and one of the issues that have obviously come up was in relation to hepatitis C cases at the AMC. This was something that was discussed in the committee process. I note that Mr Coe and Mr Smyth did dissent from one of these recommendations, but recommendation 36 is that a needle and syringe program be trialled at the AMC to prevent further spread of blood-borne virus diseases. I hope this is something we will see the government act on. We would have liked to have seen some action on this before this time. We do think it is extremely important that we provide this. As we know and as was discussed in the committee process, it is about providing treatment as well. I think everyone recognises that. With any of these issues it is not just about providing treatment; it is also about prevention, and this is one part that has been recommended by a huge number of health groups, that this occur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video