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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 1492 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We have an acknowledgment in this report that maybe government does not know quite how to do that. This, of course, has been one of the main objections coming from the community about the way the implementation of service purchasing has been imposed on the institute. The issue of quality is very hard to describe. Another point in this executive summary comes under the heading "Appropriate introduction of contestability", which is down the line for the Institute of the Arts. It always is the next step with this particular ideology. The report states:

However, there are special features of human services in the not-for-profit sector which should be taken into account in deciding where contestability should be introduced.

We hope to see that applied here but we are not so certain it will happen. Another point is made under the heading "A staged approach". The report states:

The time frame for implementation of service purchasing should be realistic and allow the necessary building blocks to be put in to place in advance of change being introduced. Implementation should be staged over three years and guided by an inter-departmental working group. Ideally, the task of driving reform should be attached to a senior manager with grants management experience, seconded to work within Chief Minister's Department.

A staged approach to change will provide time for internal stakeholders (program staff across agencies) and external stakeholders (consumers and current and prospective providers) to develop relevant knowledge and awareness of the new environment, to be involved in decisions about key aspects of the reform process and to develop confidence in the new approach.

I think it is pretty clear the Institute of the Arts would have very little confidence in the new approach. In very short time they had to employ accountants to fulfil the commands from above, from this Government, to describe their services in the way that was required in a totally inappropriate timeframe. Another quote reads:

The Government was therefore of the view that the purchaser/provider model be implemented in a considered and managed way.

Sorry, that has not happened either. Key features of the review process were supposed to mean that the model "could be developed to avoid adhockery, inconsistencies and uncertainty". It needed to be "inclusive, both in respect to public sector program managers (potential purchasers) and non-government stakeholders (potential providers)". That is not happening. It was to be "predicated on a partnership with potential providers, especially as brokered by the ACT Council of Social Service". That is not happening. It was to be "sensitive to the special characteristics of the human services industry in the Territory". Sorry, that is not happening either. That is why I am pleased to see this whole issue referred to the Chief Minister's Portfolio Committee. I believe that it is something that has been manipulated and abused by this Government.

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