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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2517 ..

The committee remains concerned that the efficiencies and savings promised by the greater reliance on the private sector will break the chain of ministerial and public service accountability, undermine fairness and prevent the achievement of true value for money outcomes unless the government takes steps to reinforce these basic principles in the procedures it requires its public service to follow, and be seen to follow.

In closing, Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity of acknowledging my fellow committee members-you, Mr Speaker, and Mr Osborne-and your contributions to the inquiry. I also acknowledge and thank all those members of the ACT public service who gave very generously and patiently of their time, also members of the private sector and local community who made submissions and appeared before the committee to give evidence. The committee is also deeply indebted to its secretaries, in particular Mr James Catchpole and Ms Laura Rayner.

MR OSBORNE (11.53): Of the many inquiries that have been undertaken by committees of this Assembly, this inquiry could have been used by any member of the committee as a political football, given that the select committee was set up in the shadows of Bruce stadium redevelopment and the hospital implosion. Yet the committee, which includes a member of the government, presented a unanimous report. All of the recommendations are very good ones. A lot of credit should go to Mr Stanhope for the way he handled this very sensitive issue. The inquiry was an eye-opener for me on a number of issues. I enjoyed being made aware of what happens. I must admit I did come away a little bit more reassured, but obviously there are some deficiencies in the process. The one of greatest concern to me was the one Mr Stanhope mentioned: the issue of prequalification.

Overall, I think the inquiry was a very worthwhile process, one that was handled very well by different parties on the committee. I too would like to thank the three members of the secretariat for the great work they did.

MS TUCKER (11.55): I have not had time to read the whole report but, having had a look at the recommendations, I believe this inquiry was probably a very useful process and that the recommendations in this report, if accepted by government, will go a long way towards increasing accountability and fairness in procurement processes.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there may well still be another debate, one about whether or not we want to continue to outsource so much of the activities of government. The federal Auditor-General has made comments about costs and benefits, criticising the lack of analysis of cost effectiveness by governments of various persuasions that have pursued the path of contracting, outsourcing and so on. In the Estimates Committee when I was first elected, I asked our Auditor-General whether a cost-benefit analysis had been done of the purchase/provider split and the general concept of outsourcing then being considered by the government, and his answer was: "No, there has not, but it is a good question and there should be such an analysis." The federal Auditor-General is now questioning whether outsourcing is effective as governments are claiming.

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