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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3138 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

there is one thing we have learned in the ACT since we introduced the purchaser-provider split, it is that this is a very important issue.

There is another point I would raise, and this is in the draft agreement. I think it is an interesting thing to look at. The draft agreement, at point 10.1, refers to conflict of interest. I imagine this is a standard clause that is in all contracts. It says:

The contractor warrants that, at the date of entering into this agreement, no conflict of interest exists or is likely to arise in the performance of the services and of its other obligations under this agreement.

It is interesting to reflect on whether the actual design of this request for tender document actually is inherently in breach of this clause. (Extension of time granted.) I think this whole tender could be in breach of this clause, because if a contractor has the opportunity to sell further information about the fitness or otherwise of a child or school population, depending on that contractor's own assessment of that fitness level, surely there is a conflict of interest if that contractor finds that the extra information and service is necessary. Perhaps Mr Stefaniak can respond to that question.

Another way one person in the community put it to me this morning was: doesn't this give the contractor the opportunity to burn the candle at both ends, receiving an unspecified government subsidy, and running a business out of the work?

I also noticed this morning, reading these documents again, that in the evaluation criteria the contractor is asked to explain under what circumstances related to the cost of the service they might ask for a variation to the tender price. Now what does that mean? Does it mean that, if the contractor does not make enough from the user-pays aspect, it will put up the price to government? You really have to wonder what is going on here.

What I am asking for in this motion is that the government withdraw this request for tender and involve the main stakeholders concerned with education and the area generally to thoughtfully develop a response to the issues related to fitness in school children.

Any tender document has to respect the need for quality indicators and statements of quality, and a holistic and integrated approach to health and fitness in school children, as well as fundamental principles of equity. There should also be clear evaluative mechanisms determined by this group. That group may have to be involved on a continuing basis in actually monitoring any program that is agreed to.

I understand that Mr Berry is going to be moving some amendments, to which he will speak and on which I will respond, about whether or not we can actually ask the government to withdraw this request for tender. My argument is that of course the government can do this if it so desires. If it is clear that a majority of members of this Assembly want to see this important work more carefully thought out, then I think it is quite within the capacity of the government to do this. However, Mr Berry has another idea about how this could be addressed, so I will listen to the debate on that and speak again.

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