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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3147 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I do not mean by that that they should try to influence the outcomes. However, if the process is flawed, and if it seems as though they are going to get a flawed contract, are they going to sit there and let the contract be put in place, and then let the community wear the consequences? That is in no way a responsible approach from government.

I have not seen the documents, and I was not even aware that there was a potential problem until this debate began. However, Ms Tucker pointed out what she thought were some flaws in the process. In fact, her motion deals with what she perceives to be flaws: that the contract, in her view, needs to be more specific in terms of the principles and parameters of the assessment program, the quality issues to be included in the tender specification and matters of this kind.

If the contract is deficient in those matters, the government has to get it right, not simply shrug it off and say, "We cannot intervene in the contract process." We have seen some bodgie contracts let by the government in the past, and I, for one, do not think that the minister should stand aside and allow another contractual disaster to occur.

I think that Ms Tucker's proposition is right. What sort of a contract is it that does not state up front what services are to be delivered, what standards they are to be delivered at, and some criteria for assessing and evaluating the way the contract is progressing? If they are missing from this so-called contract, then they are major omissions.

Lest anybody think that I am just an old politician with no great expertise in this matter, I would say that I spent a good many years of my life, in a previous incarnation, letting and administering major contracts. As a result, I think I can claim to know something about the contracting process.

If the government is intending to let a contract that leaves the definition of all these matters to the contractor, they are giving the contractor a blank cheque. They cannot put a cap on the cost of this thing if they have not specified beforehand what is to be delivered, and that specification has to include the deliverables in terms of both quantity and quality. If the contract does not state those things it is a deficient contract, and I do not know how the minister can stand up and defend it, saying, "We cannot interfere in the process," if it is flawed to that degree.

No, Mr Speaker. The minister says, "We have taken advice from all these experts, all these specialists." Well, if those experts and specialists are outside the government and may gain by being involved in this contract, and we are putting ourselves in the hands of those experts and specialists, I say to the minister that he is putting himself into a position where he has again lost control of the costs. If we do not have people inside the administration who are capable of assessing and evaluating those propositions, then we are in the hands of the experts and the specialists, and we need more control over them than that.

He says, "We have a panel of assessors who evaluated this contract." But who are they? Are they public servants, working in the public interest, or are they contractors and consultants working in somebody else's interests? I do not know. He also said that he did not think we ought to have a working party or anybody evaluating this program, because they could not agree.

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