Mr HATTON - 1995-10-17
Mr HATTON (Education and Training): Mr Speaker, on 12 October, the member for Nhulunbuy asked a series of questions relating to the Department of Education's procurement of wheelchairs in 1992. I have sought information from the Department of Education and I am in a position to provide the House with this information as advised to me.
The first question was: `Is there any documentary evidence in his department to support the member for Leanyer's statement that a number of schools had made direct approaches to the department for wheelchair resources?' I am advised that there are no written requests. As stated in a letter from the department to the Public Accounts Committee on 24 April 1995, there were no written requests for wheelchairs prior to the procurement in question. I am advised further that a number of schools had made direct approaches to the department for wheelchairs, but they were not in writing.
The second question related to which schools made the requests. That question becomes redundant because of the first answer.
Mr Bailey: If a number made them and officers can tell you that, they should be able to tell you which ones made direct requests. Otherwise, they are making it up.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: We are referring specifically to documentary evidence of requests.
The third question was: `What documentary evidence exists in his department to identify which students needed wheelchairs prior to the purchase?' Such documentation was not
Page 892
required. I am advised that the department knew that there were students who needed wheelchairs and that it always provided them to those students who required them on an ongoing basis. Specialist departmental staff in student services areas monitor the needs of students on a regular basis and assess their need for wheelchairs. These wheelchairs were not purchased simply for special students. The wheelchairs which were purchased were principally for use both by specialist staff and mainstream staff on an ad hoc, as required basis - for example, if a student was unable temporarily to walk.
The fourth question was: `What documentary evidence exists that forms the basis for assessments of which schools should receive wheelchairs?' The member for Leanyer said that the wheelchairs were distributed to those schools that were assessed as having a need for them. I am advised that specialist staff were aware of which schools would derive the most benefit from the chairs and they were distributed accordingly. Such an assessment does not necessarily imply or require documentation. I can advise that the 28 wheelchairs were shared among as many schools as possible. Each of the 3 large special schools received 3 wheelchairs, Kintore Street Special School received 2 wheelchairs, 12 other government schools across the Territory received 1 wheelchair each and the Catholic education system received 5 wheelchairs. These schools were those which were considered most likely to benefit from having the wheelchairs.
The first part of the fifth question was: `Finally, was a certificate of exemption completed for this purchase?' A certificate of exemption was not completed at the time of the procurement. It was authorised as soon as the omission was noted. It was not forwarded to the Supply and Tender Board. This was an administrative oversight.
The second part of the fifth question was: `If so, what documentary evidence was provided to support it as was required by the Supply and Tender Board?' Since it was not referred to the Supply and Tender Board, none was supplied. I understand that there was no documentary evidence to support the procurement as the arrangements had not been made for a certificate of exemption to be issued prior to the purchase. I referred earlier to the subsequent process of authorisation of a certificate of exemption which, I am advised, was in accordance with the delegated authority of the relevant authorising officer. The issues associated with the Supply and Tender Board relate to an administrative oversight and an administrative error.
Page 893
The first question was: `Is there any documentary evidence in his department to support the member for Leanyer's statement that a number of schools had made direct approaches to the department for wheelchair resources?' I am advised that there are no written requests. As stated in a letter from the department to the Public Accounts Committee on 24 April 1995, there were no written requests for wheelchairs prior to the procurement in question. I am advised further that a number of schools had made direct approaches to the department for wheelchairs, but they were not in writing.
The second question related to which schools made the requests. That question becomes redundant because of the first answer.
Mr Bailey: If a number made them and officers can tell you that, they should be able to tell you which ones made direct requests. Otherwise, they are making it up.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: We are referring specifically to documentary evidence of requests.
The third question was: `What documentary evidence exists in his department to identify which students needed wheelchairs prior to the purchase?' Such documentation was not
Page 892
required. I am advised that the department knew that there were students who needed wheelchairs and that it always provided them to those students who required them on an ongoing basis. Specialist departmental staff in student services areas monitor the needs of students on a regular basis and assess their need for wheelchairs. These wheelchairs were not purchased simply for special students. The wheelchairs which were purchased were principally for use both by specialist staff and mainstream staff on an ad hoc, as required basis - for example, if a student was unable temporarily to walk.
The fourth question was: `What documentary evidence exists that forms the basis for assessments of which schools should receive wheelchairs?' The member for Leanyer said that the wheelchairs were distributed to those schools that were assessed as having a need for them. I am advised that specialist staff were aware of which schools would derive the most benefit from the chairs and they were distributed accordingly. Such an assessment does not necessarily imply or require documentation. I can advise that the 28 wheelchairs were shared among as many schools as possible. Each of the 3 large special schools received 3 wheelchairs, Kintore Street Special School received 2 wheelchairs, 12 other government schools across the Territory received 1 wheelchair each and the Catholic education system received 5 wheelchairs. These schools were those which were considered most likely to benefit from having the wheelchairs.
The first part of the fifth question was: `Finally, was a certificate of exemption completed for this purchase?' A certificate of exemption was not completed at the time of the procurement. It was authorised as soon as the omission was noted. It was not forwarded to the Supply and Tender Board. This was an administrative oversight.
The second part of the fifth question was: `If so, what documentary evidence was provided to support it as was required by the Supply and Tender Board?' Since it was not referred to the Supply and Tender Board, none was supplied. I understand that there was no documentary evidence to support the procurement as the arrangements had not been made for a certificate of exemption to be issued prior to the purchase. I referred earlier to the subsequent process of authorisation of a certificate of exemption which, I am advised, was in accordance with the delegated authority of the relevant authorising officer. The issues associated with the Supply and Tender Board relate to an administrative oversight and an administrative error.
Page 893
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016