❓ A parliamentary question probes the Minister for Disability Services regarding a decision to bring hostel cleaning services in-house, potential conflict with the CEO's advice, and the accuracy of reported costs. The Minister denies directing the board and refutes the cost figure cited in the media.
AnsweredQoN 544Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to today’s “Inside Cover” story on page 10 of The West Australian concerning tenders for contract cleaning for the Disability Services Commission. (1) Has the minister directed the Board of the Disability Services Commission, either formally or informally, to bring hostel cleaning services in-house? (2) If so, under what authority has the minister directed the board to this effect? (3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(1) Has the minister directed the Board of the Disability Services Commission, either formally or informally, to bring hostel cleaning services in-house? (2) If so, under what authority has the minister directed the board to this effect? (3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(2) If so, under what authority has the minister directed the board to this effect? (3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(1) Has the minister directed the Board of the Disability Services Commission, either formally or informally, to bring hostel cleaning services in-house? (2) If so, under what authority has the minister directed the board to this effect? (3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(2) If so, under what authority has the minister directed the board to this effect? (3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(3) Can the minister explain why she acted against the advice of Dr Ruth Shean, the Chief Executive Officer of the Disability Services Commission, on this matter? (4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(4) Can the minister inform the House how many hours of much-needed respite care would equate to the $400 000 now to be spent on cleaning services? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(2) Not applicable. (3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(3) In essence I have not acted against the advice initially provided. The commission has looked at its delivery of services and its hostels and taken account of the industrial relations framework in which we are now operating, and determined in December 2002 that it would return the cleaning in-house. It would have preferred to have made this decision in 1996, when it was first determined that the cleaning contract would be outsourced. In 1996 the Disability Services Commission expressed grave concerns about contracting out, on the basis that the commission is dealing with very vulnerable clients. Members opposite should realise that the decision in 1996 was not made with any great expectation that it would produce better outcomes for the commission’s clients. (4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
(4) The sum of $400 000 referred to in the “Inside Cover” article this morning was a furphy. It is wrong and has no legitimacy. I advise members not to rely on “Inside Cover” for their questions.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.