❓ Mr. Trenorden questions the compliance of new 25-year school bus contracts with state purchasing guidelines, while Minister Roberts defends the contracts by criticising the previous government's handling of the school bus system and assures a sustainable way forward.
AnsweredQoN 764Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SCHOOL BUS CONTRACTS, NEW SYSTEM
I refer to the school bus contracts that provide a safe and reliable service for our country kids and have done so for decades. I also refer to the minister’s statement in this House today in which she asserts that the old system of contracts does not comply with the state purchasing requirements. (1) How can the new system of 25-year contracts that do not go to tender comply with the same guidelines? (2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS
I refer to the school bus contracts that provide a safe and reliable service for our country kids and have done so for decades. I also refer to the minister’s statement in this House today in which she asserts that the old system of contracts does not comply with the state purchasing requirements. (1) How can the new system of 25-year contracts that do not go to tender comply with the same guidelines? (2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(1) How can the new system of 25-year contracts that do not go to tender comply with the same guidelines? (2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(1) How can the new system of 25-year contracts that do not go to tender comply with the same guidelines? (2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(2) Will the minister table the state guidelines upon which she has based her decision to offer 25-year contracts? (3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
(3) Will the minister guarantee that the school bus contract system will not be thrown into crisis in the future by the Government deciding that long-term contracts do not comply with purchasing guidelines? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
The SPEAKER: One would expect that if a member asks a question, he would want to listen to the answer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
The SPEAKER: Members should not speak when I am on my feet. Please listen to the minister. If members wish to engage in conversation, please do it later. Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
Mrs ROBERTS replied: I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
I find the attitude of the member galling, and the blatant hypocrisy of his statements are beyond comprehension. For eight years National Party ministers presided over a crisis in this area and, in an absolutely incompetent fashion, presided over the school bus system. The standard rate was due for review after five years. It was put in place in 1994 and should have been reviewed in 1999. In fact, the previous Government did not get anyone to start the job until February 2000, when it appointed Mr Shanahan. Towards the end of that year there was no solution. There was so much argument between the various parties that the group that had been appointed could not come to a conclusion, so Mr Shanahan developed some. Those conclusions were received in October 2000 and what did the previous Government do? It just sat on its hands and did nothing. It had a system that was based on a wink and a nod. It had a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Education who did not write to the contractors but to the precursor of the Transport Forum WA Inc and said words to the effect of, “There is essentially an in-perpetuity arrangement; wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, you’ll be right mate.” Government cannot be run on that basis. One must go through the proper procedures and get Crown Law advice to ensure that there is compliance with the State Supply Commission guidelines. A system must be put in place that is sustainable into the future and gives the bus contractors security of tenure with their contracts. This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
This Government was left with a mess. The recommendations that come out of the Guise report should show us a way into the future that provides security. The Department of Transport has been in touch with State Supply Commission to see if the suggestion from the task force would comply with State Supply Commission guidelines. It may require an exemption from those guidelines; if it does, that will be given formally. It will need to happen because of what the previous Government put in place - a system in which people believed they had something that was sustainable into the future. I have outlined a range of issues as part of those recommendations that will provide a sustainable way forward and give the contractors something to sell in the future. If they end up with a 20 or 25-year contract and they want to get out of the business and on-sell that contract, they will be able to. They will have something very real and tangible to sell.
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.