House:LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY- MOTION Date:5.02 PM WEDNESDAY, 2 December 1998 PDF of this document. Member: Member:Ripper, Mr Eric Subject:EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VACATION SWIMMING PROGRAM - MOTION Page:4709 / 1 Education Department reached this decision by itself, so I am inclined to believe the advice, but I will take this opportunity to ask the minister whether he gave a direction to the department to review its participation in this Vacswim program. Mr Barnett: That is a difficult question, and I will give a fuller account of the sequence of events, but I am keen to go down this path. I have not directed the department, but it certainly knows my views on this matter. Mr RIPPER: On most occasions, I would prefer the minister's stewardship of Education to that of the Hon Norman Moore, but on this occasion Hon Norman Moore had the right answer, and it is noteworthy that no change was made when he was in charge. I have been given advice on the issue raised by the members for Greenough and Dawesville. I quote from a letter to the then Minister for Education, Hon Norman Moore, from Ron Alexander, Chairman of the Swimming Review Committee, dated 23 August 1995, which states - The committee concluded that, while there was some merit in such a proposal, no change should be made in the foreseeable future. I made the offer to those members opposite that if they could correct me, I would stand corrected, but I now give them a challenge: They have been corrected. I have quoted from the letter from the Chairman of the Swimming Review Committee to the minister at the time, and I stand by the remarks that I made earlier in the debate. Therefore, the attempt by those members to throw me off the track by alleging that I have been misleading the House has come to nought and we find, once again, that government members are prepared to make any assertion that they think they need to make in order to deal with the short-term requirements of survival in the House. I turn now to some of the problems of contracting out the Vacswim program. There is a real risk that costs will increase. Vacswim is currently not charged lane hire at many aquatic centres because it is a learn-to-swim program run by the Education Department. However, I am advised that at a recent meeting of the Swimming Pool and Spa Association of WA Ltd, pool managers foreshadowed that they would take advantage of the opportunity to start charging for lane hire in the event that Vacswim was contracted out. If the new operators of a contracted-out Vacswim service were charged lane hire by swimming pool operators, naturally there would be an increase in costs to parents. The current understanding is that because learning to swim is a public service and a public good, everyone should contribute to the achievement of that public good. However, if that were to become a commercial operation, people would take a commercial approach, and if they had the need and the ability to charge on a commercial basis, that is what they would do, and parents would pay the increased costs. The proposed new commercial nature of the program also raises the possibility of reduced access. Some organisations that manage swimming centres are likely to tender for the operation of the contracted-out Vacswim program. How will they get their program into swimming centres that are operated by commercial rivals? It may be the case that there will be commercial conflict between the commercial managers of some swimming centres and the commercial operators of parts of the Vacswim program that were contracted out. Some pool managers may refuse the proponent access to their facilities and may start running their own learn-to-swim classes. That may seem fanciful, but it is already occurring. Leisure Australia, which manages the Belmont Oasis and the Bayswater Aquatic Centre, already refuses access to Vacswim because it regards it as a competitor. Leisure Australia runs its own learn-to-swim classes. If this is already happening with Vacswim, it will happen even more so when commercial operators are given responsibility for this program. I understand that this year the Bayswater Aquatic Centre will run its own learn-to-swim classes for levels 1 to 3, while refusing shallow-water space for Vacswim. I do not have direct knowledge of this, but I am told that the manager of Beatty Park has said that lane space will be withdrawn for vacation swimming classes if a particular commercial rival wins the contract. It is possible that access to swimming centres for the Vacswim program will be affected. The next area of concern is the quality of the program. Vacswim is a successful program because it is recognised as having high quality and consistent standards. A child can pass one program level at classes in the city and later enrol at another centre in a regional area and be expected to have attained exactly the same proficiency as a child who passed that level in the regional centre. The program is able to maintain that quality because it is integrated with in-term swimming and responsibility for teacher training in this area. It is a statewide program and must have more chance of maintaining consistency than a program broken up between different commercial operators in different centres. If an increasing number of aquatic centres run their own swimming classes, it is inevitable that the program standards will drop and there will be increased inconsistency in the standards of programs across the State. I am surprised at the comments from members representing regional areas, which indicate they may support the Government's proposal. Vacswim has operated on the basis that children across the State, regardless of geographic location and socioeconomic background, have a right to access learn-to-swim classes. I understand that under the request for proposal document, proponents are obliged to ensure that outer suburban and remote communities are provided with classes. It is all very well to write those things into a document but, on the basis of commercial reality, if the proponent must deal with potentially very low enrolments in those centres, the prospect of these Parliament of Western Australia All contents Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.
Education Department reached this decision by itself, so I am inclined to believe the advice, but I will take this opportunity to ask the minister whether he gave a direction to the department to review its participation in this Vacswim program. Mr Barnett: That is a difficult question, and I will give a fuller account of the sequence of events, but I am keen to go down this path. I have not directed the department, but it certainly knows my views on this matter. Mr RIPPER: On most occasions, I would prefer the minister's stewardship of Education to that of the Hon Norman Moore, but on this occasion Hon Norman Moore had the right answer, and it is noteworthy that no change was made when he was in charge. I have been given advice on the issue raised by the members for Greenough and Dawesville. I quote from a letter to the then Minister for Education, Hon Norman Moore, from Ron Alexander, Chairman of the Swimming Review Committee, dated 23 August 1995, which states - The committee concluded that, while there was some merit in such a proposal, no change should be made in the foreseeable future. I made the offer to those members opposite that if they could correct me, I would stand corrected, but I now give them a challenge: They have been corrected. I have quoted from the letter from the Chairman of the Swimming Review Committee to the minister at the time, and I stand by the remarks that I made earlier in the debate. Therefore, the attempt by those members to throw me off the track by alleging that I have been misleading the House has come to nought and we find, once again, that government members are prepared to make any assertion that they think they need to make in order to deal with the short-term requirements of survival in the House. I turn now to some of the problems of contracting out the Vacswim program. There is a real risk that costs will increase. Vacswim is currently not charged lane hire at many aquatic centres because it is a learn-to-swim program run by the Education Department. However, I am advised that at a recent meeting of the Swimming Pool and Spa Association of WA Ltd, pool managers foreshadowed that they would take advantage of the opportunity to start charging for lane hire in the event that Vacswim was contracted out. If the new operators of a contracted-out Vacswim service were charged lane hire by swimming pool operators, naturally there would be an increase in costs to parents. The current understanding is that because learning to swim is a public service and a public good, everyone should contribute to the achievement of that public good. However, if that were to become a commercial operation, people would take a commercial approach, and if they had the need and the ability to charge on a commercial basis, that is what they would do, and parents would pay the increased costs. The proposed new commercial nature of the program also raises the possibility of reduced access. Some organisations that manage swimming centres are likely to tender for the operation of the contracted-out Vacswim program. How will they get their program into swimming centres that are operated by commercial rivals? It may be the case that there will be commercial conflict between the commercial managers of some swimming centres and the commercial operators of parts of the Vacswim program that were contracted out. Some pool managers may refuse the proponent access to their facilities and may start running their own learn-to-swim classes. That may seem fanciful, but it is already occurring. Leisure Australia, which manages the Belmont Oasis and the Bayswater Aquatic Centre, already refuses access to Vacswim because it regards it as a competitor. Leisure Australia runs its own learn-to-swim classes. If this is already happening with Vacswim, it will happen even more so when commercial operators are given responsibility for this program. I understand that this year the Bayswater Aquatic Centre will run its own learn-to-swim classes for levels 1 to 3, while refusing shallow-water space for Vacswim. I do not have direct knowledge of this, but I am told that the manager of Beatty Park has said that lane space will be withdrawn for vacation swimming classes if a particular commercial rival wins the contract. It is possible that access to swimming centres for the Vacswim program will be affected. The next area of concern is the quality of the program. Vacswim is a successful program because it is recognised as having high quality and consistent standards. A child can pass one program level at classes in the city and later enrol at another centre in a regional area and be expected to have attained exactly the same proficiency as a child who passed that level in the regional centre. The program is able to maintain that quality because it is integrated with in-term swimming and responsibility for teacher training in this area. It is a statewide program and must have more chance of maintaining consistency than a program broken up between different commercial operators in different centres. If an increasing number of aquatic centres run their own swimming classes, it is inevitable that the program standards will drop and there will be increased inconsistency in the standards of programs across the State. I am surprised at the comments from members representing regional areas, which indicate they may support the Government's proposal. Vacswim has operated on the basis that children across the State, regardless of geographic location and socioeconomic background, have a right to access learn-to-swim classes. I understand that under the request for proposal document, proponents are obliged to ensure that outer suburban and remote communities are provided with classes. It is all very well to write those things into a document but, on the basis of commercial reality, if the proponent must deal with potentially very low enrolments in those centres, the prospect of these
