Squeaks.... Will help you to understand the circumstances..... although I note your history of anti-LifeFlight posting....
Certainly is a probity issue and this may result in the contract being retendered....
The government’s budget of $250,000 for this contract was what drove the process....
LifeFlight set up helicopter transportation of NETS babies in this state.... initially doing it for free several years ago, because the government did not recognise a need without there being a proven demand.
When our charity configured and dedicated a helicopter to do this work, demand was proven and it increased.... Discussions with the department resulted in them finding some money ($250,000) which, if we wanted to access it, would have to undergo a competitive tender process... All the while demand increased....
Both the government and LifeFlight entered into the contract with open eyes, both knowing we would have to raise 90% from sponsorships and the community. Both (albeit reluctantly for us) were willing to explore this 90/10 model. Remember this was not our solution!
We've raised approximately 60%, which is well short, but I think an admirable effort. LifeFlight has provided substantial commitment to the development and delivery of NETS helicopter services in Victoria, and I feel our efforts should be recognised within a revised funding model. This is why I think they should provide the additional funding to us, and not to those who seek to profit.
The Royal Children’s Hospital isn’t run by a private profit making organization…. I don’t see why the Children’s Helicopter should be any different!
