Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2075 ..

Mr Connolly: One of them was one of your members doing it for nothing.

MR DE DOMENICO: It was not. I will take on that interjection. Mr Connolly is a lawyer, supposedly. The member you are referring to does not have a share in the company Harold Hird and Associates, Mr Connolly. You were wrong. You knew that you were wrong, but you said it on purpose anyway.

Mr Connolly: He is linked with the company.

MR DE DOMENICO: You knew that you were wrong, Mr Connolly, but you sleazily said it anyway. Under the process that they put into this Territory last year, only one person needed to be invited to tender. How many were invited to tender this time? There were seven - not one, but seven. So much for following the process. Who were they? They were Capital Property Auctions, Central Auctions, Peter Maidens and Co., Campbells, National Auction Group, Pickles, and Harold Hird and Associates. It is for the department to choose how big the pool of potential tenderers should be, provided that the minimum requirements of the procurement circular are complied with. What was the minimum requirement? It was one. How many did they invite to tender? They invited seven.

Mr Connolly will understand the process because it is simple and straightforward at law. I am advised that the department seeks tenders. At law this is known as an invitation to treat. It is not a binding offer, and the Territory can set down whatever conditions it wants with this invitation. Conditions were attached, the most relevant being that any tender was to be a flat rate, as it was last year and as it has been in the past. The tender was to be in writing, and it was to comply with the terms and conditions sent to the auctioneers approached.

Under step 2, those who respond to the tender with a bid in compliance with the terms and conditions can be considered. So if you comply with the terms and conditions you can be considered. If you do not comply, quite naturally and quite rightly you cannot be considered. Each response is regarded as an offer at law. If that offer is accepted, the offerer, whichever auctioneer that is, is bound to conduct the auction according to the terms of his, her or its bid. Under step 3, the department considers the bids in line with the procedure set out within the procurement circular No. 94/4 - a circular issued by the former Labor Government. That which is the lowest and otherwise complies with the procedure wins the bid and is appointed the auctioneer. Under step 4, each party is notified of the decision in writing.

The bottom line, Mr Speaker, is that the processes put in place by the former Government were adhered to. Was there any direct involvement by me or my personal staff? No. Was I concerned when I saw on 9 October that Harold Hird and Associates was awarded the tender? Yes. What did I do? I spoke to the departmental liaison officer and said, "Is everything being done according to law and is everything kosher?". The answer was, "Yes, everything is kosher". Still concerned, I asked, "Is there anything I can do?". The answer was, "No, because the Minister should be and will be at arm's length from the process". Had I done anything about it at that time, I would have been charged with interfering in the process. It is something that this Government has not done and will not do.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .