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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2514 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

manner and that they are seen to be thus. Much of the committee's inquiry into this aspect of government procurement focused on commercial-in-confidence aspects of contracts between government agencies and the private sector and the apparent use of the confidentiality classification as a shield.

The government has a policy to cover commercial-in-confidence relationships, written in its Principles and Guidelines for the Treatment of Commercial Information Held by ACT Government Agencies. Unfortunately, in the committee's view, too often government agencies do not seem to be complying strictly with the policy.

The increasing push towards outsourced provision of works and services also causes the committee concern in this regard. The committee believes, for instance, that the ACT Ombudsman's role and jurisdiction could be compromised by an increasing use of private sector suppliers. It is also concerned that outsourcing to the private sector may have made it more difficult for citizens to complain-as is their right-about the provision of government works and services.

Mr Speaker, the committee believes that the fundamental starting point for ensuring fairness in government contracting is the use of open or public tender. This is the method of contracting by which open and effective competition is most likely to occur and, importantly, be seen to occur.

The committee received submissions and heard evidence of complaints about the lack of openness in purchasing methods when public tender is not used. In the committee's view, when select tender is chosen as a contracting method, it should be justified, and be seen to be justified. Procurement methods should be publicly listed and justified when the choice is not public tender. While the committee understands that there are times when tenders need to be reissued to satisfy probity requirements, decisions to reissue should be carefully made and justified.

In submissions and evidence before the committee one issue that generated a great deal of interest was the prequalification system. Many witnesses were disturbed by the apparent inconsistent application of the system and the perceived benefit large national companies drew from the system, to the detriment of small and medium local businesses. The committee believes the prequalification system should be reviewed to ensure it does not have adverse and unintended effects.

The committee is of the view that many of the problems that emerge or are perceived to exist in the procurement process can be avoided if government agencies are informed buyers. This means that the government needs to ensure the maintenance of contract and technical expertise within the public service, and the committee believes consideration should be given to the re-establishment of a cell of expertise within the Department of Urban Services.

A key issue of fairness emerged in evidence given to the committee of confusion and concern over the status of Totalcare Industries in its roles as project director and contractor. This concern led the committee to a more general recommendation that companies and corporations taking the role of project director for, or agent of, the territory should not also bid for other contracts within the same project. In terms of

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