Page 2871 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee pointed out that the local recycling company, Renewable Processes, had apparently received confusing and differing advice from different agencies about their potential for receiving an e-waste contract. This included positive assurances from ACT NOWaste. The local company planned its business around the expected work. Key to this was their employment, I have heard, of a large number—30 or so, I believe—of Canberrans with a disability. Unfortunately, it appears the result is the awarding of the primary recycling contract to a large, non-local company.
Several problems arise from this scenario. First is the issue that the government is supposedly committed to favouring social enterprises, or at least taking social enterprises into consideration for all tenders. When I asked in estimates hearings whether this was the case with this e-waste contract, the answer was no. NOWaste did not give any consideration to the significant and relevant social procurement elements to this contract.
When my colleague Ms Bresnan inquired as to why this was the case, the answer we received was that the tender was already in the pipeline before the social procurement policy came into effect. But I am not sure that that is actually correct. The time line we received through questions on notice says that the process for employing a television recycler actually started on 28 September 2010, and that is a number of months after the social procurement policy was supposed to have come into effect.
In addition to this the answers we have received through estimates to a variety of questions about social procurement have revealed some uncertainty around the process, and some uncertainty about the relevance that agencies have given to social procurement in different situations. I suspect that the internal processes in government for favouring social procurement in contracts are not completely developed.
Ms Bresnan asked further questions about this in the estimates process. It appears that while there is some knowledge in the departments and agencies that social procurement should be considered, it is not a strongly entrenched process. Mr Byles, the head of TAMS, told the committee that he has advised his executive directors that they are to include social procurement as a consideration as part of contracting and tendering. He said it is something that is important to consider in line with the value for money aspect as well.
I am sure Mr Byles has done this, and done it with the best of intentions. But my concern is that we need a stronger process. We would like to see a formally entrenched process with specific inclusion in tender requests and follow-up reporting. My motion today calls on the government to ensure that Procurement Solutions—in fact, it is no longer Procurement Solutions; it is Shared Services Procurement—works with all other directorates and agencies to identify social procurement opportunities, to introduce comprehensive processes so that all contracts and tenders are considered for social procurement potential, and to create stronger requirements for government agencies to follow social procurement guidelines, including having to report on social procurement considerations for each contract. I believe this will overcome the kind of issues we are seeing, where social procurement appears to be receiving limited or sometimes inadequate consideration.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video