Page 1596 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As I said last time, not only have we been through the MOU in detail, but we have been through the process in detail with the ACT’s procurement officials.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Gentleman: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, please take a seat. Stop the clock, and I will take the point of order.
Mr Gentleman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again Mrs Jones interjects across the chamber.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Mr Wall was heard in silence and—
Mrs Jones: I don’t—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not make a comment when I am seeking to allow Mr Rattenbury to make his speech in the silence that was afforded to Mr Wall. Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY: Thank you. As I said last time, not only have we been through the MOU in detail, but we have been through the process in detail with the ACT’s procurement officials. They have told us how this MOU works in practice. These are professional public servants who are subject to the Procurement Act as well as a range of other professional and ethical obligations.
I know Mr Wall is trying to make a political attack, but I think he should be careful that in his quest to score political points he does not smear these public servants and imply they are doing something dodgy. They literally administer procurement in the ACT. They follow the Procurement Act and they take their role seriously.
Mr Wall’s media release yesterday said that the MOU gives unions veto power and influence over government contracts. He and Mr Hanson and others have made various other assertions of the same nature. I think Mr Wall and Mr Hanson should think more carefully about what they are saying. Are they suggesting our procurement officials do not follow the Procurement Act, that they ignore their obligations, that they break the law and let unions decide contracts?
As I said last time, ACT procurement officials do not just say, “Oh, a union asked us to do something, so we’ll do it.” In reality, if a union provides procurement officials with information, they will assess it. If it is valid and useful it will contribute to the procurement process. If not, then it will not be used. This is all in clauses 4.2 and 4.3, and that is all those clauses allow: they formalise a process for receiving information from unions. In practice, the process works by providing unions a list of tenderers, information that is already publicly available and is also available to other stakeholders. It is published on the contracts website. Nothing in the MOU holds up the standard procurement time lines or incurs extra costs. No inappropriate or commercial-in-confidence material is provided.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video