Page 3197 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This certainly is not the first time that Mr Wall has brought forward a motion concerning the MOU with UnionsACT. It is clear that this motion is an attempt to cobble together a range of pretty tenuous attacks on the wider union movement and the ACT government’s engagement with UnionsACT. I do not believe the motion is about the MOU. It is not about the workplace standards for procurement, safety and labour in the ACT. It is simply a political statement on behalf of Mr Wall and his colleagues. Mr Wall seems particularly to have an axe to grind when it comes to the union movement.
The ACT Greens have long campaigned in support of the rights of workers and the need to have sufficient protections in place to prevent the exploitation of workers and exposure to unsafe workplaces and the union movement has an essential role in providing these protections. As I have said previously in this place, through their work, unions are intimately involved with companies, their projects, their records and their interactions with the law, such as through Fair Work Australia. Giving unions an easy avenue to provide this information to procurement officials is useful. The officials then use it in their decision-making if it is relevant. The information is, of course, viewed carefully and critically, just as the officials view any information they receive. This is all useful information when it comes to making decisions that properly take into account worker health and safety. That is an outcome all of us should want. We should all want the safest workplaces, and for workers’ rights to be protected and respected.
Other stakeholders also provide procurement officials with information. The business community provides procurement officials with information as well. As I have observed in this place in the past, the suggestion that the provision of information by unions to officials is disproportionately considered is actually an interesting observation on the conduct of the public service. Mr Wall’s suggestions indicate that he does not believe the public service is acting in an independent way in this regard. I think that is regrettable, and I think it would be worth tempering those remarks in reflecting on the officers in procurement.
I heard him talk today about a range of assertions around corruption. If he has that information, he should bring it publicly forward. He should table it in this place. He should give it to the press, if he believes that to be the case. If that is the case, this place should know about it. We should see the examples of it. I think everyone in this place would be keen to act on concrete evidence of that information.
That is why the Greens were the first party at the ACT election to put forward the notion of an integrity commission. I am pleased that we are now working on that. Certainly, that will provide a more formal environment. But we need not wait until an integrity commission is in place, if Mr Wall has concrete information.
An essential part of this procurement process is ensuring that the ACT government models best practice procurement processes. In doing this, the government has an obligation to engage services from providers that are meeting their workplace health and safety obligations to their employees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video