Page 1938 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2022

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

the Legislative Assembly or their staff. Nor does the bill prevent the commission from accessing documents or things relating to a member that are not covered by parliamentary privilege.

In conclusion, the bill follows consultations with the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Greens, the ACT Integrity Commissioner and the Inspector of the Integrity Commission. It provides additional arrangements to prevent any inadvertent breaches of parliamentary privilege and to provide clarity for persons, including ACT public servants, of whom requests, preliminary inquiry notices and examinations summons may be directed. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barr) adjourned to the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 12.09 to 2.00 pm.

Ministerial arrangements

MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism) (2.00): Minister Steel is absent, for the reasons I outlined yesterday, so I will assist members with questions in his portfolios.

Questions without notice

Canberra Institute of Technology—procurement

MS LEE: My question is to the Chief Minister, standing in for Minister Steel. Yesterday the minister tabled correspondence from the CIT board chair dated 5 March 2021. When that advice was received, did Minister Steel ask why, substantially, the same services appeared to be delivered from contract to contract but the costs kept escalating?

MR BARR: I will raise that matter with the minister and report back to the Assembly.

MS LEE: Did the minister ask why key information was redacted in these contracts, knowing that it is not standard practice to do that in ACT government consultancy contracts?

MR BARR: I understand that redaction for FOI purposes, for commercial-in-confidence reasons, is, in fact, standard practice. I will take further advice on the specifics of the question in providing further information, as I have undertaken to do in relation to the first part of the question and, I will speculate in advance, in relation to the supplementary question that follows.

MR MILLIGAN: Given the unusual nature of these contracts, did Minister Steel find it odd that the consultant continued to be awarded new contracts, as though the procurement process was designed to deliver that outcome?

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