Page 5710 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
where they can be brought into alignment and, indeed, the committee recommended that the thresholds be reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis, given that some of the thresholds have been there for some time.
The next issue that the committee addressed was that contracts had been let under exemption from the Government Procurement Regulation 2007. Obviously, there are cases where there is a sole supplier or a specific reason—whether it is to do with urgency or a need for compatibility—that a contractor be selected as a sole provider. The recommendation here is simply that, under the Chief Minister’s annual report directions, there be something in the reports to indicate the number and value of contracts, as well as perhaps the reason. It is important that we keep this aboveboard and open so that people understand what is going on in terms of the way we spend taxpayers’ money.
On page 25, in recommendation 7 the committee recommends that the ACT government review its procurement system with a view to the suitability of a range of procurement approaches. It was suggested that there are a number of different ways in which you can approach procurement. The Property Council, for instance, was critical of the outcomes achieved by a number of significant capital works projects in the ACT, which were characterised by cost or time overruns or reductions in scope. It argued that the contracting approach used by the ACT “can result in the ACT government taking on a disproportionate amount of the project risk associated with scope, time and cost”. The council suggests that we should be more open and use the appropriate approach for the appropriate project. Recommendation 7 says that we should keep that in mind at all times.
As Ms Le Couteur mentioned, page 39 of the report starts a section on waste management in the ACT. As all would be aware, there have been some concerns raised over a number of years now, particularly since 2007, about what occurred to a community-based, not-for-profit company called Revolve. Revolve had a long association with this community. It had been at the tip at Mugga Lane for a long time, but we saw it pass to Aussie Junk. It has now moved on to another proprietor.
Recommendation 14 is a very important recommendation. We note there is ongoing legal action over this involving some employees and Aussie Junk. We are aware that some of these issues have been raised by the Ombudsman. But, at the end of the day, we were not in a position to judge, given what we were told, on the full nature of the facts. Therefore, recommendation 14 states:
The Committee notes that ongoing legal action exists and, subject to consideration of that legal action, recommends that the ACT Auditor-General conduct a broad ranging investigation of the allegations raised with regard to Aussie Junk’s employment practices and the management of contractual processes for the letting of the leases for the Mugga Lane and Mitchell facilities.
These allegations have been ongoing for some time and it is time to clear up the matter. It is time to make sure that we get to the bottom of it in an appropriate manner and it is important that it is done in an independent way. The best person to do that, of course, is the Auditor-General.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video