Page 3044 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
employment—(Second speaking period taken.)—wrote to the estimates committee and reported that they had got differing advice from different agencies about a potential e-waste contract with the ACT government. Procurement Solutions did not give them any information, while NOWaste was assuring Renewable Processes that they would be getting contracts awarded to them. Renewable Processes planned their business around the expected work. However, twice significant contracts were instead awarded to companies which do not process locally.
Business and industry development in fact granted Renewable Processes an ICON grant for its innovation in the e-waste field but there was no coordination—and, I suspect, no communication with NOWaste or Procurement Solutions.
Ms Hunter yesterday moved a motion on social procurement, so I will not repeat the arguments that she went through yesterday. I will simply say that it is an area of procurement that I am also very much concerned with. Given the time at which we will finish tonight, I will not repeat that.
I will, though, go into some of the government’s responses to the PAC committee report on procurement, given that this has only just come out. Of course, they are totally relevant to shared services procurement. I will look specifically at the recommendations that were not agreed to. Firstly, recommendation 18 was that an explicit reference to sustainability be included in section 22A of the Government Procurement Act 2001 as a matter which must be considered in pursuing the best value for money objective. In their response the government simply equate whole-of-life costs with achieving the most sustainable option. They contend that as the act already requires consideration of whole-of-life costs, such as costs associated with the purchase, operating and disposal, the most sustainable option overall will be selected.
I do question this logic as routinely environmental and social costs are never factored into these aspects. For example, the carbon emissions from transporting materials from interstate, or worse from overseas, are rarely factored in. Similarly, energy and pollution costs are again rarely factored into the costs of production and disposal. What are considered to be whole-of-life costs need to be expanded on to include better consideration of these. Until this happens, simply considering whole-of-life costs will not lead to sustainability.
I note that the Chief Minister this morning announced that the government now has a new framework for triple bottom line evaluation. I hope that looking at that may improve our procurement process.
I am happy that the government has agreed to recommendations 16 and 19. Recommendation 16 says that the government should be required to select goods, services and works on the basis of triple bottom line impacts. It recommended that guidelines be developed. Possibly the Chief Minister’s framework will assist with this. Recommendation 19 related to an assurance that all officers undertaking procurement activities receive training on sustainability in tender development, selection and when engaging with suppliers on sustainability matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video