Page 5966 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011

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

Alexander Maconochie Centre—drugs

DR BOURKE: Yesterday during extended question time Mr Seselja asked me a question regarding why representatives from Gugan Gulwan Youth Aboriginal Cooperation and the Aboriginal Justice Centre were not consulted on the review. As I said in the answer to the member’s initial question, ACT Corrective Services undertakes an ongoing review of its implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It does so in part through its regular liaison with other relevant agencies and service providers, including the Health Directorate and non-government agencies. In the circumstances, it has not been necessary for the purposes of informing the Assembly on this issue to launch a fresh round of consultations.

Personal explanation

MR HARGREAVES: I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: In a speech earlier today I referred to activities which I believed to be going on in the Nara Centre. I do not want to knowingly mislead the Assembly; I believe in fact those activities to be taking place at 221 London Circuit.

Social procurement

Paper and statement by Speaker

MR SPEAKER: On 29 June 2011 the Assembly passed a motion calling on the Assembly Secretariat to develop a policy for social procurement and ensure that, wherever possible, social enterprises are preferred. In accordance with the Assembly’s resolution, the Secretariat has developed a policy which reflects the commitments sought by the Assembly to prefer social enterprises wherever possible. I table the following paper for the information of members:

ACT Legislative Assembly Secretariat—Social procurement policy.

In developing the policy it became apparent that the Government Procurement Act 2001 constrains the ability of the Secretariat to prefer social enterprises where value for money cannot be demonstrated. Section 22A(1) of the act provides that a territory entity must pursue value for money in undertaking any procurement activity. Section 22A(2) provides that value for money means the best available procurement outcome. This requirement applies to all procurements undertaken by territory entities regardless of whether or not a contestability process is undertaken.

The stated policy position of the Secretariat is that in accordance with the resolution of the Assembly it will prefer social business enterprises where there is no conflict with section 22A. In practice this would mean that, where a social business enterprise had a product or service offering that satisfied the value for money test and

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