Page 2998 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012

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

(1) Community Services Directorate does not employ staff to provide or act as (a) or (b)

(2) Not applicable for (a) or (b)

(3) Nil.

(4) In the context of interpreting services, the ACT Government provides point of service access to interpreters when required. These services are mostly provided by the Translating and Interpreting Service. Other services include on-site face-to-face interpreting and a limited ‘settlement’ document translation service.

Once a person from a non English speaking background presents at a service, the Translating and Interpreting Service is contacted to book either a face-to-face interpreter or a telephone (conferencing) interpreter. The relevant Directorate is invoiced for the interpreter service.

(5) Information about recurrent and grants funding to community providers to provide interpreter and support service to people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds is available in the Community Services Directorate’s Annual Report 2010-11 Volume 2.

(6) Information about how funding allocated by the Community Services Directorate to community providers is used by them to purchase interpreters to enable people to access their services, is not readily available.

Government—procurement exemptions
(Question No 2314)

Ms Hunter asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 2012:

(1) Given that within the ACT Government Contracts Register the procurement process for the contract 2011.15714.220 – Establishing ACT Treasury Modelling Capacity – Execution Date 07/9/2011 – Contract Value $686,400.00 (GST Inclusive) is recorded as single select, urgent and exempt from quotation and tender threshold requirements
and with respect to value for money in procurement within the Treasury Directorate for the contract, how has the Directorate assured itself that value for money in accordance with subsection 22A of Part 2A of the Government Procurement Act 2001 has been achieved.

(2) What were the reasons for not complying with subsection 9 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007 with respect to the procurement process.

(3) Did the Director-General of the Directorate, in writing, exempt the Directorate from complying with the requirements of subsection 9 of Part 2 of the Government Procurement Regulation 2007; if so, what were the reasons for so doing.

Mr Barr: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) Treasury assessed the response from the firm to the requirements for the project, and considered it to provide the best value for money given the mix of skills and experience offered, the price asked and the requirements of the project.

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