Page 1145 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
might happen through this MOU is not happening. It is important to note that decisions on procurement still rest solely with procurement officials in all the normal and official ways. All these clauses really do is allow unions to provide some feedback to government.
Through their work, unions are intimately involved with companies, their projects, their records and their interactions with the law, such as through Fair Work Australia. Giving unions an easy avenue to provide this information to procurement officials is actually useful. The officials then use it in their decision-making if it is relevant. The information is of course viewed carefully and critically, as the officials view any information that they receive. I am told that private companies also sometimes submit information on other companies. Procurement also reviews that information that is provided by private sector competitors to the companies that are being listed.
Mr Hanson’s motion says that the MOU does not help worker health or safety. I think that it can help worker health and safety, if it does not already. As I said, unions are closely connected with work places, workers and issues that affect them. They are likely able to provide relevant information that can be used in the assessments.
When it comes to providing a list of tenderers to Unions ACT, it is important to note that firstly this only occurs in relation to big projects where there is actually a list of tenderers. It is not the case that every single government contract or purchase is being filtered through the union.
Secondly, the list of tenderers is public anyway, and they are published on the ACT tenders website. Other stakeholders can also access them. All the MOU does is set up an extra mechanism to notify unions. I understand they receive an email, which is the same list of tenderers that is made public.
Thirdly, my advice from meeting with procurement officials is that nothing in this process holds up the procurement process or incurs extra costs. The process usually takes two to four weeks in any case. All that occurs is that unions provide any extra information or insights they have, which the procurement unit considers.
Next, Unions ACT does not receive any information that is inappropriate or commercial in confidence. As I said, the list of tenderers is already public. The ethical suppliers declaration is simply a declaration guaranteeing the company will adhere to certain ethical practices, and the government asks suppliers to sign it regardless of this MOU.
I agree that the part of the MOU that suggests the union could access other documents is unnecessarily vague. Upon checking with the government, I understand this has not been used. Sloppy as the wording might be, it is also worth noting that the government has obligations regarding which documents it will hand over. It will not, for example, hand over commercial-in-confidence material, unlike Mr Coe who has just tabled legislation in this place to hand over commercial-in-confidence material as part of the light rail campaign that he is running.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video