Page 1316 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Stanhope also hoped that the royal commission into trade union corruption would result in a dismantling of union power in the ALP and, as he said:
… ensure basic democracy within the party and its institutions and ends the rorting that has seen it become the plaything of a handful of union-based factional leaders.
But the power of the CFMEU remains undiminished and ACT Labor is unwilling to do what Jon Stanhope hoped it might and encourage its members at least to admit that the centralisation of power has corrupted the party. While the Labor Party’s dominant left faction is controlled by the CFMEU, however, that reform will simply not be allowed to occur.
This blending of the unions, CFMEU and the ALP is not just an internal problem, Madam Deputy Speaker. The secret memorandum of understanding that was signed by Andrew Barr and UnionsACT can be shown to be having a significant impact on the ethical conduct of the Labor government and it is now corrupting the entire procurements and tendering process in Canberra.
The MOU gives an extraordinary veto power to the unions over every government contract. If a union considers that a list of criteria set out in the MOU is not met, the union can veto the tender. Let me quote:
Only providers/performers of works and services who meet the set criteria will be prequalified.
The MOU goes on to state:
ACT Government agencies must decline to award a tender proposal—
It says, “must decline”—
for the ACT Government works or services where a tenderer does not provide an undertaking in their submission that it will comply with the relevant obligations set out in … this MOU.
Through the MOU the unions are given extraordinary powers to decide who does or does not do business with the ACT. In other words, the union gets to choose who benefits from millions of dollars worth of taxpayers’ money. This invites intimidation and corruption and coerces business into compliance with union demands, be it signing particular EBAs or other requirements such as the opening up their books to union inspection. This requirement is explicit in the MOU. If that is not enough, the MOU makes it easier for unions to identify or intimidate business who are seeking to do business with the ACT by getting a list of all sorts of information delivered to them on a silver platter.
A number of people have raised their concerns with this. Indeed, industry groups have commented. The ACT Master Builders Association stated that they were deeply concerned about the integrity of the ACT government’s tendering process following
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video