Page 2512 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 9 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
negative way, stifling business and, worse, placing the power of veto in the hands of the union bosses over all procurement decisions.
What is the final straw, however, worse, is that this has been in place secretly for years. Industry groups did not know about it, businesses did not know about it and members of this parliament did not know about it. The Master Builders Association of the ACT is quoted as saying in relation to the secrecy of the deal:
It is both disappointing and alarming that throughout this entire period, the ACT Government clearly failed to bring to the public’s attention that they had a MoU with UnionsACT which, amongst other things, demanded that companies seeking public work in the ACT were required to make an undertaking to provide the Unions with employee information including names and addresses of workers if the relevant Union (the CFMEU) requested access to that information.
The fundamental premise of the MOU is the power of veto. The MOU demands that unions be consulted as to who is awarded a tender or pre-qualified, as “consulting” is defined in the MOU as:
“more than a mere exchange of information” and that “for the consultation to be effective the participants must be contributing to the decision making process not only in appearance but in fact …
This clearly goes well beyond what business expects is the process of consultation. Federal minister for employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, was correct when she stated in the media:
I have to say in the ACT, it appears has now four levels of government. You have the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and then of course there are the unions. Labor want to put the unions at the very top of the structure. There is no doubt that, based on this document, the ACT government runs a closed shop. In the ACT, it is determined by the unions and at a cost to the taxpayer.
Going to what we understand about the MOU and to the Chief Minister’s comments in question time today in relation to the use of OfficeMax, he said that the involvement of the executive in a procurement decision or the procurement process would be corruption. Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you and I put it to those opposite that the unions’ involvement through your ministers’ offices in the procurement process has well and truly corrupted the procurement framework in this territory.
One other item of expenditure that is in this budget that I must address is the appointment of the position of local industry advocate. During estimates hearings we learnt that this position is worth a cool $200,000 per year. Mr Barr stated during the estimates hearings that this role is to advocate extensively in the interests of the ACT business community to ensure that work that can be and should be done by local businesses stays in the territory. I would argue that, contrary to this statement, I have seen no evidence, nor can the government provide any firm evidence, to suggest that this money is being well spent or that those outcomes are being fulfilled.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video