Page 3192 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We support tender practices that require tenderers to have the capacity to complete a project as safely as can be reasonably expected. This is good for our local economy, industry, and the community.
However, referrals as stipulated in this MOU, mean that commercial-in-confidence tender details can be undermined.
We seek assurances from the Chief Minister that at no point in time were commercial terms revealed to UnionsACT for any procurement project.
This assurance will never, ever be provided on the public record, Madam Speaker. The master builders association have long campaigned against the deal and the infiltration by unions into the procurement process. They have said in relation to the MOU that at its heart, the MOU demands that unions be consulted as to who is awarded the tender; that consulting is defined 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 the normal understanding of consultation and is effectively a veto handed to the unions by the ACT government.
The MOU remained a secret document. Its existence extended well before the public light was shone. The document remained secret despite the attention that the ACT branch of the CFMEU drew during the royal commission into trade unions, through the numerous allegations of bullying, standover tactics and blackmail that were reported to have occurred on a regular basis on Canberra building sites. It remains extremely alarming that companies seeking to work on government contracts were, and still are, required to provide the unions with personal information of employees such as names and addresses, should the unions ask for it.
The MBA have said: “The backroom deals come at great cost and zero value. The CFMEU does not provide construction services. The only unique service they provide in the ACT is protection: protection from their own thuggery and protection from competition for those who sign up.”
The Council of Small Business has called the MOU with unions a disgrace. Council of Small Business Australia suggested that innovation in this town was stifled by corruption, secret deals and misinformation. We know that a number of the large current government contracts have been awarded to companies outside of the ACT because of the existence of the MOU with unions and the unions’ ability to influence the business purchasing decisions of government.
The end result has been an increase in costs, costs on projects that ultimately end up costing the ACT taxpayer. That is, deals are being done with unions in this town to win work, forcing the ACT ratepayer to pay over the margin for work that is being done, compared to other jurisdictions. At the end of the day, it is ratepayers who are burdened with the extra cost of the lacklustre performance and integrity of many of those members opposite and the government that they choose to run.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video