❓ Question regarding alleged impropriety in the tendering process for the Geraldton hospital project under the previous government, with the Minister providing a detailed response and contrasting it with past practices involving BGC.
AnsweredQoN 870Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TENDERING PROCESS, IMPROPRIETY UNDER PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT
The Leader of the Opposition today made allegations about impropriety in the tendering process for the Geraldton hospital project. Can the minister shed any light on the tendering practices of the previous Government in her portfolio? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
The Leader of the Opposition today made allegations about impropriety in the tendering process for the Geraldton hospital project. Can the minister shed any light on the tendering practices of the previous Government in her portfolio? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Mandurah for being on the ball and identifying this issue. The Leader of the Opposition earlier today raised the Geraldton hospital tender. To set out its context, this was a $40 million project that went for expressions of interest, in which eight building companies participated. An internal evaluation of those expressions was made, which recommended to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works that five of the companies go forward to the request for proposal. The director general then discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Works because the department had two competing policies; namely, the old housing policy, by which everybody was given an opportunity to move forward if they qualified, and the works policy, by which a short list was produced. The two policies were competing in the amalgamated agency. Therefore, the director general rightly discussed a range of options with the minister, who expressed his view that the normal works policy should apply. The result was to move forward with six companies. That was particularly the case because the sixth applicant, Broad Construction Services, had commenced construction of another project in Geraldton, which might have provided opportunity to achieve a competitive bid. There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about this process. It was quite within applicable powers to make a decision on whether to go for five, six or seven companies. The decision was made by the minister quite rightly to go for six companies. I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for Mandurah for being on the ball and identifying this issue. The Leader of the Opposition earlier today raised the Geraldton hospital tender. To set out its context, this was a $40 million project that went for expressions of interest, in which eight building companies participated. An internal evaluation of those expressions was made, which recommended to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works that five of the companies go forward to the request for proposal. The director general then discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Works because the department had two competing policies; namely, the old housing policy, by which everybody was given an opportunity to move forward if they qualified, and the works policy, by which a short list was produced. The two policies were competing in the amalgamated agency. Therefore, the director general rightly discussed a range of options with the minister, who expressed his view that the normal works policy should apply. The result was to move forward with six companies. That was particularly the case because the sixth applicant, Broad Construction Services, had commenced construction of another project in Geraldton, which might have provided opportunity to achieve a competitive bid. There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about this process. It was quite within applicable powers to make a decision on whether to go for five, six or seven companies. The decision was made by the minister quite rightly to go for six companies. I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I thank the member for Mandurah for being on the ball and identifying this issue. The Leader of the Opposition earlier today raised the Geraldton hospital tender. To set out its context, this was a $40 million project that went for expressions of interest, in which eight building companies participated. An internal evaluation of those expressions was made, which recommended to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works that five of the companies go forward to the request for proposal. The director general then discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Works because the department had two competing policies; namely, the old housing policy, by which everybody was given an opportunity to move forward if they qualified, and the works policy, by which a short list was produced. The two policies were competing in the amalgamated agency. Therefore, the director general rightly discussed a range of options with the minister, who expressed his view that the normal works policy should apply. The result was to move forward with six companies. That was particularly the case because the sixth applicant, Broad Construction Services, had commenced construction of another project in Geraldton, which might have provided opportunity to achieve a competitive bid. There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about this process. It was quite within applicable powers to make a decision on whether to go for five, six or seven companies. The decision was made by the minister quite rightly to go for six companies. I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for Mandurah for being on the ball and identifying this issue. The Leader of the Opposition earlier today raised the Geraldton hospital tender. To set out its context, this was a $40 million project that went for expressions of interest, in which eight building companies participated. An internal evaluation of those expressions was made, which recommended to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works that five of the companies go forward to the request for proposal. The director general then discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Works because the department had two competing policies; namely, the old housing policy, by which everybody was given an opportunity to move forward if they qualified, and the works policy, by which a short list was produced. The two policies were competing in the amalgamated agency. Therefore, the director general rightly discussed a range of options with the minister, who expressed his view that the normal works policy should apply. The result was to move forward with six companies. That was particularly the case because the sixth applicant, Broad Construction Services, had commenced construction of another project in Geraldton, which might have provided opportunity to achieve a competitive bid. There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about this process. It was quite within applicable powers to make a decision on whether to go for five, six or seven companies. The decision was made by the minister quite rightly to go for six companies. I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I thank the member for Mandurah for being on the ball and identifying this issue. The Leader of the Opposition earlier today raised the Geraldton hospital tender. To set out its context, this was a $40 million project that went for expressions of interest, in which eight building companies participated. An internal evaluation of those expressions was made, which recommended to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works that five of the companies go forward to the request for proposal. The director general then discussed this matter with the Minister for Housing and Works because the department had two competing policies; namely, the old housing policy, by which everybody was given an opportunity to move forward if they qualified, and the works policy, by which a short list was produced. The two policies were competing in the amalgamated agency. Therefore, the director general rightly discussed a range of options with the minister, who expressed his view that the normal works policy should apply. The result was to move forward with six companies. That was particularly the case because the sixth applicant, Broad Construction Services, had commenced construction of another project in Geraldton, which might have provided opportunity to achieve a competitive bid. There was nothing unusual or unorthodox about this process. It was quite within applicable powers to make a decision on whether to go for five, six or seven companies. The decision was made by the minister quite rightly to go for six companies. I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I contrast this process with what took place under the previous Government with the self-same, the much-aggrieved, Mr Buckeridge, whose cause the Leader of the Opposition has been valiantly defending in the Chamber today. Members who have been in this Chamber for some time might remember the case of the Kwinana Freeway extension of 1998. Main Roads had a clear policy on design-and-construct projects; that is, Main Roads went for three tenders. That was a $62 million project. Main Roads selected three companies to move from the expression of interest to the request for proposal phase. The contracts involved a great deal of engineering. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Hon Tom Stephens added Broad Construction to the tender list. You’ve confirmed the impropriety. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am sorry; I will not be distracted from this answer. The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
The minister was honest and up-front. He asked the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works why he would not include the six companies. No difficulty whatsoever arises. The director general made the decision on quite valid grounds. This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
This process contrasts with what happened in 1998 with Mr Buckeridge. The panel assessed the contracts in 1998 and recommended that three companies move forward, as was always Main Roads policy. Mr Buckeridge complained because he was not included in the three companies. A direction was given from the then director general, the well-known Ross Drabble, that all six proponents be allowed to go forward for the request for proposal. That created such controversy in the industry that the Government ultimately had to pay $750 000 to all tenderers because they were so aggrieved by the departure from standard process. I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
I give another example of the BGC tendering process. It is a pity Mr Kierath is not in the Chamber as he would well remember these examples. Mr Kierath now works for Mr Buckeridge, so I am sure he keeps the lines of communication open. He says he is navigating the good ship BGC. The 1994 BGC case was a tender for stevedoring, even though BGC had never carried out stevedoring. In 1994, the $2 million a year Stateships contract was up for tender, and the Government of the day decided to tender out that contract. What did it do? It did not go through the normal process of advertising and receiving submissions. Representatives got on the phone one Friday afternoon and did a ring-around of three stevedoring companies. Strangely, it came through that process with BGC as the successful tenderer. I could go on for hours about the preference given to BGC by the previous Government. There is nothing wrong with a policy that seeks to protect diversity in this State.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.