❓ Hon George Cash questions the Minister for Housing and Works about the State Supply Commission's involvement in restrictions on tenderers for Department of Housing and Works contracts. The Minister responds by stating the policy has been withdrawn and defends the intention behind it.
AnsweredQoN 1032Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Did the State Supply Commission discuss the restrictions on tenderers being able to tender for Department of Housing and Works contracts prior to the minister writing to the Director General of the Department of Housing and Works directing the director general to implement the policy? (2) If so, on what days or at which State Supply Commission meetings was the issue discussed and do the minutes of the commission’s meetings reflect the nature of the discussions and the decisions made on this matter? (3) Did the State Supply Commission convey its position on this issue to the minister prior to the minister writing to the director general; and, if so, on what date? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(2) If so, on what days or at which State Supply Commission meetings was the issue discussed and do the minutes of the commission’s meetings reflect the nature of the discussions and the decisions made on this matter? (3) Did the State Supply Commission convey its position on this issue to the minister prior to the minister writing to the director general; and, if so, on what date? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(3) Did the State Supply Commission convey its position on this issue to the minister prior to the minister writing to the director general; and, if so, on what date? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(2) If so, on what days or at which State Supply Commission meetings was the issue discussed and do the minutes of the commission’s meetings reflect the nature of the discussions and the decisions made on this matter? (3) Did the State Supply Commission convey its position on this issue to the minister prior to the minister writing to the director general; and, if so, on what date? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(3) Did the State Supply Commission convey its position on this issue to the minister prior to the minister writing to the director general; and, if so, on what date? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
I do not appear to have notice of the question in my folder, but I am more than happy to respond to the question asked by Hon George Cash. (1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
(1)-(3) As previously explained to the member and to the House, the power for the procurement of works is not subject to the State Supply Commission’s policy considerations. Works are purchased and constructed through the powers of the works Act and have never been included under the policy considerations of the State Supply Commission. Whether works contracting should be included under the policy considerations is considered from time to time. Whether it should be is a moot point. However, I have not determined either way whether to proceed down that path. Perhaps the member and others will find it of interest if I add to my answer the following information about the particular policy. I announce to the House today that the policy has been withdrawn with effect as of now. Hon George Cash: I don’t think that will stop the court case proceeding. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am in the hands of the applicant in that respect. Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon George Cash: I understand that damages will be pursued. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is no provision for supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: In reference to the specific issue, the application at the courts is wrong in fact, at law and in detail. However, what happens to that process is up to the applicant. The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
The intention to limit market dominance is a worthwhile one. It has been pursued by previous Governments in an informal way, and I was endeavouring to have a transparent policy to do that. That has proved too difficult to do. It has been compounded by this threat of legal action, which has the potential, although remote, to disrupt government tendering processes and to delay important projects throughout the State. The Government is not prepared to accept that. I had hoped that the policy would operate for six months and then be reviewed. That is now not possible, so I will complete a review of the policy. I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
I will consult further with the building and construction industries, as well as with my department and others with an interest in the issue of market dominance and how it can best be avoided. I do not believe it can best be avoided in any informal way, because in the past that effectively saw people withdraw from tendering by agreement between the department and the contractors. However, I repeat that in reference to the matter before the courts, the application is wrong in fact and at law.
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.