<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2013-07-25" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="6627" />
  <endPage num="6703" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Government Stationery Contract</name>
      <page num="6667" />
      <text id="20130725e761bfaceb6d47e980000517">
        <heading>GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACT</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="563" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. I.F. EVANS</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Davenport</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2013-07-25">
            <name>GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACT</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2013-07-25T14:46:00" />
        <text id="20130725e761bfaceb6d47e980000518">
          <timeStamp time="2013-07-25T14:46:00" />
          <by role="member" id="563">The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:46):</by>  Following on from the minister's answer, it is clear, is it not, that, if the government wanted to purchase stationery on a non-exclusive basis following that tender, they could have? The tender document allowed them to do that.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1808" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Napier</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Finance</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Police</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Correctional Services</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Emergency Services</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Road Safety</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2013-07-25">
            <name>GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACT</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2013-07-25T14:47:00" />
        <text id="20130725e761bfaceb6d47e980000519">
          <timeStamp time="2013-07-25T14:47:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1808">The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:47):</by>  That is clear, but the reality is we shortlisted four. On an initial cut there were four companies that we thought were adequate and the two that were ultimately successful are delivering significant benefit to government.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>