House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Probity Principles Probity Principles The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley) (15:12): Probity is significant in terms of our state projects. The principles of a probity plan are to ensure open and fair competition, ethical behaviour, value for money, equity, confidentiality and are also, of course, to ensure that conflicts of interest, if there are any, are managed as well. Do not just take my word for it, but look at the words recently of the Auditor-General following the release of a recent report into regional bus service contracts. We found out things like this, to quote the Auditor-General: We found that three meetings were held during the procurement process between the Minister, senior DIT employees and potential proponents/proponents outside of established procurement process arrangements. They go to say things like there were times when: It did not maintain sufficient records of interactions between SA Government representatives and proponents, and of DIT's assessment of probity risks associated with these interactions. It said things like: It did not maintain written records for some of the probity advice it received. It did not sufficiently document the rationale for some decisions made during the evaluation. It did not document the arrangements in place for managing probity risks in the time between the purchase recommendation being finalised and the contracts being signed. The Auditor-General provides various recommendations—things like: advising the probity advisor of meetings before they occur… keeping sufficiently detailed notes of matters discussed at meetings, including decisions and actions, and documenting the impact on the probity of the procurement and any responses. Keeping notes of meetings, advising probity advisers of meetings: who would have thought that these had to be recommendations? Alas, they have to be in regard to this government and how it is conducting itself. I would have thought that they would have been pretty much common sense, especially when you are dealing with millions of taxpayer dollars in relation to government procurement. When senior DIT employees were asked if they were worried about recent findings by the Auditor-General, do you know what some of the responses were? Let me quote one: Sometimes it is unavoidable that meetings need to happen, and so when you have those meetings what you need to do is ensure that you have proper processes in place. The Auditor-General is quick to note that these processes were not always followed. The Auditor-General goes on: We found that DIT did not maintain a written record for some probity advice it received during the procurement process, such as advice provided to the project team…DIT told us that advice it received from the probity advisor was not always in writing. Again, they are the words of the Auditor-General. One of them actually said: I don't take notes—I have never found it necessary to take those notes. There is a reason why you take notes. There is a reason why you take notes in relation to government procurement. When it is all rosy and everyone is happy and everyone is getting on, then maybe you do not need notes, but when things hit the fan, when there is a contract dispute, as we have heard today, when there are these contract disputes, guess what: those notes become more relevant than ever. The quote, 'I don't take notes—I have never found it necessary to take notes' is a quote from a senior member of DIT during a recent Budget and Finance Committee. He must have a fantastic memory to not need notes. Given the nature of the role and the magnitude of meetings that that individual must have, I find it astonishing that he does not take notes, quite frankly—I find it absolutely astonishing—to at least make sure that he remembers what was discussed. He may not have to remember what was discussed next month, but he might have to remember it next year or in many years to come. Given probity advisers were not in attendance for all these meetings, does it not make sense to take notes to at least provide a detailed summary for an adviser? Majors Road is a massive project for the southern community, with a probity plan of its own. Members interjecting: The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Just relax and listen to this. You will get very excited, I promise you. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Florey! The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The Majors Road probity plan clearly states that all interactions with tenderers will be documented and records of meetings will be kept. You would think that it is a quite simple process to follow: have a meeting, keep documented records of those meetings. Recently, we learnt that there are no records. If the department cannot follow its own probity plans, how can South Australian taxpayers be confident that open and fair competition, ethical behaviour, equity, confidentiality and conflicts of interests are being adequately managed? The core principles of their own probity plans are not being followed. The notes of these meetings mentioned are required to be kept. The minister knows it, and it is not good enough.