Statutory Authorities Review Committee: Inquiry into the State Procurement Board of South Australia

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:40): I move:

That the report of the committee's Inquiry into the State Procurement Board of South Australia be noted.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I am pleased to present the 62^nd report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, on its Inquiry into the State Procurement Board of South Australia. The committee resolved on its own motion to inquire into the practices and processes of the State Procurement Board of South Australia following public concerns about the cross-government stationery contract. During the inquiry, the committee received evidence that broadly fell into two categories: first, specific concerns about the tender process for the stationery contract and, secondly, broad concerns about the board.

Under its legislation, the committee is charged with a remit to consider the functions, structure and operations of statutory authorities and, as such, the committee considered the stationery contract as a case study of the board's operation. The committee notes that the board's role in the contract was limited to approving the acquisition plan and authorising the Chief Executive of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to approve the purchase recommendation. The committee notes that the board had no further involvement in the stationery contract after this point and received no formal complaints in respect of it.

One of the board's statutory functions is to develop and review procurement policies for public authorities. The stationery contract highlighted a number of specific issues in the board's policy framework. These included the definition of value for money, industry participation, and how supplier complaints are investigated. The committee notes the board has subsequently amended the supplier complaints policy in response to feedback from the committee.

After carefully considering the evidence, the committee made five recommendations in its report, intended to strengthen the framework of the State Procurement Board and promote industry participation within government. Some of those recommendations go to the point of avoiding conflict of interest, real or perceived. The committee recommended that members of the state executive service not serve as chairs of the State Procurement Board. It also recommended, importantly, that the State Procurement Board have practical knowledge and experience or expertise in small business. I think those are critical recommendations.

On behalf of the committee, I take the opportunity to thank businesses, community organisations, government departments and the State Procurement Board for providing evidence to the inquiry. I would also thank members of the committee, the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC, the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, the Hon. Tung Ngo, and the Hon. Stephen Wade, for their commitment to this inquiry. I would also like to acknowledge former members of the committee for their contribution in this inquiry: the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Terry Stephens MLC, and the Hon. Carmel Zollo for her leadership of the committee.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.