Mr POOLE - 1995-10-17
Mr POOLE (Asian Relations, Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, on 12 October 1995, the member for Wanguri asked me a series of questions about the Department of Education's purchase of wheelchairs in 1992. I undertook to inform the House when I obtained answers to his questions.
The first question was: `In 1992, would it have been correct procedure for a certificate of exemption to be issued for a purchase that did not go to tender, and should that have been forwarded to the then Supply and Tender Board?' It was correct procedure. Accountable officers for government agencies were able to authorise the issue of certificates of exemption for the purchase of materials worth up to $50 000. The Supply and Tender Board should have been notified of the issue of such a certificate.
The second question was: `Does the minister's department have any record of a certificate of exemption for this purchase from that time?' My department has no record of such a certificate, although I am aware of an internal memorandum to the Department of Education authorising the certificate of exemption for the purchase. Subsequently, the Auditor-General considered that matter and it was resolved appropriately.
The third question was: `Did a certificate of exemption require the accountable officer to document the reason for using a certificate of exemption rather than going to tender?' The form of the certificate of exemption was a matter for the accountable officer of the agency in question. Some agencies used a standardised certificate and others used a memorandum. Treasury regulation 12 required the accountable officer to be satisfied that it would be inexpedient to invite public quotation.
Page 891
The fourth question was: Should this purchase of wheelchairs have appeared in the NT Government Gazette and, if so, did it? Treasury regulation 14 required expenditure of any amount for the purchase of supplies exceeding $3000 to be published in the NT Government Gazette. My department has no record of the purchases referred to by the honourable member appearing in the NT Government Gazette. It is my understanding that the Auditor-General questioned this transaction in his report for the year ended 30 June 1993. At that time, he said:
Inadequacies were noted in procurement procedures for the acquisition of some equipment in June 1992 for an
amount of $49 980. In response, the department advised that `the action was taken during a busy period in
which financial year accounts were being finalised. Procurement procedures, including the need to issue a
certificate of exemption, were initially overlooked but this was remedied immediately the omission was noted.
Steps have been taken to ensure that the correct procedures will be observed.
I point out that it is apparent that the Auditor-General is satisfied that the matter has been resolved appropriately. The information the member for Wanguri requested has been provided already to the Public Accounts Committee by the secretary to the Procurement Review Board.
Page 892
The first question was: `In 1992, would it have been correct procedure for a certificate of exemption to be issued for a purchase that did not go to tender, and should that have been forwarded to the then Supply and Tender Board?' It was correct procedure. Accountable officers for government agencies were able to authorise the issue of certificates of exemption for the purchase of materials worth up to $50 000. The Supply and Tender Board should have been notified of the issue of such a certificate.
The second question was: `Does the minister's department have any record of a certificate of exemption for this purchase from that time?' My department has no record of such a certificate, although I am aware of an internal memorandum to the Department of Education authorising the certificate of exemption for the purchase. Subsequently, the Auditor-General considered that matter and it was resolved appropriately.
The third question was: `Did a certificate of exemption require the accountable officer to document the reason for using a certificate of exemption rather than going to tender?' The form of the certificate of exemption was a matter for the accountable officer of the agency in question. Some agencies used a standardised certificate and others used a memorandum. Treasury regulation 12 required the accountable officer to be satisfied that it would be inexpedient to invite public quotation.
Page 891
The fourth question was: Should this purchase of wheelchairs have appeared in the NT Government Gazette and, if so, did it? Treasury regulation 14 required expenditure of any amount for the purchase of supplies exceeding $3000 to be published in the NT Government Gazette. My department has no record of the purchases referred to by the honourable member appearing in the NT Government Gazette. It is my understanding that the Auditor-General questioned this transaction in his report for the year ended 30 June 1993. At that time, he said:
Inadequacies were noted in procurement procedures for the acquisition of some equipment in June 1992 for an
amount of $49 980. In response, the department advised that `the action was taken during a busy period in
which financial year accounts were being finalised. Procurement procedures, including the need to issue a
certificate of exemption, were initially overlooked but this was remedied immediately the omission was noted.
Steps have been taken to ensure that the correct procedures will be observed.
I point out that it is apparent that the Auditor-General is satisfied that the matter has been resolved appropriately. The information the member for Wanguri requested has been provided already to the Public Accounts Committee by the secretary to the Procurement Review Board.
Page 892
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016