It appears the government takes the position that if a subcontractor gets ripped off by a company engaged by a government agency, it’s not their problem. I’ve been asking the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) about a particular historical case where a subcontractor was ripped off by a construction company on their project and can’t get compensation. If their response is that it’s a matter for the construction company, even if that company rips off their subcontractors, it wouldn’t be a good enough response.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Smith, Senator Roberts is committee hopping. To assist him with that—I’ll give you the call, Senator Roberts, if you’re ready to go.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I am. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. I’d like to return to the historical case of Garners Plumbing. I appreciate that I’m going back a while here to question on notice BI-52 from November 2022. I appreciate the detail you gave in your answer to that question. As a reminder, ANSTO engaged Watpac for the design and construction of your nuclear medicine production facility. Watpac subcontracted Garners Plumbing for hydraulic and plumbing works. There were variations to the scope of work to make it compliant with standards, but Garners Plumbing has never been able to get compensation for those variations, in large part because the failure of Watpac to pay in the first place put them in a precarious position. Your answer is that because you didn’t have a contract with Garners—you only had a contract with Watpac—it’s got nothing to do with you. It was your project, though. Don’t you feel some responsibility to investigate and make sure the subcontractors on your projects are treated fairly by the prime contractor? 

Mr Jenkinson: I have to say that I’m not aware of that situation, and I might have to take that question on notice in terms of the situation and what happened. I don’t have a full understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d appreciate a full answer, so I’m fine with that. So that you’re aware, the situation caused millions of dollars in losses to what I understand is a relatively small operator which has financially sunk due to the compounding effects of it. I’d also like to know whether or not you have some sense of duty to subcontractors that are engaged on your projects.  

Mr Jenkinson: What I can say is that, in terms of understanding how we pay operators that we work with, we behave in the most appropriate way in terms of the speed at which we pay people. I’m not aware of the relationship with that particular subcontractor and, again, I’d have to take that question on notice to give a fuller answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it’s not you who should be paying them; it’s Watpac who should have paid them, and Watpac—  

Mr Jenkinson: That would be my understanding, but I’m not aware of the relationship with Watpac and what happened.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could take that on notice, too, I’d like to know how you see your sense of responsibility.  

Mr Jenkinson: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. What do you have in place that ensures that, for your future projects, if a subcontractor has a complaint they’re able to raise it with you?

Mr Jenkinson: Again, I would have to take on notice what our procurement policy is and how we take those details, but there certainly is an opportunity for people to contact us, and we would obviously take account of any information people send to us. But I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you could, tell me what it is now, whether or not you think it’s adequate for preventing a recurrence of something like this and, if it’s not adequate, then what you would do to make sure it is.  

Mr Jenkinson: Certainly, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.