Paladin controversy prompts renewed scrutiny of $591m Nauru deal

Quote:

Controversy surrounding the awarding of a $423m Manus Island contract to the security contractor Paladin has prompted new scrutiny of a second major $591m deal to run the Nauru detention centre. The home affairs department used a limited tender process with only one bidder to pick relatively obscure companies in both major contracts. Canstruct International, a Brisbane-based firm and Liberal donor, reportedly had limited experience running garrison and welfare services when it bid for a lucrative government contract to run the Nauru detention centre in 2017. Its previous work was almost all civil construction and infrastructure projects, though it had worked on projects on Nauru, including to rebuild the detention centre following riots in 2013.

And ANOTHER closed tender going to the Libs' mates or donors.

Where does the Coalition corruption stop?

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

And ANOTHER closed tender going to the Libs' mates or donors.

You DO know what a closed tender is; don't you?

For instance in a firearms tender as recently put by Labor Vic it would be only be open to firms that have previously satisfied  selection criteria - IE a firearms importer or reseller.

Maybe you should address your concerns to Austender. ;)

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:05pm:

Paladin controversy prompts renewed scrutiny of $591m Nauru deal Quote: Controversy surrounding the awarding of a $423m Manus Island contract to the security contractor Paladin has prompted new scrutiny of a second major $591m deal to run the Nauru detention centre. The home affairs department used a limited tender process with only one bidder to pick relatively obscure companies in both major contracts. Canstruct International, a Brisbane-based firm and Liberal donor, reportedly had limited experience running garrison and welfare services when it bid for a lucrative government contract to run the Nauru detention centre in 2017. Its previous work was almost all civil construction and infrastructure projects, though it had worked on projects on Nauru, including to rebuild the detention centre following riots in 2013. And ANOTHER closed tender going to the Libs' mates or donors. Where does the Coalition corruption stop?

Not sure where.

I know when, though.

https://b1850736eb4d1f95855c-994bee8790f7146588e1ebfa67cd86c9.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/Website/Calenders/May-2019.png

funny how all the big tenders are going to lib party donors .....  ::) ::) ::)

meanwhile Lee keeps pretending

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:38pm:

funny how all the big tenders are going to lib party donors .....  ::) ::) ::) meanwhile Lee keeps pretending

He's pretty good at it, though.

In fact, he's great.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRjFWDGs1g

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:38pm:

funny how all the big tenders are going to lib party donors .....  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes meanwhile Lee keeps pretending

And this from the bloke who had a thought, not an original one, of truncating replies, as proof of his superior thinking power.

Perhaps you can find where they didn't make a similar donation to Labor. Most firms grease the wheels of both major parties. ;)

PS. It is a private firm so the financials won't be publicly available. You can go to ASIC and pay for the download. ;D ;D ;D ;D

pretending what exactly? That people don't donate to political parties? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:42pm:

Perhaps you can find where they didn't make a similar donation to Labor.

now you're going to make a claim and I'm supposed to prove it for you?  ;D ;D ;D yeah right. Wake up to yourself

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:45pm:

now you're going to make a claim and I'm supposed to prove it for you?

Am I? Have your cognitive skills gone backward? You must be speshul.

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 2:45pm: now you're going to make a claim and I'm supposed to prove it for you? Am I? Have your cognitive skills gone backward? You must be speshul.

is your alzheimer's kicking in already?  just go back up and read what you wrote if you can't remember. It's not that hard.

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:51pm:

just go back up and read what you wrote if you can't remember. It's not that hard.

Obviously it is for you. Nowhere did I say you should prove your assertion. I did suggest a place you could look, which is an entirely different thing as it doesn't require you to post anything.

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 2:51pm: just go back up and read what you wrote if you can't remember. It's not that hard. Obviously it is for you. Nowhere did I say you should prove your assertion. I did suggest a place you could look, which is an entirely different thing as it doesn't require you to post anything.

Re: the highlighted. No, I never said you did. What I said was that you want me to prove YOUR assertion. You can make all the suggestions you like, they won't help you. You made the assertion that they donated to labor, you prove it.

He's a far quit Smithy!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 3:02pm:

What I said was that you want me to prove YOUR assertion.

Which assertion was that petal?


lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:42pm:

Perhaps you can find where they didn't make a similar donation to Labor.

That's not an assertion it is however a statement. Nowhere did I assert that they did indeed donate to Labor.


lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:42pm:

Most firms grease the wheels of both major parties.

That is an assertion and is true. but you wouldn't need to prove it.

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 2:23pm:

You DO know what a closed tender is; don't you?

For the Coalition, it's apparently a process that they can abuse to funnel taxpayers' money to their mates or donors.

This week's examples: Paladin, Canstruct, Helloworld.

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 3:57pm:

For the Coalition, it's apparently a process that they can abuse to funnel taxpayers' money to their mates or donors. This week's examples: Paladin, Canstruct, Helloworld.

Is that from Austender or merely your tender observations? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/ministerial-responsibility-in-canberra-appears-to-have-all-but-decayed-to-no-responsibility-20190219-p50yul.html

So many problems on a government's dying days.

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 4:04pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 3:57pm: For the Coalition, it's apparently a process that they can abuse to funnel taxpayers' money to their mates or donors. This week's examples: Paladin, Canstruct, Helloworld. Is that from Austender or merely your tender observations? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only once company met the requirements in each case, and each just happens to be a Lib donor and one's honcho is the Libs donations organiser?

I saw that pig flypast lead by the unicorn....

https://media.tenor.com/images/2b79d812a177a270e9ddc9b6fa349f1a/tenor.gif

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:00pm:

Only once company met the requirements in each case, and each just happens to be a Lib donor and one's honcho is the Libs donations organiser?

Complain to Austender, you have that right.

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 4:04pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 3:57pm: For the Coalition, it's apparently a process that they can abuse to funnel taxpayers' money to their mates or donors. This week's examples: Paladin, Canstruct, Helloworld. Is that from Austender or merely your tender observations? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Let's refer Austender to Federal ICAC .... oh ... wait a minute..... :-/

Well.. let's do a little research.... not much meat.... but it does say 'to encourage competition', so it seems that one company tenders are out of line......

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:05pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 8:00pm: Only once company met the requirements in each case, and each just happens to be a Lib donor and one's honcho is the Libs donations organiser? Complain to Austender, you have that right.

For what benefit?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:06pm:

but it does say 'to encourage competition', so it seems that one company tenders are out of line......

Really? which one?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:07pm:

For what benefit?

Well you will have fulfilled your civic duty as a high minded Australian voter. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:08pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20th, 2019 at 8:06pm: but it does say 'to encourage competition', so it seems that one company tenders are out of line...... Really? which one?

List them ...... then we'll talk... one company tenders do not encourage competition, simple enough,  and one company cannot be the only one to meet the requirements or to apply, and the 'requirements' seem to be pretty loose around these three ... if it smells like a fish market, it is a fish market...  8-)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 8:11pm:

one company tenders do not encourage competition, simple enough,  and one company cannot be the only one to meet the requirements or to apply, and the 'requirements' seem to be pretty loose around these three

So you would force eligible companies to participate in a tender even though they didn't want a part of it?