Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 418 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

about the relationships between this Government and great companies, especially when I think of the language that Mrs Carnell used in terms of sending a good message to corporate Australia, to business Australia. If we did do a single outsource to one of the big multinational companies, IBM for example, that would be a great corporate message to be sending to multinational companies. You could use exactly the same argument. We could be sending a really great message to local businesses, small information technology companies, that we want them to exist; that we want them to continue; that we are interested in all parts of this issue, in hardware, in the development of software, in follow-up services, in maintenance, in training. That whole range of issues is important.

The ACT Government ought to be actively encouraging information technology businesses that are indigenous to the ACT to take up this opportunity. I believe, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that there is not a single indigenous company which could deliver the whole of an outsourcing service for the ACT Public Service that currently exists. I think that is a reasonable observation. Therefore, the tendering process should be designed in such a way that the information technology outsourcing goes appropriately to a series of small businesses. That can be achieved in a range of ways. It could also be that a tender is put together by a consortium of local companies. At the time I say these things, I also have to be conscious of our obligations under the free trade sections of our Constitution. However, there are ways of making business easy for small business in the ACT and there are ways of making it easy for big business outside the ACT. I have already drawn attention to one situation where I believe that the Government has made it easy for a big business outside the ACT.

If a single contractor is chosen, in particular a company based interstate or overseas, the ACT economy will lose a significant benefit of outsourcing. Not only will most of the direct expenditure be lost from the Canberra economy, but also the loss will be compounded by the loss of the multiplier effect. I think that is particularly important in dealing with our local companies. When money is injected into local industry in the ACT - we are talking about over $50m - the multiplier effect of that in terms of people buying houses, building houses, having extensions done, buying cars and buying groceries is significant indeed. It does not make sense for the Government to respond to this problem in that way.

We are looking for lateral solutions to ensure that Canberra jobs are protected, that the money stays in Canberra, and that the ACT companies gain expertise and the skills necessary for them to grow and to compete elsewhere. Public Service contracts in Canberra can form the base of a company, can keep the company stable, keep it there, whilst they apply, first of all, for tenders and contracts with the Federal Government. A number of very lucrative contracts come out through Federal Government departments. Quite a number of businesses that I am aware of, having been successful in that area, also have the opportunity to access the regional market as well as Melbourne and Sydney, and even abroad. They are the prime markets. We are extremely well placed to take advantage of that range of possibilities for this industry, and every time this happens there are more jobs in Canberra in a clean industry for people with real talents in the ACT.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .