Page 2878 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Because they do not care what their plans cost or how they will be paid for by the community, the Greens are in many ways the enemy of community and social reform. Until they change their approach about “here’s the policy and let us not care about what it costs” the Greens will continue to remain irrelevant to the people of Australia and the people of the ACT.
But first, let me get back to the subject of social procurement. We need to ask the question: what is social procurement? The government’s procurement circular of 2010 and the public accounts committee report into government procurement, both of which are referenced in Ms Hunter’s motion, describe social procurement or social purchasing as factoring social value into procurement. This can be achieved by targeting purchasing through companies that adopt socially responsible practices; including community and social benefit criteria in the tendering process; engaging lead contractors who subcontract social benefit organisations; and social tendering involving social purpose businesses or enterprises.
No-one could disagree with the principles of procurement practices that embrace these strategies. I am sure that if anyone were able to ask the CEOs of community-based, not-for-profit, social-purpose businesses or enterprises, and there are plenty of them around, they would say that not only are they willing to participate, but also they are willing to compete, and in fact do compete, with for-profit enterprises in the business environment. If you look at the work of Communities@Work or Koomarri, just to name two, you can see that these are organisations that have long experience in the area of social procurement and are prepared to compete competitively in the marketplace.
This brings me to the question of a competitive economy. Like it or not—and I do not think the Greens do like it—we operate in a competitive economy in this territory and in this country. Indeed, there are quite stringent laws about ensuring competitive neutrality and promoting a competitive environment. Unfortunately, Ms Hunter’s motion promotes an anticompetitive approach in clauses (2) and (3)(a), which call for a level of preference for social enterprises and for the goods and services for which social procurement should be prioritised. The Chief Minister has addressed that in her comments and in her amendment.
I am sure that social enterprises would not want preferential treatment. Most of them are proud of the quality of the goods and services that they deliver. Most are able to deliver these goods and services efficiently and effectively and at a competitive price. Most are proud of their customer and after-sale service. Most would be quite willing to compete for the right to supply those goods and services, standing on their own proud record. It is inappropriate, and perhaps even anticompetitive, to call on either the Assembly or the government to give any kind of preference to social enterprises or the goods and services that they provide.
This goes to the first part of my proposed amendment to the motion, which I will speak about now because it addresses and crosses over with some of the concerns which have been highlighted by the Chief Minister. In a sense the Chief Minister and I are more at one about the practicalities outlined in the original motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video