Page 205 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One such policy is ensuring that a genuine weighting in the tender process is given to locally owned and operated businesses—not just to offer a leg-up but to give genuine recognition to the flow-on effects of a business based in the ACT region being given the opportunity over an interstate or overseas player.
The issue that brought this motion to the fore today is centred on the contract for grass mowing in the ACT. One of the most common complaints that come through my office from constituents is complaints about the mowing of our public grass—grass on the verges, grass on the roadsides, our footpath edges, laneways, playgrounds and parks. Too much grass and not enough mowing is the prevalent theme.
Recently the ACT government awarded a contract to mow the grass along arterial roads to a new contractor. It is not unusual, nor is it surprising, you might think. That is until we dig a little deeper and discover that the successful tender was awarded to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Melbourne City Council. Every time jobs and employment opportunities get taken away from ACT operators and employees, it is another move in the wrong direction for the ACT’s economy. That is an absolute fact.
The ACT government argue that this contract provided value for money for ACT taxpayers, but in actual fact the negative impact on our economy of this decision is far reaching. Firstly, the profits that the contractor may make will leave the territory. In this instance they will be heading to prop up the Melbourne City Council. Secondly, the purchase of new equipment or servicing of equipment will likely be done outside the territory. Thirdly, any of the administration work, accounting or legal work that a local contractor would employ a local professional to undertake will undoubtedly be done interstate.
The minister, Shane Rattenbury, yesterday answered a question that we asked without notice during question time querying the tender process. His response was that Citywide came in at around half the price, “so they provide better value for money because they have economies of scale”.
I disagree with this statement and believe that this speaks to the heart of the matter here today. This statement shows that the minister, and consequently the government, believes that adequate weighting is given to locally owned businesses in the tender process. But, as I have already outlined, this is simply is not the case. This is wrong and highlights how very little the minister and his ACT Labor colleagues know about doing business from a business perspective.
I believe we are creating a false economy if we continue to award contracts without adequate weighting for local business. Even if employees for the contract in question today are sourced from the ACT, they will only just replace the jobs that have been lost from the previous locally owned business that had held the contract. What about the loss of the actual business itself that lost out in the tender process and the loss to the local economy because the local contractor was forced out of work? I need to stress here that I am not simply advocating that once a company wins a government contract they should never lose the contract; instead a much more serious assessment needs to be given to locally owned and locally operated proposals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video