Page 5055 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
things like probity and ethical behaviour, management of risk, open and effective competition and optimising whole-of-life costs. Our policies also require consideration of social procurement opportunities and environmentally sustainable considerations.
All of these factors are balanced within a framework of obligations under international agreements. As I am sure members are aware, the Australian government is signatory to a number of international free trade agreements. Under these free trade agreements, territory entities must not treat a locally established supplier more favourably than any other suppliers on the basis of the degree of foreign affiliation or ownership. Nor may they seek, take into account, impose or enforce offsets, such as pre-qualification criteria, evaluation criteria or a contract award not applicable to all suppliers.
The premises underlying these agreements are openness, fairness and impartiality in relation to our procurement activities. I do not think it is sound policy to apply a blanket requirement to “break up” larger projects into smaller components, although I do note that the shadow treasurer put a qualification in advance of that. I think it would be fair to observe that increasing the number of parties responsible for delivering projects may in fact lead to higher risks, higher costs and fewer satisfactory outcomes for the territory.
Better economic and project management policies will certainly allow for market arrangements in relation to partnering, consortia or subcontracting arrangements where these would deliver value for money. In fact, in some projects, economies of scale can be important for business to achieve a return on investment and to provide for appropriate risk management. In other projects, there may be scope to consider the unbundling, if you like, of work packages into discrete components. However, such decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis and this is current government policy. So there is nothing new in this.
In closing, the government understand the importance of cash flow to small enterprises. We will continue to strive for the payment of all invoices within 30 days. We believe the 30-day period is appropriate. In the context of the motion that is before us today, the idea of moving from 30 days to 45 days as some great advance is, I think, an extraordinary proposition. I imagine that for the 85 per cent of suppliers who currently receive payment within 30 days, they would in fact see the move to 45 as a retrograde step.
It was, I think with some amusement, that the government and, indeed, the parliamentary leader of the Greens noted this particular anomaly in the policy from the opposition. Of course, I am sure we will hear a stout defence of why they got it wrong from the Leader of the Opposition. He would never, of course, admit a mistake in a policy framework. But given they have had three years to put this one together, they have come up with 45 days. Wow! That is a really significant change, is it not? You go backwards. You go backwards under the Liberal Party policy. You go backwards. It is a fantastic outcome for small business in the territory, Mr Assistant Speaker!
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Did you have an amendment, minister?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video