House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Government Stationery Contract GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACT The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:12): I just want to make some comments about the disaster that is the whole of government stationery contract put in place by this government. In fairness to the minister, he is a very forthright minister—every fourth thing he does he gets right. The reality is that this is a disaster, this stationery contract. The big end of town are winning and the small end of town, the little South Australian companies, are getting done over by this government contract. Let's be clear, Mr Speaker— The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting: The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You don't have an argument on the floor of the house, minister; you don't have an argument on the floor of the house! The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting: The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You don't have an argument on the floor of the house! Mr Speaker, everyone knows that the people who designed the tender were the government. The government designed the tender about what was going to be included and what was not going to be included. The government decided to take out the CFS, the government decided to take out country schools, and it was this government that decided to put in the other school contracts that are hurting our newsagents. For this minister to come in here today and say he is going to stand behind the sanctity of contract when he went out on radio after the contract was signed and said he was going to move heaven and earth to help the newsagents—well, if he went out after the contract and he knew that the sanctity of contract was already in place, why did he go out and say to the newsagents he was going to move heaven and earth to try and overturn it? That was simply a false statement to try to give the newsagents hope. Then we have the ridiculous situation that he then shifted the issue to the Small Business Commissioner. Don't have a minister take responsibility, don't have the Premier take responsibility, don't have the minister for small business take responsibility. No, no, no; we will shift it to a bureaucrat who is locked in by the government contract. The Small Business Commissioner can do nothing to solve this issue—not a thing. So then what does the government do? It comes up with another brilliant solution: we are going to have an industry participation advocate, another bureaucrat to argue with cabinet about what should be in and outside future contracts and purchasing agreements. The reason we are in this position is very simple: we have a Rip Van Winkle cabinet. They are all asleep. Where was the Minister for Education when this issue was before cabinet? Did that minister once put up her hand and say, 'There might actually be an issue with school purchases from our newsagents'? Did the Minister for Small Business put up his hand and say, 'What is happening with our local small business and newsagents'? The answer is no. This is a Rip Van Winkle cabinet—they were all asleep. For 40 years, the newsagents in South Australia have provided a decent cost-effective service to our school community. For 40 years, not a scandal—decent people mortgaging themselves to provide jobs and a service to our schools. The government has a problem, not the newsagents, with the supply of cartridges, and guess what happens? It is the newsagents who are penalised. The house should be under no illusion. The contract that has been signed is very clear. Clause 1 states that it is not exclusive: This Agreement establishes a purchasing arrangement for the Goods listed in the Schedule from the Contractor on a non-exclusive basis. If we go to clause 7, the heading is Non-exclusivity, and it states, 'This Agreement is entered into on a non-exclusive basis.' The contract value on the government website is zero value. In other words, this contract says the people can buy from whoever they wish. There is no obligation to buy through these two multinationals, and what the minister is really saying is that cabinet has decreed that there is going to be this mandated policy that is penalising our newsagents. We think there are going to be job losses and the minister's comment today about job losses is going to come back to haunt him. Time expired.