HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

GOVERNMENT RED TAPE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Small Business a question on the subject of red tape.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: An article written by Greg Kelton and titled 'Rann to cut red tape' appeared in The Advertiser of Thursday 27 September. It read in part, 'State cabinet has set a target of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! You do not want to waste question time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The article states:

State cabinet has set a target of saving business $150 million a year by cutting red tape. Premier Mike Rann said the target was part of the government's commitment to reduce red tape by 25 per cent by July 2008. 'Government agencies are already making good progress with a number of measures identified to date', he said. 'The exact dollar…savings to business will be independently verified.' Mr Rann said cutting red tape was one of the government's key strategies to make South Australia the most competitive business environment in Australia.

Recently, I was advised that the government has instigated an across-government contract for printing services. An information evening was held and some 60 people involved in the printing industry attended. A large number of people did not attend. For example, a person who had done in excess of $160,000 worth of printing for the government did not attend the event because they were not aware it was being held. A number of people claim that they were not advised that the meeting was being held.

In light of the Premier's commitment to reduce red tape, I inform the council that I have here the 200-page document that is the questionnaire. It is the pre-qualification questionnaire to be completed in order to get a government printing contract. First, there is an information briefing; then there is the structure of this pre-qualification questionnaire; then there is part A (rules for submitting a response), part B (specifications), part C (indicative terms and conditions), part D (glossary), part E (response requirements) and part F (a nondisclosure agreement). It is a 200-page questionnaire prior to lodging an application for a contract.

Indeed, contracts were awarded to 13 companies. It is interesting to note that the government and the Premier, who recently announced a massive advertising campaign to promote South Australian companies, awarded contracts to 13 companies, including one with its head office in Victoria, one based in Western Australia with a South Australian shopfront, one based completely interstate, a multinational company and a company located in Victoria.

A number of people who have missed out on a contract have indicated that they will lose up to 15 per cent of their turnover as a result of not being awarded a contract, and a couple have told me that they will lose up to 30 per cent, which will result in staff reductions. My questions are:

1. How does a 200-page application form contribute to the Premier's claim that he will reduce red tape by 25 per cent by July 2008?

2. Why have interstate and overseas-based companies been given preference over good hardworking companies in South Australia that will now have to lay off staff as a result of this government decision?

The PRESIDENT: The minister will ignore all the opinion in the explanation when answering the question.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:33): There will not be much to comment on then. I am not sure who has responsibility for the printing contract and the details of it, but I will refer the question to my relevant colleague. This government has set targets in relation to cutting red tape, and it is achieving those targets. There is no better way of doing that than by introducing the reforms the government has made to our planning laws, which will significantly reduce red tape.

In relation to the printing contracts, as with any contract, of course there are statements about nondisclosure. Is the honourable member suggesting that we should let contracts that do not involve nondisclosure comments? When we talk about reducing red tape, we do not talk about throwing out the rules altogether. Of course, prior to a previous Liberal government being in office we had a government printer that protected jobs in this state. It was a previous Liberal government that decided to privatise that industry.

There are rules about letting contracts. I suggest that the Hon. Mr Ridgway ask the Hon. Mr Lucas about mutual agreements that we have with other state governments. It is interesting that at this time, all around the world, one of the greatest threats that we are facing in the current global economic environment is protectionism; and we see it in the United States. On the news this afternoon we heard that General Motors is cutting approximately 26,000 or 27,000 jobs around the world, outside the United States, as it is drawing back to its home base.

These are some of the challenges. Of course, when the world went into depression back in the 1920s, protectionism was one of the key reasons for that, and that is one of the reasons why back in the 1980s we had agreements between state governments that they would not have protective arrangements. What we do is let tenders and they go to the lowest bidder. Similarly, we would expect that if the other states—the states that hold 92 per cent of the population of this country—take the same attitude, South Australian contractors and suppliers would be disadvantaged in those markets, and that is the reason.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, of course we want people to refer it, but governments have obligations under the agreements that we have had in place for many years now—for at least 20 years—that no favouritism will be given to local companies. That protects our companies when they are competing for contracts with the other 92 per cent of this country's population. That is why we have them. Of course, a result of that is that we get services at a lower cost, which lifts the economy of the entire country, and that is why it is beneficial. It is why protectionism is so dangerous in the current world climate.

In relation to that particular contract, I will endeavour to find out the specific details because, as I said, it is not within my department so I am not familiar with those details.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT