You will all be aware of current demands for Australian Government procurement policies to include a “buy Australian” bias. The Government does not support such proposals. We remain resolutely committed to a non-discriminatory purchasing policy.

This is not the answer to all our prayers

Australia is a signatory to numerous international agreements that seriously inhibit our ability to use discriminatory procurement policies. We have been vocal in international forums warning against the serious threat any upsurge in protectionism poses to the world economy. If we introduce protectionist measures like discriminatory procurement policies we will invite retaliation from other countries. As a trading nation, Australia stands to lose a great deal in any global outbreak of protectionism.

The notion that there are big gains for Australian companies and workers to be won from discriminatory procurement policies is essentially a mirage. Research by my Department that I am releasing today shows that the possible benefits are very modest.

In 2007-08, the Australian Government awarded $23.7 billion in procurement contracts. In broad terms, based on our research, some $16.5 billion or 69 per cent was directed at Australian produced goods and services. Of the remaining $7.2 billion, $7 billion was spent on imported goods.

More than half of that, $3.9 billion was spent on imported transport equipment, typically specialised equipment for the Defence forces. The Defence Department has arrangements in place that assist Australian participation in many major defence contracts, but it is unlikely that Australia will become a manufacturer of helicopters or fighter jets.

A further $1.6 billion was spent on imported information and communications technology, typically computer equipment. It is reasonable to assume that the bulk of these items had to be imported because they aren’t produced in Australia.

Similarly, almost $500 million was spent on security equipment such as guns, ammunition, body armour and weapons systems.

In other words, once the items that have to be imported are subtracted from the total of $7 billion of imported goods, it would appear that the total of imported items that could have been purchased in Australia may be little more than $1 billion. That sounds a lot, but it’s less than five per cent of total procurement and less than 0.1 per cent of Australia’s annual GDP. And although some of the items in the categories I’ve just referred to may have Australian equivalents, the obverse applies in those categories of imports that I’m assuming could have been purchased locally. Presumably there are some furniture items we can’t buy locally for example.

The conclusion is simple. Although the data is admittedly fairly general and rough, it is pretty obvious that the introduction of discrimination in favour of Australian producers would have a very modest impact. Given that price discrimination would certainly not cause all imports of items that are produced in Australia to cease, the net shift could be as little as a few hundred million dollars of purchasing.

The downsides to such a strategy would overwhelm any benefits it delivers. If Australia takes such a protectionist stance, the adverse international implication would be very serious. And there’d be a domestic cost. We’d be paying more for the same things.

In simple terms introducing local price discrimination into our procurement policy isn’t worth the candle.

That doesn’t mean that we simply leave Australian companies to their own devices. There are certainly things we can do to make it easier for Australian companies to compete for Government business.

At the heart of our procurement reform agenda is better information. At present we at the centre of government don’t know enough about what is happening across a couple of hundred agencies and thousands upon thousands of contracts.

The lack of across-government information and communication systems is also a big problem for Australian suppliers. If an Australian furniture manufacturer came to me and asked for advice about how to break into the government market, I wouldn’t have much to say in reply.

We intend to fix this problem. I propose to establish a Procurement Coordinator in my department. The primary function of this position will be the collection and dissemination of information. Instead of wandering around in a fog, Australian producers will have a much better idea of where new opportunities may lie.

And to improve their chances of competing seriously, I intend to reform the existing requirement for annual procurement plans. Better advance warning of potential procurement opportunities will improve their prospects for competing too.

Procurement policy involves many complex challenges. The Australian Government is a huge enterprise comprising a very diverse range of agencies and arrangements. The factors governing, for example, a Defence contract for new helicopters are very different from those relating to a new fit-out of a Department of Finance and Deregulation building.

We are gradually building a new framework, one that delivers better outcomes across the board. We’re making good progress, but there is still much to be done. I look forward to continuing constructive engagement as we develop a more sophisticated approach to supplying the diverse needs of the Australian Government in partnership with our suppliers.

20 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Peter says:

      01:52pm | 11/07/11

      Hi, Great idea buying Australian and supporting Australian workers. However after listening to Dick Smith the following occurred.

      My home garage door wireless panel is still working manually but will not receive a signal. So contacting Dick Smiths regarding a simple wireless card and hand held transmitter that would allow the hard wires a connection and open the garage doors.

      They told me they no longer sold this kind of device. Further looking at their catalogue most of the TV’s and other goods come from overseas.

      So I contacted another Australian company regarding the matter. They told me they could supply the required unit (simple wireless card and hand held transmitter) Price $260 Plus nearly a day’s labour and travelling 300 ks Total amount nearly $500.

      So after looking on the Internet, ordered and received the unit, 2-button hand transmitter with battery, the whole items delivered to my home, total cost $10 yes that is Ten Dollars.

      Another incident, wanted to buy a good second hand (just for playing games, no internet) computer PC box including Mother board, hard drive, DVD drive, memory SIMMs, internal sound card and internal speakers. Onboard graphics card. All fully working with Windows XP system installed.

      Most of the local and city computer dealers asked for hundreds of dollars. So once again from the Internet purchased exactly what we wanted for a grand total of $45 (forty five dollars).

      So even though I would like to buy Australian the incentive of money saved by buying Non Australian for many is simply a monetary incentive.

      I really must apologise for falling into the latter category.

    • cat says:

      07:15pm | 09/08/09

      Why can’t we simply have better labelling laws whereby we HAVE to be told exactly what is local and what’s imported. Stating ‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ is not good enough, as that includes advertising and labelling. I want to know what I’m eating.

    • Andrew says:

      03:54pm | 29/07/09

      Eag: 

      People don’t have to buy the “cheap inferior goods”. You can buy the more expensive brands if you like. Its called consumer choice.

      Even if the WTO didn’t exist, the simple fact remains if Australia took a stronly protectionist approach, then (a) the price of what Australians buy would go up, without necessarily any improvement in quality, and (b) if other nations reacted the same way, over time Australia’s export markets would go down, and employment and national income would also go down.

      If you want higher prices, higher unemployment, lower qualilty and less revenue available for governments to spend on public services, then promote protectionism.

    • stephen says:

      02:41pm | 29/07/09

      Toggle up yer’ togs bro’.
      Lindsay’s 6’4”.

    • Lindell says:

      10:59am | 29/07/09

      I’m glad other people saw Tanner last night, I thought I was hearing things in his interview, after reading his blog here yesterday. Did you forget to tell Kevin what you wrote in your blog? You must have been horified when Rudd told you what you must say in your interview last night. Looks like a slip up by you Mr Tanner. LOL

    • Barry Richmond says:

      10:43am | 29/07/09

      Hilarious Tanner, last night you had a completely different view!

    • Henry says:

      10:02am | 29/07/09

      Mr Tanner, last night on TV you seemed to have a different view to what you told us here yesterday. Did Kev get out the strap to you mate!? naughty boy! Just shows how Labor aren’t allowed to say what they think. Just a bunch of ROBOTS!

    • Lesley Gruit says:

      10:02am | 29/07/09

      Which international agreements has Australia signed which “seriously inhibit our ability to use discriminatory procurement policies”? Actually not a lot.  Australia has NOT signed the WTO voluntary Plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (you can check the list here http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm) and therefore has no legal obligations under WTO rules not to give preference to local suppliers.  A quick look at that list reveals just how few countries have signed on because they quite reasonably want to be able to adopt policies which will help their own.  And the US, which is a signatory, has been very careful to negotiate a great many exceptions (for example half of the country’s state governments are not covered).

    • Nick says:

      09:06am | 29/07/09

      The free trade debate fails always to address a key point about the way free trade agreements operate. The fallacy is the idea that we trade with nations. We do not trade with nations, we trade with multi-nationals operating in cheap labour nations. When we buy Bonds we do not assist Chinese manufacturers, we simply enrich Pacific Brands. When we shop for toys at Christmas we enrich Mattel, not China. The same applies to phones (Nokia), sportswear (Adidas, Nike) etc etc When we see the label “Made in China’ our question should be, yes, but made by whom?

    • eag says:

      08:17am | 29/07/09

      So once we cut through the pollie speak it means our market will still be flooded with cheap inferior goods.The Australian people have a choice and many are beginning to take it by buying local, buying only what is strictly necessary or doing without.It makes economic sense to be more frugal and many are tired of shoddy goods which in the end are not good value for money.Here amongst the groundswell it’s a very noticeable trend and perhaps pollies should get amongst the people a bit more and listen to what they say and what they want.

    • Ben says:

      11:00pm | 28/07/09

      Good work Lindsay. I agree with your conclusion, but more importantly, I respect your ability to argue a case in a reasonable manner.

      After reading recent articles on this site from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong which treat readers with contempt, I consider your approach a breath of fresh air.

    • Patrick says:

      06:43pm | 28/07/09

      Lindsay for PM!

      Who says Julia Gillard has to be Rudd’s successor?

    • Willow says:

      05:57pm | 28/07/09

      Come on folks stop the claptrap and start reading the labels! If you decide to buy it is your choice but read first and then decide which way you want to go!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:51pm | 28/07/09

      @Jeff from Meroo, 3.48pm, If you don’t think that the Chinese and Americans already have preferential systems in place for their own industries then you don’t operate in the real world. BTW, why would I be at a WTO protest? The WTO is a toothless tiger. The major powers agree with it when it suits their purposes, ignore it when it doesn’t.

    • Geoff says:

      04:17pm | 28/07/09

      Lindsay,

      Come on mate you do not need to put it in “writing”. Just a simple hand shake and a wink will get the deals done. Anything you can get in oz should be brought here it’s not protectionism it is simply doing the right thing. If you believe other countries don’t do it you should pull your head out of the sand.

      Vote For A Fair Go!

    • Richard says:

      04:09pm | 28/07/09

      Lindsay. If you won’t support Australian businesses then clean out your desk and get ready to leave at the next election.

    • Jeff from Meroo says:

      03:48pm | 28/07/09

      Shane, don’t you have a WTO protest to attend somewhere?  The way it works mate is if we start only “buying Australian” then the Chinese will counter with only “buying Chinese” and the Americans will jump in with “buying American” and so on.  And guess who’d be buying all of our grain and coal and VB..  nobody.  And the amount of jobs saved because we bought Bonds instead of the cheaper Chinese brands would be outstripped 10 fold by the number of jobs lost because protectionism is a double edged sword.

    • PL says:

      03:13pm | 28/07/09

      Lindsay,
      I am a free market advocate and I agree with the fact that there should not be a pre determined bias towards “buying Australian” as it gives the impression overseas that the Australian government is moving towards protectionism. It may ignite a tariff war directed at us.

      Procurement should be made on a case by case basis. It should be taken into account, however, that by purchasing Australian you are effectively giving the Australian government a rebate via increased tax receipts. Any other purchasing firm would take this into account and so should the government.

      Cheers

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:46pm | 28/07/09

      So basically you’re saying that as signatories to international trade agreements Australia has lost what little sovereignty it has and that these trade agreements cannot be abrogated, even if these agreements are to Australia’s ultimate detriment. (just as as matter of interest, has the Senate held any Inquiries or Reviews of these Free Trade agreements to determine their impact on Australia?)
          Until Australia is able to export its products anywhere in the world including to Europe, China, United States and Japan where agriculture is a protected sector and certain other industries are protected, you won’t be able to convince me that Australia is nothing other than a captive market and a dumping ground for other nation’s exports.

    • miantiao says:

      02:41pm | 28/07/09

      Mr Tanner, I don’t think the majority of people have a problem with free-trade and are more than aware of the dangers of protectionist trade policies.
      What most people would like to see is other nations stepping up to the plate to allow freer access to their markets.
      The CCP introduced a policy linked to their stimulus package around november last year. They put in place govt subsidies for rural families and individuals that allowed them to purchase essential household electrical appliances such as washing machines and fridges etc. Indigenous manufactuers of such goods were the target of these subsidies.
      When am I going to be able to import kangaroo meat into China? And how much do you think i’ll be slugged in import duties if and when that time comes.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter