Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the proponents of these procurement measures. It is unusual for me to do that. I acknowledge that this is a very significant change which the Labor Party supports, but this should not come at the expense of building workers. I acknowledge that these measures are good policy; they are clearly an argument that the Labor Party has pursued for a very long period of time. We were told, of course, that none of this could be done, because it was in breach of this or that or it offended this or that agreement. Now we discover that there is a political motive here. There is a political imperative and the government has to fundamentally change its attitude on procurement. These are measures which I support, but what are the circumstances that have led to them? This is a government desperate to find a mechanism by which it can secure a majority in this chamber to do over building workers. This is what disturbs me.

These are good measures, but why should building workers have to pay for them? These are measures that should benefit all Australians and be developed in such a way as to protect all Australian industry and allow Australian industry to participate in their country and in building their capabilities to secure the prosperity of the nation. Why is it that building workers have to be traded off to secure these changes? It strikes me that that is the real flaw here. There is an arrangement which is essentially immoral because it trades off one group of workers for another in circumstances which I say are totally unnecessary.

As to the measures that are contained in this procurement proposition, I think we should acknowledge just how significant the changes are. I trust, Senator Xenophon, that they are actually delivered. This is an intention the government has announced here. What is the status of the document? I ask the minister: is this actually a decision of government or an intention of government? It is important to distinguish between those two matters. As for the details of these changes to the guidelines that are being proposed, it strikes me that there are some very significant measures here. I cannot recall a set of circumstances where the Commonwealth procurement guidelines have looked at the overall economic impact of a project and, specifically, as outlined at 10.18, using these words:

Officials must make reasonable enquiries that the procurement is carried out considering relevant regulations and/or regulatory frameworks, including but not limited to tenderers' practices regarding:

a. labour regulations, including ethical employment practices;

b. occupational, health and safety; and

c. environmental impacts.

These are very good measures. But there is also a question here about value for money, because this is the great, thorny issue of procurement policy: how do you determine value for money? Should it be based on the cheapest price or the whole-of-life cost, or should it be based on the other factors that go to make up the actual project costs?

Then there is the proposal at 10.30—when the minister read it out, I did not hear him actually use the figure—which is:

In addition to the considerations at paragraph 4.4, for procurements above $4 million, Commonwealth officials are required to consider the economic benefit of the procurement to the Australian economy.

Now, the existing guidelines provide for a threshold amount of $80,000 for an FMA Act agency, and $400,000 for a relevant CAC act agency. But here is this new figure of $4 million. So my second question to the minister is: what is the relationship between the $4 million that you have announced tonight, according to the draft guidelines that you have tabled, and the existing division 2 of the Commonwealth procurement rules in regard to the threshold of $80,000 for an FMA Act agency and $400,000 for a CAC Act body?

I understand that there will be some vehicle to examine this matter—Senator Xenophon? I have heard a rumour that there is some sort of Senate or joint committee process. That is quite an important part of any of these things, because it leads me to the view that we need to establish what it is that the government is doing by enforcement, because, if we have entered into an arrangement here to trade off the interests of building workers to do this, then surely we have to understand what the terms are.