Today at Question Time I asked Gerry Brownlee what process did he use to ensure that New Zealand owned companies were given full consideration as part of the tendering process?
He was being asked a patsy question by National’s Jo Goodhew about how the Government’s procurement reforms provide value for money.
See what his response was because it really does a disservice to New Zealanders. He is basically mocking our capacity to make quality products and to put in competitive tenders.
Labour believes New Zealand industries should be given the best possible chance of taking up new work within our shores by getting full, fair and reasonable opportunities to compete for tenders and major projects. Not hand outs, just a fair process and a recognition of the importance of nurturing our local industries and creating Kiwi Jobs.
That’s what the Kiwi Jobs Bill aims to achieve.
See what Gerry said. (My question is 57 seconds in)
Seems to me he just said computers aren’t assembled in NZ…
God help us; I didn’t know he was also Minister for Economic Development.
Does Jerry wear a Kiwi made suit ? There are local manufacturers that have high quality garments, that are even exported. Or is he too high and mighty for that now.
Look at the positive side Gerry, instead of debuking local manufacturers and giving away our mineral wealth with risible levels of royalties.
Do the National Party have rehearsals in the morning to memorise the lies,oops,lines they have to spin,oop,speak during the coming day and if so who writes the lie lines?
He just wants everything to be made in bleepin China!
(No offense to China or ordinary Chinese people – says the person wearing stuff made in China).
His attitude is a disgrace – very easy to describe any process that is in place – or work being done on it. Good question.
This procurement ‘reform’ has not been properly costed, by the way. So there is no way he can quote that it will save the taxpayer money – he doesn’t know that.
It actually show Brownlees ignorance at the level of sophistication a tender document can contain to maximise benefit for the NZ taxpayer.
If goods are imported you look at the amount of local assembly, customer service, technical support , will a new job be created within NZ?
Motor vehicles – much of the above but you could look at the companies commitment to training apprentices.
The old old bottom dollar approach is laugable, it is not used in the business sector but “Dinosaur Brownlee” think it is good enough for the NZ taxpayer.
Best business practice dictates you look for supply partners that add value, in this instance having a procurement process that looks at adding socio-economic value to NZ is appropriate.
Once again Brownlee makes claims about the level of saving, his track record on overstating is a matter of record, so it is hard to believe what he is saying.
I scored that one to Brownlee and I am reassured by his response. I grew up down south and observed that the continual bleat of southerners is ‘regional development’ and ‘give locals a fair go’. By that they mean sinecures and subsidies. They want to build trains, buses, and anything else, regardless of preparedness and experience, as long as there’s a local-leaning bias to prevent an open and competitive tender. It’s no coincidence that it’s a Dunedin MP pushing this line because Dunedin, by and large, has bleated the loudest and longest for subsidies using the euphemism of regional development.
That it’s government money is no excuse. Companies that risk their own money such as Fisher and Paykel, recognised that New Zealand manufacturing is uncompetitive.
Pork barreling is how the US economy operates and we are too small to afford it.
How is it that NZ businesses support Brownless and this Govt again? I think there is a confluence of interests here between NZ workers and productive NZ companies for Labour to consider leveraging…
@John Spavin
No it is not pork barreling, it is recognising the best value for tax payer money.
Secondly it is a practice undertaken by the Government in Australia at both state and National level – you want to catch up with Australia – at least in the areas of access to health and education?
If anything could be thought of as pork barrelling, it’d have to be the ‘Holiday Highway‘ just north of Auckland. Vaguely reminds me of Japan’s ‘highways to nowhere’.
@DeepRed or perhaps the ETS
Funny thing is NACT call it pork barreling if it helps ordinary kiwis; but it is good business sense if it subsidises big business.
If it costs the Govt, say $450m, to buy completed product offshore, and, say $500m to have it done here… is the $50m well spent or badly spent?
450m would stay in the NZ economy, rather than going to another economy… depending on the job, is the 50m difference a worthwhile difference or not.
I would like to see this kind of cost/benefit analysis on this stuff so I can get a grip on the debate
What am I missing..? Some of the comments on this thread have nothing to do with what was said in the video…
Clare asked what process the procurement followed and Brownlee essentially said the current guidelines and then he stated computers, photocopiers, printers, laptops and cars aren’t manufactured in NZ… We may not like that fact but it is currently the truth…
How about an outline of the current procurement guidelines and what they should be..?
They’re not asking for bias at all – just asking that the full economic impact be taken into account rather than just the price. The price alone is showing itself rather below par in decision making.
Well, the one that’s available ATM is the BERL report into building train cars in NZ which finds that to get the same economic benefit by buying them overseas would mean that the imported cars would have to be 1/3rd the price of the cars built in NZ. And that includes the necessary investment in productive capital.
I always buy Kiwi-made products if there is a choice. I rarely buy from companies like The Warehouse who mostly import from China. Yet, under the fifth Labour government, the owner of Swazi Apparel (Darren Hughes’ uncle) was told he would be better off moving his operation to China. Go figure.
Thanks Draco.
I must confess to a conversation I had the other day with a man who has been in business over 30 years. he said he wondered why Tindall is seen as some kind of hero in NZ when he was single handedly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs by flooding oru market with cheap Chinese made stuff. Hadn’t thought ot if that way, must confess.
“New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Secretary Peter Conway said an advance copy of the report had been sent to the Prime Minister John Key, Economic Development Gerry Brownlee and Minister of Finance Bill English last week asking them, in the light of the significant economy-wide benefits, to ensure that KiwiRail makes a bid for the production of the EMUs and locomotives. They have also been asked to consider capital investment if required. ”
Perhaps question time needs to be more focused on the numbers proferred in this report?