Printable View
Now that’s poetic justice, shame it doesn’t happen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
Australians, in general, don’t seem to give a stuff that when they buy a foreign produced product over an Australian made product, they are sending our jobs overseas.
part of the problem lies with warped economic policy which pays no heed to any strategic self sufficiency and believes that "the consumer" is entitled to the cheapest etc etc. stories abound re. the shortage of cooks and doctors for the East Timor intervention... well it had all been outsourced ! ... local bases staffed by noncombitants...
So called "competiton policy" in DMO selection processes have screwed over Australian capability for years... then the know how would be bought by US interests and sold back to us as a multiple of the price... :angrylock:
It's ironic that the USAF has extended the B52 life ...we could have done the same with the F-111... at a fraction of the price of the JSF...BUT who wants their shiny new toys eh? :wasntme:
And another thing: our national birthrate has declined over the past 30 years to such an extent that reputable studies are showing that it is unlikely we will recover... retraining is not the answer when you are just moving bodies from one job to another... we need more bodies... ...but that's a whole different argument for another place...
As for WWII ... google " Pig Iron Bob " and witness a history of poor Govt decisions...
Now, about those bushes and ball joints for the Rangie :D
Don’t have to go that far back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoges
Blundstone shoes shut down their Tasmanian factory, sacked all the Australian workers and moved to the cheap labour in China.
So you would think we would boycott buying Blundstone shoes. Not the NSW government. the latest contract to supply safety boots to the Staterail has gone to Blundstone.
Now that's supporting the people that voted you in!
Well actually the Blundstone boots were not made in NSW so they may as well have been in China in the first place. The Blundstone boots made in China, probably cost less than the Blundstone boots made in Tasmania and they all have to meet the same standards, so that IS supporting the people that voted them in.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
You can hardly blame either the government or the manufacturer - the blame rests squarely on those who buy the cheapest product (or best value anyway) and expect not to be taxed to subsidise local production.
One point where I believe the Australian government IS to blame is in their using interest rates as teh sole control on the economy. This results in interest rates higher than anywhere else, which leads to higher manufacturing costs and a higher valued dollar, making it more difficult for local manufacturers to either export or compete with imports.
John
Absolutely John, I can't agree with you more about hidden costs of imported foreign goods.
If we truly had a level playing field where the conditions were equivalent, but not necessarily the same rates of pay, and all countries either had no social security or the same social security or healthcare. Then this would be a very hollow argument.
However as this country does have unemployment benefits and a socialised medical system, then the loss of jobs overseas means that we-the-people have to support the now unemployed former workers. Although Government subsidies to manufacturers are generally illegal under WTO rules it would make sense to support a manufacturer to keep jobs in Australia. Unfortunately as we saw in the Pacific Brands - "Bonds" case even though the Government subsidised Bonds and gained undertakings from them, the Company accepted the funds and still moved the jobs offshore. :mad:
Diana
This is exactly the type of mentality I was on about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
It makes no difference where, in Australia, the company was, they sacked Australian workers in favour of Chinese, and an Australian government, be it a state government, has elected to support this back stabbing company over other Australian companies.
What you have missed in this argument is that the government sector has been picked on to the point that cost is now the deciding factor. Government is so scared of the public attacking their spending that we have to proove why the more expensive bidder is worth the extra. The amount of time and money to do this often means you can't as you don't have the budget to do your task anyway let alone spend it all arguing why you should take that contract over annother.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
We are not even allowed to accept a coffee from a bidder these days:angel:.
But that is exactly the point. Under free trade agreements and WTO, Government Departments, Like NSW Health have had to remove sections in their purchasing policies that gave preference to local manufacturers. The first preference were items made in NSW then the rest of Australia and next in line was New Zealand (CER - for those who knew about it) we now have had to scrap all those policies lest we breach our treaty obligations under the World Trade Organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
So the bottom line these days is the bottom line and we purchase the lowest price that meets the standards and other delivery contract terms.
you should always have had to prove why the lowest conforming tender was not accepted!!!!! This is the whole basis of public tendering.Quote:
Originally Posted by George130
I know there has been, and may still be, much corruption in selling to government at all levels, but public tendering and particularly public opening and reading of tender prices does control corrupt practices to a certain extent.
I hope we have moved on from the times when an amount was added in to cost calculations for a tender to pay graft as necessary. Or the times when a Sales Manager would look at tender documents and ask the rep. concerned "Do we own anyone there?" I remember a Qld. Leyland dealer ordering two truck cab and chassis before the tender closed. He already had the order no. from the Shire Chairman.