Procurement: which costs are saved?

The Government has just announced it is to review and reform state sector procurement.

The Government Procurement Reform Agenda is based around four key themes:
·         Cost savings.
·         Building procurement capability and capacity.
·         Enhanced business participation.
·         Improved governance, oversight and accountability.

Cost savings:  just to the Government’s expenditure or also saving costs to our natural capital? After all, sustainable procurement means buying stuff that will last longer, save on energy and resource-use, reduce our emissions, and reduce pollution. These all save New Zealand money, even if this capital and cost-savings are not measured in Treasury’s budget.

The current Government Procurement Framework includes:

requiring sustainably produced goods and services wherever possible, having regard to economic, environmental and social impacts over their life cycle.

Given sustainability is not mentioned in the Reform Agenda, will this requirement be retained, or will it be another polar bear blood-bath?

4 thoughts on “Procurement: which costs are saved?

  1. I ask myself – Could I have caused this?

    It may be that our more recent forays into kiwiblog have gotten some attention. I have mentioned us there – without linking. Also over on the Libertarianz site I may have mentioned us, also without linking. I left a link at Rabbett’s run, but that’s mostly science geeks and at RealClimate.

    I don’t have any useful theory. Perhaps related to our recent spate of Libertarian postings?

    We used to call it “hit and run”, where a post is dropped into the thread by someone who simply disappears. You have to sign up to post here. Not as reasonable to do it.

    Was this a hit and run? We will see.

    It isn’t a problem… yet.

    respectfully
    BJ

  2. bj – I’m interested in your opinion here – who or what do you think are these brief posts that appear over night, from ‘new people’. Many of them are snippets of thought and relate only tenuously to anything being discussed (I know. It does sound like the work of wat :-)
    I think they are from overseas and belong to people who have English as a second language and are practicing on us. Some I know are spam, where there is a link to some spurious website or other, but others just seem to be ‘chunks of English’.

  3. Please make your point more clearly.

    We’re happy to debate if you provide something besides a suspicion about what you mean.

    I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

    Will tax cuts improve real revenue here? They failed notably in the USA over the last 8 years and this year should be the most instructive lesson of all, about the limits to Laffer.

    Where are we actually starting from do you think?

    OT: Did you realize, coming here and taking that alias, that there are a lot of penguins here?

    respectfully
    BJ

  4. Who knows, it seems like it’s just the governments expenditure that is trying to be saved. The budget deficit is already quite high, and they may screw up if they don’t engage in tax cuts.

Comments are closed.