❓ Hon Dee Margetts questions the Treasurer about a change in stationery contract terms, shifting a service fee from the supplier to individual government cost centres. The Treasurer defends the change, citing lower overall prices despite the increased fee.
AnsweredQoN 1579Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Department of Treasury and Finance recently awarded Tender No. 12603 (Supply of Copy Paper, Envelopes and Office Stationery) for Western Australian government agencies to Boise Cascade and Corporate Express. Contrary to previous contracts where stationery suppliers paid a 2 percent service fee (on the total amount of products purchased) to the Department of Treasury and Finance at the end of every financial quarter, the current contract stipulates that each individual government cost centre will now have to meet this expense -
(1) Can the Treasurer explain why the decision to transfer this 2 percent levy from the supplier to the end-user was made in the drafting of this contract?
(2) Was the decision making process guided by public interest concerns, or by the desire to make this a sweeter deal for the contracted companies, by assisting with an increase in their profit margins?
(3) Was every government department and agency consulted about this change?
(4) If yes, what was the general sentiment around this change?
(5) Does the DTF intend to compensate government departments and agencies for the imposition for this new 2 percent levy?
(1) Can the Treasurer explain why the decision to transfer this 2 percent levy from the supplier to the end-user was made in the drafting of this contract?
(2) Was the decision making process guided by public interest concerns, or by the desire to make this a sweeter deal for the contracted companies, by assisting with an increase in their profit margins?
(3) Was every government department and agency consulted about this change?
(4) If yes, what was the general sentiment around this change?
(5) Does the DTF intend to compensate government departments and agencies for the imposition for this new 2 percent levy?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 March 2004
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Treasurer
Response time
88 days
The new contract, described 'the Rebate' as a 'Customer Fee' in order to make it clear to suppliers and government purchasing agencies that the fee was payable by the government agency. (2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
The new contract, described 'the Rebate' as a 'Customer Fee' in order to make it clear to suppliers and government purchasing agencies that the fee was payable by the government agency. (2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
The new contract, described 'the Rebate' as a 'Customer Fee' in order to make it clear to suppliers and government purchasing agencies that the fee was payable by the government agency. (2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(2) The approach is consistent with the government’s intention that agencies account for the full cost of their services and activities. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
(5) No. The previous contract had a 1% fee and the new contract has a 2% fee. The prices on the new contract are significantly lower than those on the old contract and more than compensate for the higher fee.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.