RESTRICTED  
  
GPA/ACC/AUS/8  
 
22 December 2015  
(15-6865)  Page: 1/5  
Committee on Government Procurement  Original: English  
 
ACCESSION OF AUSTRALIA TO THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT 
COMMUNICATION FROM JAPAN 
The following communication, dated 21 December 2015,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Japan. 
 
_______________ 
JAPAN'S COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 
ON AUSTRALIA'S INITIAL OFFER 
Japan welcomes the submission by Australia of its initial market access offer (GPA/ACC/AUS/1) for 
accession to the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), circulated on 8 September 2015.  
 
Japan appreciates that the coverage of Australia's initial offer is broadly in line with that of the Agreement between Japan and Australia fo r an Economic Partnership (JAEPA). 
 
However, given that the coverage of Japan's offer to the revised GPA is wider than that of JAEPA, 
Japan would like to request Australia for some improvements in its offer as prescribed in Part A of 
this paper.  Japan would also seek clarification from Australia regarding the points raised in Part B of this paper 
so as to identify what our priorities are for the successful conclusion of this negotiation for 
accession.  
 This being said, Japan reserves the right to submit additional questions and requests for 
improvements at a later stage, including the ones based on Australia's replies to the questions 
elaborated in Part B of this paper.  
Japan looks forward to working closely with Australia towards its successful and swift accession to 
the GPA.  Part A 
1. Japan requests that Australia delete Note 1.g. of Annex 7 so that its offer covers the 
procurement of motor vehicles. Does the new government of Australia still consider that motor vehicles of the non-Australian manufacturers are not operationally suitable and do not meet safety 
requirements in Australia? As for Hong Kong, China's question regarding this Note, Australia 
responded that "Australia produces motor vehicles and motor vehicle components domestically, and currently the Commonwealth procurement framework requires the Australian Government to 
purchase motor vehicles from Australian manufacturers (where they are operationally suitable and 
meet safety requirements)." Japan would appreciate it highly if Australia could provide us relevant provisions which stipulate details of above requirements in this framework. And also, Japan would like to know the purpose and background of the requirements in this framework. 
2. Japan requests that Australia include procurements conducted by major cities such as 
Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne in its offer. Japan considers that the commercial values of such procurements by city governments should not be  overlooked, even though Japan acknowledges GPA/ACC/AUS/8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  that, in Australia, a significant number of proc urements, including those concerning city-level 
projects, are being conducted by State- and Territory-level entities. 
3. Japan requests that Australia delete Note 2 of Annex 2 considering "NEW SOUTH WALES" 
that reads: "This Agreement does not cover procurement by Transport for NSW, related to the 
functions of the Transport Construction Authority, and The Country Rail Infrastructure Authority or 
its successor agencies." Japan wonders why such a note of exclusion is required, particularly in relation to its commercial implications.  
4. Japan would also like Australia to clarify whether the following entities are covered by its 
offer, and if not, why they are not covered: 
 "Public Transport Victoria" in Victoria;  
 "Translink" in Queensland; and 
 "Adelaide Metro" in South Australia. 
5. From the point of transparency, Japan requests that Australia improve the way it lists the 
entities of QUEENSLAND in Annex 2, for example in the following way: 
"Entities declared to be departments pursuant to section 14 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) as 
follows: 
(Lists of departments)" 
6. As Canada pointed out, Japan also notes that the list of 65 Annex 1 entities in Australia's 
initial offer does not exactly correspond to that of 67 entities in Australia's Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) offer. Accordingly, Japan encourages Australia to include the following entities in its next revised offer: 
 Australian Transportation Safety Bureau; and  
 Old Parliament House. 
7. Japan requests that Australia remove the reciprocity note under Annex 5 and cover the 
equivalent services in the TPP where Australia applies a negative list . 
8. Regarding Annex 2, Japan requests that Australia offer Tourism Tasmania, which is offered 
in the TPP. 
Part B 
9. Regarding Para. 2. of Notes to Annex 1, Japan requests that Australia explore language that 
more precisely reflects the situation of the "Australian Government Solicitor", which is presumably being absorbed by the Attorney General's Department, and describe more clearly what this note 
intends to exclude. 
10. Japan requests that Australia share the latest Queensland Government Gazette notice that 
lists the entities considered to be a department of government pursuant to Section 14 of the Public 
Service Act 2008 . Is it correct to understand that the latest notice list the following 22 entities in 
"Australia's reply to checklist" pursuant to section 14 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ?  
 Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships; 
 Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; 
 Department of Communities, Child Safety  and Disability Services, including: 
 Office for Women; 
 Department of Education; 
 Department of Energy and Water Supply; 
 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection; 
 Department of Housing and Public Works; 
 Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning; 
 Department of Justice and Attorney-General, including: 
 Office of Liquor and Gaming Commission; GPA/ACC/AUS/8 
 
- 3 - 
 
   Office of Fair Trading Queensland; 
 Queensland Corrective Services; 
 Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing, including: 
 Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service; 
 Department of Natural Resources and Mines; 
 Department of the Premier and Cabinet: 
 Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel; 
 Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation; 
 Department of State Development; 
 Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games; 
 Department of Transport and Main Roads; 
 Public Safety Business Agency; 
 Queensland Ambulance Service; 
 Queensland Fire and Emergency Services; 
 Queensland Health; 
 Queensland Police Service; 
 Queensland Treasury, including: 
 Office of State Revenue; 
 Queensland Government's Statistician's Office. 
11. Regarding Note 1.e. of Annex 7, Japan seeks clarification from Australia as to why it is 
necessary to have such a note that excludes the procurement of storage and hosting of 
government data and related services, in spite of the fact that the Australia-United States FTA 
(AUSFTA) does not have a similar note.  
12. Likewise, as to Note 1.f. of Annex 7, Japan would like to ask Australia why it is necessary to 
exclude the procurement of blood and blood-relat ed products and services, including plasma-
derived products, in spite of the fact that  AUSFTA does not have a similar note.  
13. With regard to Note 1.a. of Annex 7, Japa n would like to know whether "preference to 
benefit small and medium enterprise", whose implementation may possibly cause inconsistency 
with some of the GPA obligations, only refers to preference implemented in accordance with Australia's "ICT SME Participation Policy" and "Australian Industry Participation Policy". Japan notes that under those policies, an ICT company is regarded as an SME if it has an average annual 
turnover over the last four years of less than A$ 500 million. Japan would like Australia to explain 
why it allows such a special and wide definition for SMEs solely for the ICT sector.  
14. Is it correct to understand that only the Australian and New Zealand SMEs are qualified to 
get benefits from the"Australian Industry Participation Policy"? If so, what is the rationale for 
New Zealand's SMEs to be preferentially treated among the SMEs of the GPA Parties? 
15. Please provide us with the total amounts of procurements that have been conducted under 
the schemes of the "ICT SME Participation Policy" and "Australian Industry Participation Policy" 
respectively. 
16. Australian government departments and agencies at central level are listed in the URL 
(http://www.australia.gov.au/about- government/departments-and-a gencies/list-of-departments-
and-agencies ). Japan requests that Australia give explanation why some departments and 
agencies in the list are not included in Annex 1 or 3. For example, the following entities are not 
included.  
 Australia Post; 
 Australian Antarctic Division; 
 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 
 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority; 
 Australian Institute of Police Management; 
 Australian Organ and Tissue Authority; 
 Australian Rail Track Corporation; 
 Australian Renewable Energy Agency; 
 Australian Skills Quality Authority; 
 Australian Signals Directorate; GPA/ACC/AUS/8 
 
- 4 - 
 
   Australian Solar Institute; 
 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; 
 Australian Sports Commission; 
 Australian Strategic Policy Institute; 
 Cancer Australia; 
 Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research and Australian; 
 Civil Aviation Safety Authority; 
 CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; 
 Digital Transformation Office; 
 Fisheries Research and Development Corporation; 
 High Court of Australia; 
 Ministry for the Arts; 
 National E-Health Transition Authority; 
 National Health and Medical Research Council; 
 National Library of Australia; 
 National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority; 
 National Serology Reference Laboratory, Australia (NRL); 
 National Transport Commission; 
 Parliament of Australia; 
 Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre; 
 Regional Development Australia; 
 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; 
 Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency. 
17. Please explain whether hospitals owned by each State or Territory are covered in Annex 2 
and also explain the size of procurement by those covered or uncovered hospitals.  
18. Departments and agencies at State and Territory level are listed in the URL 
(http://www.australia.gov.au/abou t-government/states-territo ries-and-local-government ). Japan 
requests that Australia give explanation why some departments and agencies are not included in 
Annex 2. For example, the following entities in each State and Territory are not included: 
 Universities such as: 
 Monash University, VIC; 
 RMIT University, VIC; 
 University of Sydney, NSW; 
 The University of New South Wales, NSW; 
 The University of Melbourne, VIC; 
 The University of Queensland, QLD; 
 Curtin University of Technology, WA; 
 Deakin University, VIC; 
 Queensland University of Technology, QLD; 
 Griffith University, QLD; 
 University of Western Sydney, NSW; 
 Charles Sturt University, NSW. 
 
 Water Supply Authorities such as: 
 Sydney water, NSW; 
 Queensland Urban Utilities, QLD; 
 Water Corporation, WA; 
 SA water, SA; 
 Melbourne Water, VIC; 
 South East Water, VIC; 
 City West Water, VIC; 
 Yarra Valley Water, VIC; 
 Goulburn–Murray Water, VIC; 
 Icon Water Limited, ACT; 
 Power and Water Corporation, NT; 
 Brisbane Water, QLD. 
 GPA/ACC/AUS/8 
 
- 5 - 
 
   Port Authorities such as: 
 Pilbara Ports Authority, WA; 
 Port of Newcastle, NSW; 
 North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, QLD; 
 Gladstone Ports Corporation, QLD; 
 Port of Melbourne Corporation, VIC; 
 Sydney Ports Corporation, NSW; 
 Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd, QLD; 
 Southern Ports Authority, WA; 
 Port Authority of New South Wales, NSW; 
 Darwin Port Corporation, NT; 
 Kimberley Ports Authority, WA; 
 Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd, TAS. 
19. Regarding Annex 2, Japan would like to know why the wording of a note on NORTHERN 
TERRITORY is different between Australia's initial offer and its TPP offer. While the note in its initial 
offer says that "For the entities listed for the Northern Territory, this Agreement does not cover procurement of services from Charles Darwin University", the note in its TPP offer says that "For 
the entities listed for the Northern Territory, Chapter 15 (Government Procurement) does not 
cover set-asides on behalf of the Charles Darwin University pursuant to Partnership Agreements between the Northern Territory Government and Charles Darwin University." Is there any difference of coverage of procurements conducted by the Charles Darwin University between these 
two notes? 
20. Regarding Note 4. in Annex 7, Japan requests that Australia provide an explanation as to 
how Australia defines "unsolicited innovative proposals" in its domestic laws and regulations. Japan 
also requests that Australia provide examples of purchase of goods or services as a result of 
"unsolicited innovative proposals" which might be misinterpreted as the procurement inconsistent with the obligations of the GPA. Does Australia consider that limited tendering procedures under 
Article XIII:1(g) or (b) (ii) and (iii) are insufficient for Australia's practice?  
 
__________