Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5166 ..

Mr Speaker, I commend the amendments that I will table in a little while to the Assembly and commend the bill to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (9.07): The Greens will be supporting this bill, and I congratulate Ms Dundas for bringing it forward. In a general sense, this bill is about realising that governments should be taking the lead on ecologically and socially responsible purchasing and other practices. Doing things differently at a fundamental level is essential if we are to halt the decline of species around the world, the extremely dangerous levels of carbon in the atmosphere, the absolutely unsustainable rate of consumption, the levels of toxic pollutants in our air, soils and oceans, and the imbalanced and inequitable distribution of food and other needed goods around the world's human population.

Open-source software per se is not obviously going to achieve all of these things, but it is part of the system of development that rejects a world where any knowledge underlying something that other people will pay to use is to be held secretly by a corporation. That is about prioritising commerce and making as much money as possible above all else.

Making money in itself is not evil, but prioritising that, prioritising economic concerns above all else, leads to really terrifying outcomes. Surely an IT company will not be hinging their entire business strategy on selling their product to the ACT government unless they have a special-purpose software. And if that is the case then surely it will win through on the practicality test.

The bill does not force the government to use only open-source software, and with the amendments it will not even require preferment. It will simply require consideration. Why consider open-source software-a particular sector? It is because we should be recognising the benefits of doing business and making good products in a better way for community benefit. Open-source software sets up some user ownership. It does require a bit of knowledge to help to improve it and no doubt each agency would have to take this into account.

MS DUNDAS (9.09), in reply: I thank members for their support for what it is we are trying to achieve today, and that is to open up government procurement principles and to make government actually support local industry and do what it says it will do, which is to support small businesses in the territory. I am disappointed that the debate got somewhat side-tracked by whether or not we should adjourn tonight and whether or not this will fit in with the government's concerns in regards to procurement principles.

I think the amendments that have been circulated by both Mrs Cross and Mr Smyth go a long way to address the government's concerns.

I would like to start off by just addressing some of the points that the Treasurer made. He was quite concerned that this is not going to be good legislation and that there is not a call for it because the government is already working on open-source projects. I think that there is actually a call for this, that we actually have a rethink within the procurement part of the ACT government about how things are being done and how taxpayers' money is being spent for the good of ACT public services and government.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .