Page 979 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is pertinent that the term “ethical” is not defined in the legislation. We have just heard Dr Foskey speak. I was losing concentration, I have to admit, because it was becoming so esoteric. She was talking about Exxon Mobil and John Howard; I thought we were talking about procurement for the ACT. Clayton Utz got a serve in there somewhere. I grew up in Tasmania; with my limited education down there in that rural state, I must admit that it was all a bit much for me to grasp—as to how it tied in with what Mr Stanhope brought in here today about territory procurement. But apparently it made some sense.
I want to focus on ethical behaviour. In a sense, that rather obscure analysis does highlight the fact that ethical behaviour means lots of different things to different people.
As I said, under the bill that new section of the act will mandate the consideration of ethical behaviour in the procurement principles. Territory entities will be required to ensure that suppliers engage in ethical behaviour. It is pertinent that the term “ethical” is not defined in the legislation. For reasons which I will discuss, I am moving an amendment to seek to omit the words “and ethical behaviour” from this section.
Obviously no-one, including the Liberal Party, has a problem with ethical behaviour per se. However, we have serious reservations about whether such legislative provisions will indeed lead to genuine ethical behaviour or whether they will instead be abused for political causes and because of ideology.
The notion of using a legislative or regulatory standard which invokes so-called ethical considerations, whether in procurement or in other areas of the administration of government, is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is the highly subjective nature of the term. Indeed, one of the most important achievements in modern governance has been the notion of rule by objective law—that is, by objectively ascertainable rules of conduct that allow citizens to know where they stand. While some ambiguity may be expected in such complex areas as law and politics, inherently subjective and contentious terms should be avoided wherever possible. The use of so-called ethical considerations by government administrators is an extremely subjective notion. No matter where you sit in the political spectrum, it is a matter of fact that you have to accept that ethical behaviour means different things depending on where you sit in the spectrum.
We have seen this with the inquiry the Treasurer has ordered into ethical investments. If you look at what the Chief Minister might consider to be a reasonable ethical investment, what Dr Foskey might think to be an appropriate ethical investment and areas of investment where I might have ethical issues, I can guarantee you that three different sets of criteria would follow. I am quite sure that Dr Foskey would have a long list of corporations with which she would have ethical issues. I suspect that is where she would have concerns. The Canberra Times, as they saw from their great expose, was worried about all manner of businesses being invested in. Other people do not see the ethics issues in the same light.
If it were otherwise, we would not be in here arguing with each other. There would be a single political party with a single platform. The reason for adversarial politics is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .