Page 1075 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Dr Foskey would have vastly different views from me on what are appropriate enterprises in which to invest such funds. For that reason where there is a degree of uncertainty then a clear level of definition must be required.
I am not satisfied that an objective standard exists in relation to the actions of private businesses. As I indicated previously, I was informed by the officials of Treasury in my briefings that they regarded the principle as meaning merely that they should only deal with suppliers that comply with their legal obligations. Surely, if this is the case, then this would indeed be an objective standard, and should be clearly spelt out in the legislation rather than using the subjective term “ethical”. I would have no issue if these things were clearly defined.
I was also told, as I have said previously, that other government personnel have, from time to time, proposed the exclusion of suppliers on other grounds, such as if the supplier engages in an unethical—not illegal but unethical—line of business. There are a lot of businesses that you may not approve of, and we have seen in the last week a great debate at the federal level over what is legal and what might be ethical behaviour in relation to the business activities of the spouse of the federal Leader of the Opposition. But the fact of the matter is that when you have uncertainty on the definition of ethical, then there is scope for misinterpretation by people who may pursue their own particular agenda.
Whilst I am not seeking to reflect on the public service as a whole, it does happen. I have worked in the public sector. I have worked at senior levels within the Victorian government and I did encounter from time to time people utilising their position in the public service to seek to pursue their own personal agendas. For that reason we have legislation; we have regulations. I thought it was significant that the Chief Minister had to resort to a commonwealth document to find a better definition of ethical because clearly territory documentation is deficient in the way it has addressed this particular term.
I would reiterate that ethical conduct from the perspective of what members on this side of the house would consider ethical is not the issue at stake here; it is the uncertainty and the potential over time. For example, a cleaning contractor who may not have union membership might be classified as someone who is not engaging in ethical behaviour because they do not actively encourage union membership. I am aware that there are examples of that nature. I could imagine some person who had a strong commitment towards the needs of the industrial or labour movement saying, “Well, that is not ethical. They should be out there encouraging every new recruit to sign up to the cause, to join the brotherhood and the like and therefore should not be eligible to receive government contracts.” You can apply that principle across the board.
There are people in this community that would have no hesitation in deeming that unethical behaviour. I do not believe that would be unethical behaviour at all, but it is potentially the sort of activity that could influence the eligibility of businesses to receive government contracts.
The term lacks definition. The Chief Minister takes issue with us questioning the words, but he has within his reach the capacity to include a set of words that would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .