Page 1078 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Mulcahy: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not the amendment; Dr Foskey is going to a completely different potential amendment and I invite her to move an amendment if that is what she wants to do.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Foskey, I ask you to reflect on whether you are wandering off target there. Please continue.
DR FOSKEY: In the opposition’s opinion I am wandering off target. There is very good reason—
Mr Mulcahy: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is being reflected on there by Dr Foskey and I ask that she be asked to withdraw that comment.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Foskey, if you feel that you may have reflected on my ruling, you might want to withdraw. Otherwise, could you just make sure, please, that you remain relevant to the debate. I will let you think about that, Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is fairly clear that I am arguing against Mr Mulcahy’s amendment and I have given a number of reasons for that which perhaps Mr Mulcahy does not agree with. Nonetheless, I will end there and indicate that an economic approach, a financial approach, a financially responsible government that adds ethical considerations to its assessment in decisions around procurement is one that may be serving its citizens better than one that does not.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (11.48): I do not wish to take up time but I just want to point out, in the context of this debate and the amendment to remove the words “and ethical behaviour” as a key consideration in pursuing the overarching procurement principles of value for money, that this is reflected at one level already in the ACT government procurement principles.
I referred earlier to the commonwealth’s procurement guidelines, which I think provide a slightly more fulsome explanation of what we understand by ethical behaviour. I think it is quite clear, and the message that is sent by removing this as an overarching consideration in determining value for money really does send a message that I do not believe we can afford to send.
But, in response to the comments that Mr Mulcahy made, I refer him to section 9, I think, of the existing ACT Government Procurement (Principles) Guideline 2002, which will be updated. Perhaps I can give Mr Mulcahy some comfort in the advice that the government procurement law does propose, and will release, an updated government procurement principles guideline to perhaps better expand on this issue of what ethical behaviour does mean or incorporate.
It is set out in section 9 and refers essentially to the need for a territory entity to “comply with the highest standards of integrity, probity, professional conduct and ethical behaviour in carrying out all procurement activities”, and then imposes that particular broad requirement on a person who is carrying out a procurement activity
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .