Page 977 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
antisocial corporate behaviour that should be captured by this bill. It is not illegal activity yet, but it is antisocial and one day it may be the subject of equitable or class action tortious damages.
Perhaps Mr Mulcahy equates moral behaviour with whatever the law happens to be at a particular point in time and perhaps that is why he has proposed this amendment. But I am afraid that is not good enough. We should have the courage of our convictions and, while being mindful of what the current legal situation is, we should stand up for what we think is the right thing.
After the Chief Minister’s review of ethical investment guidelines is completed, I would like to think that complementary legislation and guidelines will be implemented, making this bill part of a whole of government program to really accept responsibility for the broader consequences of our spending decisions. And, while he is about it, why not put some teeth into the labour standards component of this legislation and require firms to live up to more than the lowest common denominator legally compliant level that is being driven down by the Howard government. Even mega firms like Exxon Mobil cannot ignore organised public opinion. If governments around the world started boycotting companies that behaved atrociously, those companies would soon change their practices; their shareholders would demand it.
The Chief Minister said he was appalled by the behaviour of some of the companies that his superannuation money helped prop up. Well, the churches are already using their financial muscle to effect ethical change by boycotting investment activities that they consider to be unethical. Follow their lead, Chief Minister, and do not be too concerned about a voter backlash. For every one-eyed free-market fundamentalist out there, there are a thousand kind-hearted and concerned parents and average citizens who have both eyes open and who do not want to support antisocial and environmentally irresponsible businesses. Do not ever doubt that it is a government’s legitimate role to represent their ethical and humanitarian concerns in its spending and investment activities. That is core activity.
Incorporating social and environmental considerations into procurement thinking will take some time. But, as with every journey, the first steps are important and I am glad the government is still progressing, albeit at glacial speed, down the road towards a more holistic accounting philosophy. Old section 38 provided that territory entities had to provide the Auditor-General with information regarding certain reportable contracts. New section 38 provides that agencies must give the Auditor-General information if requested by the Auditor-General.
On its face, this represents a downgrading of the oversight provided by the Auditor-General. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. This seems to be one of those situations where a cost-benefit analysis suggests that the existing reporting arrangements generate excessive transaction costs and represent a suboptimal use of resources by both the auditor and the agencies concerned.
I hope the Auditor-General uses the saved resources to conduct numerous random audits of agency contracts, especially in the initial period following the implementation of these measures. There are obviously sound reasons behind ensuring adequate levels of scrutiny for government procurement decisions. Many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .