Page 1073 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
you have spoken to this. This is your amendment removing the requirement for ethical behaviour. I have now recalled to mind Mr Mulcahy’s presentation in relation to his amendment to remove the words “and ethical behaviour” after the word “probity” as a key consideration in pursuing the overarching procurement principle of value for money in proposed new section 22A (3) (a).
I remember Mr Mulcahy’s speech well because I was rather surprised by it. On the very same day that we had a rather spirited debate around the use of corporate credit cards and the ethical nature of that use, Mr Mulcahy proposed that we remove the requirement of ethical behaviour because he thought it was rather too subjective. In the context of that particular debate and the debates that have preceded it, I think it is fair to say—I could be mistaken, Mr Speaker—that Mr Mulcahy might have been the only one somewhat confused about the exact meaning of the term “ethical behaviour”, and I say that out of respect for his colleagues. I will perhaps enlighten both him and his colleagues, although I am not suggesting they need that enlightenment.
These are not dispensable words. They are not foreign terms. Mr Mulcahy wants the words “ethical behaviour” removed because he believes them to be too subjective, words for which there is no easy comprehension. In fact, they are well known. They are not foreign. They are easily comprehensible by the overwhelming majority of professional public servants. I really was surprised that Mr Mulcahy thinks that these are words that are not easily understood and a concept of ethical behaviour that is not valued by members of this Assembly.
Mr Mulcahy challenges the well-provided definition of ethical behaviour. There is available a wealth of assistance to interpret the words “ethical behaviour”. The commonwealth procurement guidelines define ethical behaviour in the following way:
Ethical behaviour encompasses the concepts of honesty, integrity, probity, diligence, fairness, trust, respect and consistency. Ethical behaviour identifies and avoids conflicts of interests, and does not make improper use of an individual’s position.
The guidelines go on to provide advice in a range of matters related to ethical behaviour. They say:
Agencies must not seek to benefit from supplier practices that may be dishonest, unethical or unsafe.
The guidelines continue:
Procurement of services ought to be conducted in a way that imposes as far as practicable the same level of accountability and responsibility on a service provider as would exist if the agency carried out the services itself.
I do not think there is ambiguity or wooliness or any real concern about understanding what ethical behaviour means. The meaning is plain and clear. Surely removing a requirement for public servants and suppliers to behave ethically in procurement matters would send the wrong signals. I very much doubt that it would be greeted with great acclaim by most suppliers, who comply with their own employee and industrial relations obligations to act ethically in their dealings with the government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .