Page 1077 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
criticism. Risk assessments include large subjective components, but no-one is objecting to risk assessment being made a relevant consideration in section 2A. And what is effective and open competition? How does one quantify whether competition in a particular industry or sector is open and effective? How can competition be open and effective when access to information is necessarily limited by cabinet-in-confidence and confidentiality clauses?
At the margins there are arbitrary and subjective judgments underlying many seemingly clear-cut decision-making processes. When push comes to shove, courts generally take the view that if a decision was based upon relevant considerations and reasonable in the circumstances it was a valid exercise of executive power. I look forward to agencies employing experts in moral philosophy or jurisprudence to advise them on their procurement decisions. I believe that an economic approach which allows for ethical considerations would deliver better outcomes, economically as well as socially and environmentally, than one devoid of them.
I do not think it will necessarily be a bad thing if moral philosophers are called or cited in future court and tribunal hearings as expert witnesses to testify as to what constitutes ethical behaviour. Society would only benefit from broad ranging discussion as to what constitutes ethical behaviour. It is good to see that the commonwealth has a definition, but, as Mr Mulcahy said, that might vary from society to society to some extent, although I think universal principles would apply.
To think that ethical behaviour should only be confined to our private lives and that following orders or undertaking our employment duties absolves us from the moral consequences of our actions has been discredited in many international trials—the Nuremberg trials for one—and remains discredited to the present day.
The issue of how this government invests our superannuation funds is still very much alive and, while I will not elaborate on it today, I remind the government that merely being appalled at corporate behaviour by firms such as Raytheon is an ineffectual response to unethical corporate behaviour, compared to active boycotts. I think there is a very valid argument for the ACT government keeping a list somewhere of firms that it will not deal with because they have been engaged in behaviour that is generally deemed by society to be unethical.
Given that one dictionary definition of probity is “integrity and uprightness; honesty”, I am surprised that Mr Mulcahy has not sought to delete probity as well. Let us consider what is meant by integrity and uprightness. There are many people who are held up—
Mrs Dunne: Relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
DR FOSKEY: especially after their death—
Mrs Dunne: We are debating ethics, not—
DR FOSKEY: by, say, the Murdoch press—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .