Page 3230 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will deal with the issues that Dr Foskey raised and then at some point deal with the amendments seriatim. In the first amendment, Dr Foskey asks for the inclusion of the words “contractors and”. This is consistent with the words set out in the LA(MS) Act, whereby members are entitled to employ contractors and consultants. I think that was anticipated by the committee because the code contains the words “however employed or recruited”. I have no objection to the inclusion of the words “contractors and” proposed by Dr Foskey’s amendment because they are consistent with words in the LA(MS) Act, although I think in that case they are expressed the other way round, that is, “consultants and contractors”. So the words are fine.
The next amendment proposes that members must accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of staff in the performance of their work or duties. I take the view that members’ staff are faceless people so far as the politics of this place are concerned but that they have employment obligations to their employers, the members. Members have to accept their vicarious liability for the actions of their staff, in a political sense anyway. I do not think this needs to be said because the code states:
Members must ensure that, where relevant, their staff also comply with the Members Code of Conduct and that they are aware that they are obliged to support the Members’ compliance with the code.
That is fair enough in itself but it goes without saying that members must accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of staff in the performance of their work or duties. That is unnecessary verbiage and I just do not think the code needs to be amended to incorporate those duties. They do this anyway in a political sense. I cannot think of an experience that I have had in the years that I have been in this place which would require that sort of obligation. If it could be shown that it was necessary, I would be perfectly happy to agree to this proposition, but I do not see any practical need for the inclusion of those words.
The third amendment states:
Members must ensure that staff members declare their position when participating or raising questions at public meetings, consultations, community events, and in the media.
Again, members cop this anyway if things go wrong. I have seen instances where there has been some political flack when members’ staff—or even relatives of staff, as we have seen in more recent weeks—have involved themselves. But I think it is taking it a bit too far once you start treading on what could be private lives by way of a code of practice for members. In my own heart, I cannot justify support for that particular amendment.
I do not have any difficulty with the fourth amendment. I think it goes to the issue of paying reasonable courtesy to employees in this Assembly who are not LA(MS) Act staff. When we come to vote, I recommend that amendment No 1 be agreed to, that amendments Nos 2 and 3 be rejected, and that No 4 be accepted.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has some concerns about the first amendment. I raised them with the Clerk,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .