Page 3231 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
who sought some advice. I think the advice is that this is a code and therefore it is not law as such. The code says:
Members will observe the obligations placed on them … with respect to the terms and conditions of those who work for them. Members should extend these obligations to consultants …
We are being asked in amendment 1 to extend these obligations to include contractors. I have some concerns that we may be being asked to expand the cover we offer in respect of things like workers compensation claims and public liability claims and that this may come back to haunt the Assembly. If the Speaker is saying he can live with it, I will accept that.
I have an old copy of the other amendments that Dr Foskey has put forward. Amendment 2 proposes that members must be responsible for the actions and decisions of their staff. It was put to me that this has not been run past staff. We now suddenly have before us a number of amendments that look at what staff do and how staff operate in this place. Dr Foskey raised the question of standards and things like the children overboard and email affairs. This is a code of conduct for members. If a code of conduct is wanted for staff, I think we should have a separate code. Perhaps that is a discussion we need to have. The document we are now considering is intended to be a code of conduct for members. However, suddenly we are being asked to add some onus on the staff as well.
The second amendment states:
Members must accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of staff in the performance of their work or duties.
I think we do that naturally. But if a staffer has a brain snap or a bad day and punches somebody out, are we responsible for that? I do not think we are and I do not think we ever can be. So we would have difficulty with amendment 2.
Amendment 3 is interesting, particularly given the letter writing—the love letters that were written—in the recent couple of days. We actually do agree with amendment 3. If staff are attending meetings, must declare their position when participating or raising questions. If they are attending as your representative or as part of the political process, we certainly do agree with amendment 3. We think that would be fine.
In regard to the fourth amendment, which relates to conduct towards Assembly staff, I would expect and work to ensure that all my staff extend professional courtesy with respect to all staff of the Assembly. However, I have a problem with the words “employment conditions” in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the amendment. I would use the word “workplace”. The wording would then be “reasonable workplace conditions for all building occupants”. I cannot ensure that any reasonable employment conditions Mr Gentleman might negotiate with his staff will be maintained. I see employment there as being a particular relationship between the member and their staff. So I am not particularly comfortable with the word “employment” but, again, I have had a discussion with the Speaker and he seems to think it is okay. I will just put that concern on the record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .