Page 3792 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This resolution has effect from the date of its agreement by the Legislative Assembly and continues in force unless amended or repealed by this or a subsequent Assembly.
This motion follows the adoption of the new code of conduct. It provides the mechanism for that to be investigated if there is the unfortunate case where there is a view, either by a member of the public or someone in government, that one of the members of the Assembly has acted inappropriately.
There is no point in having a hollow commitment in the sense of having a code but not having a means to actually follow through with it. And I think there is a level of public confidence attached to having an appropriate mechanism that is fair, transparent and non-political, that ensures that we do not get caught up when a difficult matter comes up and that we have got a fair and reasonable way of dealing with it and a way that the public can feel matches that standard of fairness.
Again, this arises from matters that came up last term. I do not want to re-prosecute those, because that is certainly not my intent today, but it would be fair to say that where certain matters did arise there was actually no mechanism in place. As the Speaker, I found myself at the centre of some of those discussions. And it would be fair to say that there was a lot of contention about how accusations that were made should be addressed. At the time, the Assembly formed some views and as the Speaker I was then required to select somebody to undertake an investigation.
Again, I think it would be fair to say that that was contentious. I feel that I went out and searched for somebody who was well recognised and, in my perception, non-political, and yet I think it would be fair to say there was some disquiet around that. And trying to make that appointment at a time at which there was a high level of political heat, I do not think was the best approach. So one of the key elements of this model is to have somebody appointed commissioner for standards who simply is there so that if an incident does arise, some of that contentiousness is taken away.
In some ways it reflects the ethics and integrity adviser role that we have. Certainly the practicalities very much reflect that model where the intent—and this has been discussed at some length in the administration and procedure committee—is that somebody will be engaged on a retainer, and certainly in the case of the ethics and integrity adviser that has been a very minimal amount of money, and then, as and when required, they can be further engaged if necessary.
There are of course a number of models that we could have taken in establishing this position. These other models include legislation and self-regulation, both of which I think are not appropriate for the ACT. And I will reflect briefly why.
New South Wales has a legislative model. The parliamentary code of conduct is included in the definition of “corrupt conduct” in the Independent Commission against Corruption Act, meaning a breach of the code has potentially serious consequences and an independent mechanism for investigation. I think it is quite clear that the ACT does not have either the size or certainly, to all members’ knowledge, any history of the scale that would require something like an independent commission against corruption in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video