Page 3793 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know that in Tasmania, where they have established something like that, the operating budget of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission is in the order of $3Â million a year. I think that what they have found there is that that has probably not delivered to the public value for money, in that really their work has not been that extensive; whereas in New South Wales, where there has been, regrettably, a greater level of investigation required, something like ICAC probably is needed. So I think that is not the right answer for the ACT.
The self-regulation model, which is particularly prevalent in the US, has come under criticism as a model where it is impossible to remove the politicisation of the process, therefore giving rise to a loss of public confidence. It also puts MPs in the position of being the parliamentary police, something I think would be particularly inappropriate in the ACT, given the size of our parliament. And I do not think it is a job that most parliamentarians would crave anyway.
I think it is better to choose a model where parliament establishes an independent commissioner that reports back to the parliamentary committee, and this is the approach that has been adopted in the UK. Of course, we have all seen the stories out of the UK, and they have been forced to think in recent times about ways to have a better system to try to prevent some of the embarrassment and scandals that have happened in the UK. The UK code is administered by a parliamentary commissioner for standards, as is being proposed here today. Like the UK commissioner, our commissioner, as proposed in the motion today, cannot impose penalties. But all members are equally subject to its investigative powers.
In outlining why I think those two models are inappropriate, let me simply outline the key elements of this model. The model requests the Speaker to appoint a Legislative Assembly commissioner for standards under a number of terms. And the function of the commissioner, as set out in the motion, is to investigate specific matters which have been referred to the commissioner by the Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker, relating to the conduct of members and to report to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure.
It has been suggested to me that that needs some amendment. The intent of this is quite clear but the words probably need a bit of a touch-up. The intent is that it is not a case of forum shopping to the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. Anybody who wishes to make a complaint should do it in the first instance to the Speaker and only to the Deputy Speaker in the absence of the Speaker or in the case where the complaint is about the Speaker. And that is a mechanism that we have for many other matters in the Assembly. Whether it is simply the tabling of reports or a range of other things, the Deputy Speaker obviously stands in place of the Speaker when the Speaker is not available, whether it be for leave or medical absence or any of those kinds of matters which may see the Speaker not available.
As I have touched on, members of the public, members of the ACT public service and members of the Assembly may make a complaint about a member’s compliance with the code of conduct in relation to the rules related to the registration or declaration of interest. So it is quite a broad scope. Again, there has been quite some discussion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video