Page 5131 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Disciplinary issues will continue to be dealt with under applicable codes of conduct provisions. That is important, because the codes of conduct were not written to be a definition of corruption and go to some matters that would never reasonably be considered to be corruption.
The committee shared those concerns as well, as did the Office of the Legislative Assembly. Nonetheless, under the definition provided for in this bill, corrupt conduct is conduct that could constitute either a criminal offence or constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with the services of, or otherwise terminating the services of, a public official. So it still covers misconduct, with the focus on the most serious misconduct that should be in the remit of the commission, reflecting again the intention of the committee recommendation for the commission to maintain a focus on serious matters.
I also note the amendments that have been circulated by Minister Rattenbury, which seek to add serious disciplinary offences, which is also consistent with the committee’s approach.
The definition of corrupt conduct is clear in the bill, but it is also important to point out what corruption is not. This is a very high level point, but it is an important one as we establish this new body. A mere disagreement with a government decision, or absence of a decision, by a judge, a minister or an official, does not by itself amount to corruption or misconduct.
It is a fundamental part of our liberal democracy that those in elected or appointed decision-making roles have the ability to make decisions or policies within the law, impartially and honestly. Sometimes these are difficult decisions and policies, and sometimes they are not supported by everyone in our community.
The fact of a mere disagreement with a decision does not mean that a decision is corrupt or that there has been misconduct. The commission will act to ensure that complaints made to it are dismissed, referred or investigated, settling claims of corruption to ensure confidence in our democratic institutions.
We must all be careful to preserve the fundamental democratic principles that have served our community well since self-government and since Federation. Those are principles which we as an Assembly have committed to, the Latimer House principles included. It is up to all of us as members of this place to uphold those principles and those values and to ensure that this commission works in the public interest and to enhance trust in government, and I mean all three branches of government.
That brings me to the establishment of the parliamentary oversight committee which is referred to throughout the bill. The parliamentary oversight committee will play a fundamental role in overseeing the integrity commission, to monitor, review and report to the Assembly on the performance of the commission, as well as the inspector of the new commission, and to perform the functions outlined in the bill as a consultative body on the appointment of the commissioner and inspector, and, if needed, the suspension of persons occupying those roles.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video