Page 3196 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conduct should only be considered corrupt if it would constitute a criminal or disciplinary offence or reasonable grounds for dismissing a public official ...
That definition comes from paragraph 4.13 of the report. It is my view that such conduct, unfortunately, is always possible when large sums of money can be made by actions relating to functions taken on by public officials. This report, and the Government's favourable response, will ensure that anyone who considers such conduct runs a severe risk of being called to account via an independent body. I therefore commend this report to the Assembly.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (10.45): Mr Speaker, I rise briefly to thank members for their support for this committee's recommendations. I will read into the record a couple of comments that have been made. This debate has gone on for a long time. On 14 December 1989, Mr Wood aptly summarised this recommended process as a sensible measure against possible corruption. He said:
It is a reasonable outcome for what little need there is in the community.
Mr Kaine, on 14 August 1990, summarised the Government's response by saying - - -
Mr Berry: That contrasts with your previous allegations.
MR COLLAERY: I will come to that. Mr Kaine said:
We believe the proposed body will be effective. It will be a body that will not cost a great deal of money to maintain. It will be at arm's length from the Government and will very adequately take account of the problems of possible corruption in the public service and amongst public officials in the Australian Capital Territory.
Mrs Grassby, in her comments on that date, was not so congratulatory and referred, among other things, to half-baked ideas in some areas of the Government's responsibility. We did not get much from Mrs Grassby's comments. It appears that this Assembly is unanimous in its support for the establishment of the independent committee against corruption. I say "unanimous" in the sense that no-one has stood up yet and opposed it, and I assume we can interpret the silence as being acquiescence. If someone is opposed to the establishment of the body, that person should stand now or forever remain silent. Clearly, we will hold those who remain silent to the point I make now, because there is space in the speaking order and leave would certainly be granted anyone who wished to stand up and speak now. Later, when Opposition members try to twist on this issue - as some members may very well do - we can quote these words back to them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .