Page 3430 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Once again one might describe this as a holier than thou attitude. It is an attitude, of course, that we would support, because it is appropriate that all members of this Assembly - like all members of any parliamentary body anywhere in the world - adopt those principles. In fact, I wonder what the electorate would think about an education program such as that Ms Follett talks about. How, in fact, does she propose that we go about implementing such a program? She certainly did not refer to that during her debate. I presume that one of her colleagues will take that issue up during their discussions on this important matter.
But let me now go to the problem that I alluded to earlier, the problem of the size of the Assembly. Remember it is proposed that this be a standing committee. We would have, therefore, five members making judgments on the remaining 12. I also note that Ms Follett's draft code of conduct referred to our being "dedicated to highest ideals of honour and integrity in all public and personal relationships ...".
Let us consider this statement in relation to personal relationships. I believe, as I have said before, that that statement goes without saying. Members will be judged accordingly by their peers in the Assembly when and if motions of censure are moved; and also by public opinion in relation to those matters, particularly at the ballot box at the appropriate time.
Does Ms Follett propose, for example, that members of her faction who ratted on a deal with the right wing some weeks ago would appear before the ethics committee? One would have to say that that comes within the definition proposed by Ms Follett in her proposed draft code of ethics. Would Ms Follett and Mr Berry be the first to appear before that committee, because they ratted on a deal with the right wing members? Clearly, that would cause some problems.
Ms Follett: What is he talking about? Is this relevant?
MR JENSEN: Of course it is relevant. It is very relevant. We have to be very careful that some of these things do not flash back as a rather large boomerang to put a rather large bang on the back of the head.
So, let us just be very careful. I will come to a few more things in relation to personal relationships, for example. Who is going to police personal relationships? The committee of five? In the USA, personal matters of the members of the legislature become public knowledge and the press very often has a field day. Many members of the various American legislatures have found their whole private lives bandied across the front pages of the newspapers - a major problem. They have been forced to resign.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .