Page 3444 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I very much welcome what support I have had from Government members for this motion. I am certainly not attempting to adopt a holier than thou attitude, which Mr Jensen, amongst others, accuses me of. As I said, I would expect any code of ethics drawn up to apply equally to all members, including myself. For that reason, I think it is incumbent upon all members of this Assembly to support it.
Mr Kaine raised the point that he was worried that, if there were a committee established, that committee might be required to investigate one of its number or there could be a conflict of interest for a member of that committee. Well, yes, indeed. If any member of the committee is subject to the code of ethics, of course that member may be investigated. But I completely fail to see what the difference is between that situation and the Administration and Procedures Committee taking on this role. Exactly the same possible conflicts could arise, with exactly the same possible problems with members of that committee being investigated. So I really do not see what the problem is there. It is quite clear to me that, if we do adopt a code of ethics, it applies equally to all members.
I make just one final point, and it relates to Mr Humphries' motion to refer this matter to the Administration and Procedures Committee. For the reasons that Mr Wood spoke about, I would have preferred to have a special committee to undertake this task - if not a standing committee, then a select committee - because I think it is something that you need to focus on intensively for a period of time. We have to debate, have public hearings and talk to members of the committee, members of the community and members of this Assembly. Nevertheless, I do welcome Mr Humphries' motion because it does at least continue the debate on this important matter.
So we will be supporting his motion, given the expectation that the Government members would not allow any other course of action anyway; we bow to the inevitable, I suppose. At least you have not thrown out our motion and I thank you for that. But you have not given it your total support either, and I do not know why you are so nervous about doing so.
MR SPEAKER: I would like to correct an interpretation placed on the proceedings by members. The situation is that there is not an amendment before the Assembly, but there is a motion before the Assembly. Therefore Ms Follett did not close the debate and in fact the Chief Minister and Mr Wood and Mr Humphries, who would close the debate, are still open to speak on this issue.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (12.07): At this juncture, while they are making up their minds, Mr Speaker, may I table the document I referred to in my speech. I table a copy of a letter to all local councils dated 25 January 1990 and signed by, among others, Ian Temby, Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption. I also table
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .