Page 5045 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
similar body in this Territory. My conversations with committee staff in Perth and my perusal of their legislation indicated that the Western Australian legislation was considerably weaker than the Bill now before the house. The Western Australian commission appeared to be a mere clearing house for complaints, with no effective capacity to ensure that matters requiring investigation would be actively pursued. I need not dwell on subsequent events in Western Australia to indicate how woefully inadequate that commission was in getting into the inner reaches of the Western Australian Government.
I shall cite examples of where we have strengthened the role in the ACT. Unlike the Western Australian counterpart, the ACT Bill has a definition of corrupt conduct. The Bill defines that conduct at clause 6. It refers to conduct that adversely affects or could adversely affect either directly or indirectly the honest or impartial performance of official functions by a public official or public authority. It also relates to conduct of a public official which amounts to performance of any of his or her official functions dishonestly or with partiality or in breach of public trust or in a situation which amounts to misuse of information or material acquired in the performance of official functions.
Of course, the traditional offence of conspiracy or an attempt to engage in conduct of the nature just described is embraced. The general benchmark for this conduct is that it needs either to constitute a criminal or disciplinary offence or to constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or dispensing with or otherwise terminating the services of a public official who is engaged in it. In this sense the core of this Bill produces a living provision in the legislation. It provides for the values to be adopted for conduct by public officials, including Ministers, to be capable of adjustment against community demands.
In that respect I have already referred members this week to the 1989 Fitzgerald report presented to the Queensland Parliament and a subsequently published issues paper dealing with the question of the conduct of public officials. I refer members to the introduction speech for the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 6) earlier this week. There has been, then, an attempt in this Territory to reach right into the Fitzgerald and WA Inc. experience and build on the recommendations of the committee whilst sticking to the parameters set by the Assembly.
I continue the comparison with the Western Australian Bill. That Bill has no power, for example, to demand the production of documents or to apply for a search warrant to seize documents in exceptional cases - including, for example, in a Minister's office. The ACT Bill provides such a power. The Western Australian Bill is silent on what action can be taken if the Western Australian
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .