Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 76 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank members. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs inquire into and report by 30 June 1996 on the development of guidelines for the provision of assistance to Members in relation to legal proceedings.

Mr Speaker, this motion is very straightforward. I do not propose to speak to it for very long. It is clear from recent events that there is a need for the Assembly to try to establish some ground rules for the approach to the provision of assistance to members of the Legislative Assembly, including Ministers. Up until now there has been a more or less discretionary approach to be taken by the government of the day. Clearly, issues of conflict of interest and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of particular actions are certainly open to people to suggest in circumstances where that discretion is purely in the hands of the government.

The present Government believes that it would be much better to have that element of uncertainty of discretion on the part of the government removed by providing for guidelines which would inform a government decision on whether granting assistance should occur in particular circumstances. These are circumstances which apply, I should point out, not just to members of the Legislative Assembly but also to senior public servants or any public servant who finds himself or herself in the position of being sued as a result of some action that was taken during the course of their performance of duties on behalf of the government. The criteria are, first, that the action arose out of a Minister or member acting in the course of their official duties and where the member or Minister did not act in bad faith, or unreasonably; or, alternatively, in circumstances where the Territory is vicariously liable for the acts of the member or Minister. Mr Speaker, it may well go beyond that. It may not. The question of the extent to which such provisions ought to apply to members who might seek to have their costs reimbursed, or their costs indemnified, from the Territory's coffers, is a matter, I think, that needs to be carefully examined and scrutinised.

Mr Speaker, the experience of other jurisdictions is only a partial guide to the ACT, in that there is a range of experiences in other jurisdictions as to what sort of provision might be provided. To cite recent examples at the Federal level, members are probably aware that, although there was a controversy about the payment of fees to the Hon. Carmen Lawrence, as Minister for Health, arising out of actions she had taken in her capacity as Premier of Western Australia, there was a decision made by the Australian Senate to provide her with something in the order of $550,000 in public money to support her actions before that royal commission inquiry in Western Australia. There was a further amount that was sought by the Australian Government with respect to the challenging of the jurisdiction of the royal commission to conduct its hearings, and that matter was not indemnified on the part of the Australian Senate.

Similarly, there was a decision made, again by the Federal Parliament, again, I understand, on a fully bipartisan basis, that the costs incurred by the Hon. Alan Griffiths, a former Minister in the Federal Labor Government, in respect of his proceedings arising out of what is colloquially called the sandwich shop affair, were also met by the Parliament and they amounted to almost half a million dollars. The actions in that case arose not out of a Minister's duties as a Minister, but out of an entirely personal, private arrangement the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .