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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3427 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Will Codes of Conduct discourage "quality" Parliamentary candidates from embarking upon a parliamentary career?

Will Codes of Conduct unnecessarily inhibit Parliamentarians in their day-to-day activities? ...

To what extent will Codes of Conduct set only minimum levels to which Parliamentarians will aspire?

They are just some of the questions that were raised during that informal workshop. They are all questions that need to be addressed in a formal inquiry to develop a code of conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly. I know that the Government has determined a code of conduct for Ministers in the Executive, and I have been a critic of that code of conduct because it is quite different from the code of conduct that applied in the Follett Labor Government and the code of conduct that, in effect, applies under the Howard-led Federal Liberal Government. I must say that the code of conduct adopted by the Carnell Government seems to have been written around Mrs Carnell's operation of her own pharmacy.

I want to touch on those areas that are dealt with in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the motion before the chamber. We would like the Assembly's endorsement for an inquiry that would lead us to a report on issues such as parliamentary and personal conduct and how they should be dealt with. These issues have troubled members in the past. I recall Mr De Domenico's difficulty with a wrongful dismissal case in dealing with an employee.

Mr Humphries: In which he was vindicated.

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries interjects. The fact is that it cost ACT taxpayers a heap of money to buy their way out of that. Parliamentary and personal conduct is one matter that ought to be dealt with, and it ought to be laid out in a form which is understandable to the community.

There have been many instances throughout the life of this Assembly where the issue of conflict of interest has arisen. Who will forget the first Speaker in this place and his interest in fluoride? While pressing to remove fluoride from the water supply in the ACT, the then Speaker rose to some notoriety because he was at the same time busy marketing filters to remove fluoride from the water supply. I am sure that that Speaker did very well in a business sense because he became well known for his interest in fluoride and I am sure that he sold many filters. I thought that was a very serious conflict of interest.

The next issue I wish to deal with is the Chief Minister. When in opposition, the very first piece of legislation that was supported by Mrs Carnell was a piece of legislation that would increase business in pharmacies. That was to do with the methadone program.

Mrs Carnell: I do not think it was the first piece of legislation.

Mr De Domenico: So would the plague. That would increase business in pharmacies.

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