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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2870 ..

It is as well to be cautious in matters which may enliven section 14 of the ACT Self Government Act as the consequences of its operation are harsh -vacation of office. The Chief Justice of the High Court described the counterpart provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution as having "penal consequences" and therefore being subject to strict construction: Re Senator Webster (1975) 6 ALR 65, 71.

The provisions are designed to secure the independence of the parliament and the particular mischief to be addressed is such activities as bribery or taking payment for voting in a certain way or for raising matters in the parliament. The Commonwealth provision also refers to services "to the Commonwealth" in addition to services "rendered in the Parliament" and was designed to catch barristers and other professionals in Parliament from engaging in work for the Crown. The counterpart provision of the Commonwealth Constitution (section 45(iii)) does not contain the terms "allowance" or "reward" and refers only to "fee or honorarium". Those latter terms would not in their ordinary sense include, for example, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses: see Evans "Pecuniary Interests of Members" (1975) 49 ALJ 464, 470. The additional terms included in paragraph 14(c) must be taken to widen the scope of the paragraph as compared with the Constitutional provision.

There is also a distinction, in my opinion, between a gratuity and an allowance or reward "for services". There is no suggestion in your instructions that any services at all are to be given in return for the travel assistance. However, it may be considered imprudent for any member to accept any gratuity, as the suggestion could be made that even by omission or silence the member has advanced the giver's interests if any question which affected those interests were aired in the Assembly.

There have been no recorded cases of any substantive action taken under section 45(iii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. However, some guidance on the approach which should be taken is to be found in Brown v Administration of Norfolk Island (1991) 101 ALR 201 in which the Full Federal Court considered paragraph 39(2)(e) and section 65 of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) which are in substantially the same terms as sections 14(1)(c) and 73 of the ACT Self Government Act.