Page 3794 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
about how broad that scope should be. I think that it is appropriate to have the broad scope but then to have some of the mechanisms that have been in place to prevent vexatious and frivolous complaints. We certainly do not want to see this process used in a way to seek to harm members’ reputations or to be able to cast aspersions but rather to ensure that the safeguards are put in place so that we do have a standing and recognised independent mechanism that hopefully we will not need to use very often.
In exercising the functions, the following must be observed, and these are some of the safeguards I was referring to: no report should be made by the commissioner in a case where the member concerned, the member being investigated, has agreed that he or she has failed to register or declare an interest if, in the commissioner’s opinion, the interest involved was minor or the failure was inadvertent. And I think that is an important thing, because there will be times when administrative errors or perhaps misunderstanding of the rules will occur. If a member can demonstrate that, then it is quite appropriately so.
Another instance is where the member concerned has taken action to rectify the failure, as the commissioner may have required, within any procedure approved by the committee. Again, allowing for oversights in process can lead to unintentional breaches not becoming a major matter nor requiring a formal report.
There are also some procedural fairness matters set out in the motion. The commissioner is required to not provide a report to the committee unless they have given a copy of the proposed report to the member who is the subject of a complaint under investigation, the member has had a reasonable time to provide comments on the proposed report and the commissioner has considered any comments provided by the member.
Again, this is a basic process of procedural fairness, the sort of approach we see in a range of other places, whether it is the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General. These are standard processes where the person being investigated, audited or complained against, as the case may be, does have an opportunity to at least give feedback and perhaps clarify matters that have been misunderstood.
Again, I understand there are various amendments that have been circulated. Unfortunately, some of this has come quite late. I gather it is the will of the Assembly to adjourn this matter today. I am comfortable with that. There clearly needs to be some further discussion. I think that members have made some useful suggestions on how we might make some further insertions of text, specifically including language about complaints that are vexatious or intended for political gain. I think that there are some good ideas being put forward there, and I look forward to that discussion.
But I think the basic premise here is a very simple one: to try, in the cool light of day where we do not have a specific matter at hand, to find a mechanism so that when we have matters such as those that did arise last Assembly, and for which I found myself involved as the Speaker at the time, we have a mechanism in place that is one which we have all agreed to at a time without heat and which we feel will provide both ourselves and the public with confidence that there is an appropriate mechanism to investigate those complaints and either dismiss them if they are unsubstantiated or make a clear and transparent finding where they may be found to be substantiated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video