Page 4497 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 31 October 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Wednesday, 31 October 2018
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms J Burch) took the chair at 10 am, made a formal recognition that the Assembly was meeting on the lands of the traditional custodians, and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Independent Integrity Commission 2018—Select Committee
Report
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.00): Pursuant to order of the Assembly of 6 June 2018, I present the following paper:
Independent Integrity Commission 2018—Select Committee—Report—Inquiry into the establishment of an integrity commission for the ACT, dated 30 October 2018, together with a copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings.
I move:
That the report be noted.
This committee was a reconstitution of the previous committee and it was formed to look at the two bills that had been presented. We had the bill that was tabled by Mr Coe and then the exposure draft circulated by Mr Barr on behalf of the government. The committee did constitute the same members as last time, with me as the chair, Ms Lee as the deputy chair, Mr Steel and Ms Cody, and then because of Mrs Jones being on leave Mrs Dunne took her place on the committee this time. The key question before the committee was having two bills with extensive text in them, and one of the key questions was what recommendation we should make.
I was very encouraged by the fact that in the hearings Mr Tony Harris, the former Auditor-General of New South Wales, told the committee that many features of both pieces of legislation are “state of the art” and that the ACT was on the verge of putting up the best integrity legislation in the country. I think it was very reassuring to the committee that someone who had been involved in the process previously and had some very strong views on these matters had looked at both bills and felt that they were both of such quality.
Ultimately, the committee did have to form a view. The committee noted that the bill and the exposure draft contain many similarities, with some provisions being identical and many others containing only minor differences. The committee understood that in both cases the drafting instructions largely try to give effect to the recommendations of the previous committee.
Where the bill and the exposure draft differed, the committee made comparisons. On some occasions the committee preferred the drafting in the bill; in others, the exposure draft. In some instances the committee decided that neither approach was ideal and recommended an alternative approach. With two worthy pieces of work
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video