Ethical Final Report1

8/4/2019 Ethical Final Report1

1/201

2009 (No. 24)

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA_______________

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ETHICAL CONDUCT

Final Report

Pub lic Office is Pub lic Trust

______________

Brought up by Mr Wilkinson and presented to the Dep uty President of the LegislativeCounc il pursuant to Stand ing Order 197 (L.C.).

______________

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Leg islative Counc il

Mr Wilkinson(Chair)Mr Hall

Mr MartinMs Thorp

House of Assem bly

Mr BestMr LlewellynMr McKimMr Roc kliff


2/201

Table of Contents

1 Appo intment & Cond uc t of the Inquiry ................................................. 2

2 Summary of Findings.................................................................................. 5

3 Summa ry of Rec om me nd ations............................................................ 10

4 Overview....................................................................................................17

5 Parliame nt .................................................................................................26

6 Executive ...................................................................................................507 Sta te Service .............................................................................................57

8 Aud itor-General: Offic e of the ............................................................... 68

9 Omb udsma n: Office of the .................................................................... 70

10 Direc tor of Pub lic Prosec utions: Office of ............................................. 80

11 Tasmania Polic e........................................................................................83

12 Pub lic Inte rest Disc losures Ac t 2002..................................................... 102

13 Commissions of Inq uiry Ac t 1995.......................................................... 107

14 Free dom of Informa tion Ac t 1991........................................................ 111

15 Crimina l Co de Ac t 1924........................................................................117

16 Other review me c hanisms....................................................................121

17 Need for Aug menta tion ........................................................................123

18 Tasmanian Integrity Co mmission ......................................................... 160

19 Other matte rs..........................................................................................168

20 Conclusion...............................................................................................172

21 Appendices.............................................................................................174


3/201

2

1 APPOINTMENT & CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY1.1 The Honourab le Mem ber for Nelson, Jim Wilkinson, the

eventual Chair of this Committee, on 17 April 2008 gavenotice of a motion in the Legislative Council (the Council)

tha t he intended to m ove for the estab lishment of a Selec tComm ittee o f the Counc il to inquire into a nd report upon:-

the issue of ethical conduct, standards and integrity ofelected Parliamentary representatives and servants of theSta te in pe rforming the ir duties with particular refe renc e to :

(a) an assessment of mechanisms currently available toadd ress ethica l and op en Government in Tasma nia;

(b) whether existing entities are appropriately equipped tofulfil this func tion; a nd

(c) the q uantum a nd type o f ad ditional resource s whic h ma ybe req uired ;

the investigation of possible alternative mechanisms toaddress issues of e thica l and op en G ove rnme nt in Tasma nia;

an examination of legislative requirements and whetherleg islative change ma y be required ; and

any ma tters inc ide ntal thereto.1

1.2 The Honourab le David Bartlett MP, on 27 May 2008, ga venotice of a motion to establish this Committee, the first dayhe a ppea red in the Cha mb er of the House o f Assem bly (theAssemb ly) as Premier.

1.3 The fina l resolution rec eived the support o f the Assem blywithout a division being taken, as was the case when theCouncil considered the message from the Assemblyreq uesting its c onc urrenc e w ith the resolution.

1.4 The resolution was as fo llows:-That a Joint Select C ommittee b e a ppo inted , withpower to send for persons and papers, with leaveto sit during any adjournment of either Houseexce ed ing 14 days, and w ith lea ve to a djourn fromplac e to plac e to inquire into a nd repo rt upon the

issue of e thic al c ond uc t, standa rds and integ rity ofelected Parliamentary representatives andservants of the Sta te in pe rforming the ir duties withpartic ula r referenc e to

(a) a review of existing mechanisms currentlyavailable to support ethical and open

1 Leg islative Co unc il, Notic es of Mo tion a nd Orders of the Day, Session of 2008, No. 1.


4/201

3

Government in Tasma nia and the c ap ac ity toconduct independent investigations;

(b) an assessment of whether those mechanismsneed to b e a ugme nted b y the estab lishment of anEthics Commission or by other means and if so bywhat mea ns; and

(c) a ny matters inc ide ntal hereto.

1.5 The Co mmittee resolved a t its first mee ting o f 17 June 2008that unless otherwise ordered, the Committee wouldop erate pursuant to the Stand ing Orders of the Counc il.

1.6 The Comm ittee further resolved a t tha t mee ting, to invite, bywa y of advertisem ent o n the Parliame nt of Tasma niaInternet page and in the three daily regional newspapers,interested persons and organisations to make a submissionto the C om mittee in relat ion to the Terms of Refe renc e. In

addition to such general invitation, the Committee directlyinvited a number of persons and organisations to providethe Committee with any information they deemed to bereleva nt to the inquiry.

1.7 The C om mittee rec eived 136 submissions and 44 doc umentsas exhibits.

1.8 As previously reported 2, the Com mittee rec eived a numb er ofsubmissions from persons which detailed their negativeexperiences in dealings with public bodies and/or officials in

the apparent expectation that this Committee was itself aform of appeals body or investigative authority which hadpowers and functions that would allow it to investigate orrev isit suc h c ases and rec om me nd spec ific reme dy. It isquite c lea r in the view of the Com mittee tha t the inquiry didnot extend to an investigation of such cases which wasconveyed to relevant witnesses.

1.9 The Com mittee c arefully considered the rec eipt o f allsubmissions. Suc h de libera tions were conduc ted within thecontext of both: the strong desire of the Committee for an

open process; and the need to ensure the inquiry wasconducted in such a manner to ensure that reputationalharm was not c aused by the p ublic ation of evidenc e.

1.10 Accordingly, with the exception of one submission which theCommittee resolved not to receive as it was submitted

2Ethica l Cond uc t, Joint Selec t Co mm ittee on : Inte rim Rep ort (Paper No. 25 of 2008 (L.C.))


5/201

4

anonymously, all submissions were received and taken intoevidence, thus informing the Committees inquiry.

1.11 The submissions rec eived , ta ken into evidenc e a nd orde redby the C omm ittee to be rep orted are listed in Appe ndix A .Suc h doc uments we re rep orted with the first Interim Rep ort ofthe Co mmittee.

1.12 The Comm ittee further resolved howe ver, tha t som esubmissions should no t b e rep orted in order to ensure tha t nobreaches of natural justice occurred by the denial of anyright o f rep ly. Suc h submissions are listed in Append ix B .

1.13 The sub mission resolved by the Com mittee no t to b e rec eivedis Appendix C. Documents tabled by witnesses in thecourse of the hearings and resolved to be reported by theComm ittee a re listed in Append ix D.

1.14 Documents tabled by witnesses in the course of the hearingsand resolved not to be reported by the Committee arelisted in Ap pend ix E .

1.15 In order to enable the publication of the transcripts ofevidenc e hea rd b y the Committee in pub lic the Committeeprov ided the Houses with tw o further Inte rim Rep orts3.

1.16 The Com mittee me t on 23 oc c asions, suc h meetings beingc ond uc ted in Hob art, Launc eston and Devonport. A Sub-Committee was appointed for the purpose of conducting

interviews in Brisbane and Sydney, suc h Sub-Com mittee me ton three oc c asions.

1.17 The defa ult p osition for the Com mittee hearing e videnc ewa s to examine witnesses in pub lic. The Co mm ittee d idhowever resolve on occasion to hear witnesses in c am era.With one exception, the transcripts of evidence heard incamera were resolved by the Committee not to bepub lished . The excep tion was the evidenc e of the Solic itor-General. The Comm ittee ind ic a ted to the Solic itor-Generalat the time that it was likely that some of his evidence may

be ut ilised in the rep ort, the Solic itor-Gene ra l ind ic a ted tothe Com mittee tha t he had no issue w ith suc h p rop osition.

1.18 The Minutes of the p roc eed ings of the Comm ittee and Sub-Com mittee a re d eta iled in Append ix E.

3 Ethica l Cond uc t, Joint Selec t Co mm ittee o n: Interim Rep ort 2 (Paper No. 26 of 2008);and Inte rim Rep ort 3 (Paper No. 8 of 2009)


6/201

5

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe Com mittee finds tha t on the e videnc e p resented, theprescriptions of the Electoral Act 2004 regarding the conduct ofc and ida tes in relation to : elec tions: c amp aigning; and advertising ,

provide a level of protection appropriate to ensure the properc ond uc t o f elec tions in Tasma nia .

The Com mittee finds tha t on the e videnc e p resented, thep resc rip tions reg a rd ing the c and ida ture o f Sta te Servants p rov idethe separation from their official position appropriate to enabletheir partic ipa tion in elec tion c amp aigns.

The Com mittee finds tha t on the e videnc e p resented, thep resc rip tions of the Constitution Ac t 1934 reg ard ing the c ond uc t o fmembers of Parliament in relation to: the holding of an office ofprofit under the Crown; and attendance in the respective Houses

of Pa rliament ac c ording to their duty req uire no a mend ment.

The Committee finds that the ap p lic a tion o f the Ac t be e xtende dto include pe op le rela ted to a Mem be r of Parliam ent.

The Comm ittee finds tha t on the evidenc e presented, there shouldbe a n avenue fo r any person to pursue a c onc ern in relation to ana lleg ed c onflic t o f interest.

The Committee finds that o n the e vide nce p resented , the Cod e o fEthical Conduct and Code of Race Ethics of the Assembly arevaluable public declarations of the standards of conduct

expec ted of Memb ers of tha t House.

The Comm ittee finds tha t Me mb ers of Pa rliame nt would bene fitfrom participation in an appropriate program focussed on thetheory and prac tica l ap plic ation of ethic s as they ap ply to politic sspec ifica lly and the w ider soc ia l c ontext.

The Comm ittee finds tha t there is a lac k of a ny me c hanism toallow a member of the public to pursue an alleged breach ofeither of the Codes and accordingly finds that a need exists toprovide a complaints process for the treatment of allegedinfringements.

The Com mittee finds tha t there is a need for an add itiona l avenuefor Memb ers to ra ise ma tters of p rivileg e.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t in respec t o f the Assem bly, the c urrentmethodology for referrals to the Privileges Committee and themembership of the Committee exposes such Committee to claimsof p artisanship in the c onduc t o f its a ffairs.


7/201

6

The Com mittee finds tha t it wo uld be p rudent for a review oflegislation pertaining to the operation of the Parliament ofTasma nia be undertaken.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t on the evidenc e rec eived , themechanisms available to both Houses of the Parliament tosc rutinise the a c tions of the Executive a re c onsiderab le b ut entirelydep end ent up on levels of resourcing provided to the Parliament toperform this funda menta lly imp ortant func tion.

The Comm ittee finds tha t on evide nc e rec eived , the issue o f thesize o f the Tasmanian Parliament is worthy o f furthe r c onside ra tion.

The C om mittee finds tha t in order for the Parliame nt to p rop erlypursue its role as the principle scrutinizer of the activities of theExecutive, recognition of the need for an enhanced level of selfdetermination in resourcing is essentia l.

The Comm ittee finds tha t the wo rthy princ ip le of the sep ara tion ofpowers rec og nised in the enac tment o f a sep arate App rop riationAct for the Parliament and associated Offices is to some degree,potentially weakened by the actual control of the appropriationsby the Exec utive.

The Comm ittee rec og nises tha t the Exec utive, as the ma nage r ofthe Public Account, must of course be involved in any processwhe re e xpend iture from the Pub lic Ac c ount is c onsidered.

The C om mittee finds tha t there is c om munity conc ern that the

number of Memb ers of the Parliame nt o f Tasmania is insuffic ient fo rthe Parliam ent to p roperly fulfill its roles in:

providing the me mb ers of the Exec utive; and sc rutinising the Exec utive.The Committee finds that o n the e vide nce p resented , the Cod e o fConduct for Government Members; the Cabinet Handbook;Government Members Handbook; Instruments of Appointment ofMinisteria l Sta ff; and the Ca reta ker Convent ions prov ideappropriate prescriptions for the conduct of the targeted office

holders.The C om mittee find s tha t on the evidence presented, there is asignificant need to formalise compulsory induction and on-goingtra ining for Ministers, Government Mem bers and their sta ff.

The Comm ittee finds tha t on the evidenc e p resented , there is asignificant need for the legislative prescription of appropriatepena lties for any breac h of the instruments above me ntioned .


8/201

7

The Com mittee finds tha t on the e videnc e p resented, thep resc rip tions reg a rd ing the c ond uc t o f Sta te Servants c onta ined inthe Sta te Servic e Ac t 2000 are app rop ria te and req uire noamendment.

The C om mittee find s tha t on the evidence presented, there is asignificant need to formalise compulsory induction and on-goingtraining for Sta te Serva nts.

The Committee finds tha t on the e videnc e submitted , the newAudit Act provides the most advanced statutory framework in thecountry.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t adeq uate resourcing for the offic e ofthe Auditor-General is critical to enable the full exercise of thepow ers of tha t Office particularly in c a rrying out investiga tions.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t that the O ffic e o f the Omb udsma n

should be appropriately resourced to enable the full exercise ofthe p ow ers of tha t Offic e.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t the re is c onsiderab le me rit in theformalisation of a relationship between the Office of theOmb udsma n and a Parliam enta ry co mmittee.

The C ommittee finds tha t there is a need for an enforce me ntprovision to give effect to the recommendations of theOmbudsman.

The Com mittee finds tha t the o ffic e o f the Direc tor of Pub lic

Prosecutions should be appropriately resourced to enable the fullexerc ise of the pow ers of the Offic e.

The Co mm ittee finds tha t sec tion 7 of the Polic e Servic e Ac t 2003 isambiguous and that the divergence of opinion in theinterpretation of such section leads to the detrimental perceptionthat operational matters, including criminal investigations, may bed irec tly influenc ed by memb ers of the Exec utive.

The Com mittee find s itself in c onc urrenc e w ith the view tha tTasma nia Polic e office rs work within a reg ime which holds them to

a higher standard of c ond uc t than othe r pub lic offic ia ls. TheComm ittee notes the effec tive denial for Tasma nia Polic e offic ersof the funda me nta l right to silenc e enjoyed by eve ry other c itizen.

The C om mittee finds tha t the adop tion o f the g uidelines submittedby the Commissioner of Police further would reinforce theop erational indep end enc e o f the Tasma nia Polic e Servic e.


9/201

8

The C om mittee finds tha t this spec ific a lly ta rgete d rev iew into thePub lic Interest Disc losures Ac t 2002 is nec essary and awaits itsoutcome.

The Com mittee finds tha t on the e videnc e p resented, theprescriptions contained in the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1995 areapp rop ria te and require no a mend ment, with the exc ep tion of theamendments rec om mended by the Law Reform Institute.

The C om mittee finds tha t this spec ific a lly ta rgete d rev iew into theFreedom of Information Act 1991 is necessary and awaits itsoutcome.

The Comm ittee finds tha t there is a need for a review of theCriminal Cod e Ac t. Notwithstand ing the ame ndm ents ma de tothe Act, the original statute was enacted in 1924 and theCommittee concurs with the view that much has changed since

that time.The Co mm ittee finds tha t on the evidenc e rec eived , theprescriptions contained in the Judicial Review Act and theMagistrates Court (Administrative Appeals Division) Act areap prop riate and require no a mend ment.

The Com mittee finds tha t it wo uld be b ene fic ia l for me mb ers ofthe media to appraise themselves in matters of ethical behaviourand proc esses.

The Co mm ittee finds the follow ing a rea s of c onc ern exist in the

mechanisms currently available to support ethical and openGove rnment in Tasma nia a nd the c apa c ity to c ond uc tindep end ent investiga tions:

The d evelopm ent of stand ards and c od es of c ond uc t iscurrently ad hoc and organisationally based there isclearly a need for uniformity of approach across theentire public sector.

Tra ining a nd professiona l develop me nt in relat ion toethical conduct is similarly of an ad hoc na ture. Thelack of ongoing training for new public officers was of

pa rtic ular conc ern to the Co mmittee.

There is a nee d for the c o-ordina tion of tra ining for allpublic officers including a community outreachprogram.
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=22++1991+AT@EN+20040813080000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=22++1991+AT@EN+20040813080000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=


10/201

9

There is a need for a ded ic a ted resea rc h func tion tosupport the continual development of standards andco des of cond uct.

There is a need for an a uthority to p rovide c onfidentialadvice to public officers in relation to the conduct ofthe ir duties.

The c urrent mec ha nisms for the investiga tion ofcomplaints-based breaches of the law areapprop ria te. There is c lea rly a need for the a b ility toinvestigate and expose conduct by public officers thatwhilst not illegal is nevertheless contrary to the publicinterest and necessarily constitutes a breach of publictrust.

The Co mm ittee is persuaded by the a rgum ent tha tthere is a need for a triage function to be performedby a oversight body to receive; assess; and eitherrefe r or investiga te co mpla ints rec eived . There isclearly a need for the formalisation of a networkingarrange ment b etw een the Sta tutory Offic ersexamined by the Committee: Director of PublicProsec utions; Om budsma n; Auditor-Gene ra l and Sta teServic e Commissioner.

The Com mittee c onsidered the p ossible alloc a tion of thesefunctions to the Offices of the Auditor-General and the

Om bud sman. Whilst obviously possible by leg isla tive means, theCommittee found that such a distribution of tasks may bedetrimental to the conduct of the discrete functions of thoseOffices.

The Comm ittee finds tha t the need for a ne w bod y c lea rly exists toaddress the identified deficiencies in the existing system ofgovernance.

The Comm ittee finds tha t suffic ient evidenc e wa s rec eived tosupport the proposition that the law relating to donor disclosureshould apply equally to any person or organisation conducting a

p romotion of a po litic al na ture during elec tora l ca mp aigns.

The Comm ittee finds tha t suffic ient evidenc e wa s rec eived tosupport the proposition that a review be conducted into thedesirability or otherwise of public funding of political parties inTasmania.


11/201

10

The Co mm ittee finds tha t the estab lishment of a Sta tuto ry Office rsCommittee is a reform worthy of further inquiry by the LegislativeCo unc il and the House o f Assem b ly.

3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONSRec om me nda tion 1 The Co mmittee recom mends tha t theParliamentary (Disclosure of Interests) Act 1996 be strengthenedby amend ments to p rovide fo r the follow ing:-

(1) The de finition of related person to b e ad ded . Suc hdefinition to mea n

(a) the spouse o f a Mem be r;

(b) a child of a Member who is wholly or substantiallyde pe ndent on the Member; or

(c ) any o ther person (i) who is wholly or substantially dependent on theMem be r; and

(ii) whose affairs are so closely connected with theaffairs of the member that a benefit derived by theperson, or a substantial part of it, could pass to theMember.

(2) Consequential amendments to require the declaration ofa related persons interests in the Registers of Interests.

Rec ommend ation 2 The Com mittee rec ommends that the Loc alGovernment Act 1993 be amended to provide for a Register ofInterests for ea c h Loc a l Go vernment Counc il.

Rec om mendation 3 The Co mm ittee rec om me nds tha t, with theexce ption o f the d eta il of eac h Memb ers residential ad dress, theRegister of Interest of Members of the Legislative Council and theRegister of Interests of Members of the House of Assembly bepub lished on the inte rnet site of the Parliame nt o f Tasma nia.

Rec om me nda tion 4 The Com mittee rec om me nds tha t, in orderto provide a further level of public accountability, theParliamentary (Disc losure o f Interests) Ac t be a me nd ed to p rov idethat complaints regarding alleged breaches of the Act may bema de to the Tasma nian Integrity Com mission (videRec ommend ation 29).

Rec om me nda tion 5 The Co mmittee recom mends tha t theLeg isla tive Co uncil ad op t a Cod e o f Ethic al Conduc t and a Cod eof Rac e Ethic s.


12/201

11

Rec ommend ation 6 The Committee reco mmend s that o ne o fthe princ ipa l roles of the Tasma nian Integrity Commission (videRecommendation 29) will be to encourage ethical behaviour bydeveloping, in consultation with external bodies such as theCe ntre fo r Ap p lied Philosop hy and Ethics and the Tasma nian

Institute for Law Enforc em ent a t the University of Tasmania:-

guidelines and c od es of c ond uc t; training c ourses; resourc es for Government; and c ivic ed uca tion to sc hoo ls, interest g roup s and the p ub lic .

Rec om me nda tion 7 The Com mittee rec om me nds tha t, in orderto provide a further level of public accountability, complaintsregarding alleged breaches of the Code of Ethical Conduct and

Code of Rac e Ethic s of the Assembly a nd any simila r c od e/ s of theCounc il may b e ma de to the Tasma nian Integ rity Comm ission(videRecommendation 29).

Rec om me nda tion 8 The Co mmittee recom mends tha t theCounc il and the Assemb ly ad op t proced ures to ena ble Mem be rsto raise matters of privilege other than suddenly arising asfollows:-

1 A Member desiring to raise a matter of privilege mustinform the President / Spea ker of the deta ils in w riting .

2 The President/ Spea ker must c onsider the ma tter within14 days and decide whether a motion to refer thematter to the relevant Privilege Committee is to begiven prec ed enc e. The President/ Spea ker must not ifythis dec ision in writing to the Memb er.

3 While a matter is being considered by thePresident/ Spea ker, a Me mb er must not take any ac tionor refe r to the m atte r in the House.

4 If the President/ Spea ker dec ides tha t a mo tion forreferral should take p rec ed enc e, the Memb er may, atany time when there is no business before the House,give notice of a motion to refer the matter to theCom mittee. The d eb ate on the mo tion m ust takeprece de nce o n the next sitting d ay.

5 If the President / Spea ker dec ides tha t the m a tter shouldnot be the subject of a notice of referral, a Member is


13/201

12

not p reve nted from giving a notice of mo tion in relationto the ma tter. Such notice shall not ha ve p rec ed enc e.

6 If notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4), butthe House is not expected to meet on the dayfollow ing the giving o f the notice , with the lea ve o f theHouse, the m otion m ay b e m oved at a late r hour of thesitting a t whic h the no tice is g iven.

Rec om me nda tion 9 The Co mmittee recom mends tha t theHouse of Assembly prescribes that resolutions of its PrivilegesCom mittee ma y only be rea c hed by a bi-pa rtisan ma jority of theCommittee in circumstances where one political party has ama jority of mem bers on the Com mittee.

Rec omme nda tion 10 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha t a reviewof the Privilege Acts and other legislation pertinent to the

op eration a nd p roc esses of the Parliame nt of Tasma nia beundertaken in full co nsulta tion with the Counc il and the Assembly.

Rec om mendation 11 The C ommittee rec om mends tha t p rior tofinalising the annual appropriations of Parliament and ofindep endent Sta tuto ry Offic e ho lders, the Trea surer and / or theBudge t Sub-Committee of Ca b inet must rec eive and c onsidersubmissions for the annual proposed expenditure for the servicesof: the Legislative Council; the House of Assembly; Legislature-General; Office of the Ombudsman; Office of the Auditor-General; Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and the

Tasma nian Integrity Com mission (vide Rec om me nd a tion 29) forinclusion each year in the Consolidated Fund Appropriation (No.2) Bill.

Rec om menda tion 12 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t theannua l expend iture submissions of Parliame nt a nd Sta tuto ry Offic eholde rs, as submitted to the Budge t Sub-Comm ittee of Cab inet,be ta b led in ea c h House o f Pa rliame nt by 30 April ea c h yea r.

Rec om mendation 13 The Com mittee rec om me nds tha t inrelation to future Co nsolida ted Fund Ap prop ria tion (No. 2) Bills, theClause entitled Issue, application and appropriation of be

drafted to properly reflect that such funds are to be applied forthe servic es of the Parliament and Sta tutory Office s ra ther tha nthe c urrent fo rm which sta tes tha t suc h funds a re a pp lied for theservic es of the Government .

Rec ommend ation 14 The C ommittee rec omm end s that a ninde pe nde nt inquiry be c ond uc ted into:-


14/201

13

a . whe ther or not there should b e a n inc rea se o f the numb erof members elected to the Legislative Council and theHouse of Assembly;

b . if an increa se is rec om mended , to report on the w ay suc hinc rea se should be ac hieved; and

c . any ma tters inc identa l thereto.Rec om menda tion 15 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t thedevelopment of guidelines, definitions and instructions applicableto all Members of Parliament and political parties in relation to theappropriate expenditure of public funds be expedited andprovided to a ll me mb ers of Pa rliament.

Rec om mendation 16 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha t ap rincipa l func tion o f the Tasmanian Integ rity Co mm ission (videRec ommend ation 29) be to:-

Develop stand ards and c od es of cond uc t to guide p ublicoffic ia ls in the c ond uc t and performanc e o f their duties;

Prep are guidanc e a nd p rovide training to pub lic offic ia ls onma tters of c ond uc t, p rop riety and e thic s;

Provide advic e on a c onfidential ba sis to ind ividua l pub licoffic ia ls about the prac tic a l imp lem enta tion o f the rules inspec ific insta nc es.

Rec om mendation 17 The Committee recom mends tha t, in orderto provide a further level of public accountability, complaintsregarding alleged breaches of standards and codes of conductby Sta te Servants ma y be ma de to the Tasma nian IntegrityCommission (vide Recommendation 29). Where such complaintsare p roved but do not amo unt to c riminal c onduc t, a na me a ndshame p roc ess ma y occ ur.

Rec om menda tion 18 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tpursuant to Recommendation 11, the Auditor-General furnish theTrea surer and / or the Budge t Sub-Comm ittee of C abinet w ithadvice appropriate to inform the annual formulation of the

proposed expenditures for the Office of the Auditor-General forinclusion each year in the Consolidated Fund Appropriation (No.2) Bill.

Rec om menda tion 19 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t theOmbudsma n Ac t 1978 be a mended as follow s:-

1. To esta b lish a Joint Parliame nta ry Com mittee with thefollow ing func tions:-


15/201

14

a) To monitor and review the p erforma nce b ythe Ombudsman of the Ombudsman'sfunc tions under the Ac t;

b ) To rep ort to both Houses on any m atterconcerning the Ombudsman, the

Ombudsman's functions or the performanceof the Ombudsman's functions that thec ommittee c onsiders should b e d rawn to thea ttention of both Houses;

c ) To examine ea c h annual rep ort tab ledunder this act and, if appropriate, toc omment on any aspe c t of the rep ort; and

d) To report to b oth Houses any c hange s to thefunctions, structures and procedures of theOffice of Ombudsman the committee

considers desirable for the more effectiveop eration of the Ac t.e) To inquire into, c onsider and rep ort upo n

(i) a suitab le p erson fo r appointment to theOffic e o f Omb udsma n; and(ii) other ma tters relating to the p erformanc e o fthe func tions of the Offic e of Om budsma n; and(iii) any o ther ma tter referred to the Com mitteeby the Minister responsible fo r the administrat ionof the Omb udsma n Ac t; and(iv) to p erform o ther func tions assigned to the

Com mittee unde r the Omb udsma n Act or anyother Ac t or by resolution of b oth Houses.

2. To provide for the review of the non-imp lem entedrecommendations of the Ombudsman through theTasmanian Integrity Comm ission (videRecommendation29).

Rec om menda tion 20 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tpursuant to Recommendation 11, the Ombudsman furnish theTrea surer and / or the Budge t Sub-Comm ittee of C abinet w ithadvice appropriate to inform the annual formulation of the

proposed expenditures for the Office of the Ombudsman forinclusion each year in the Consolidated Fund Appropriation (No.2) Bill.

Rec om menda tion 21 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tpursuant to Recommendation 11, the Director of PublicProsec utions furnish the Treasurer and / or the Bud get Sub -Committee of Cabinet with advice appropriate to inform the


16/201

15

annual formulation of the proposed expenditures for the Directorof Public Prosecutions for inclusion each year in the ConsolidatedFund Ap propria tion (No . 2) Bill.

Rec om mendation 22 The Com mittee rec om me nds tha t sec tion7 of the Polic e Servic e Ac t 2003 be a mended to p rop erly reflec tthe c onve ntion tha t the Exec utive c annot d irec t Tasma nia Polic eon ma tters of an op erational nature.

Rec om menda tion 23 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tguidelines be prescribed by the Government in consultation withTasma nia Polic e to c la rify the difference b etw een polic y andoperational matters and where any serious doubt exists as towhether a particular direction related to a policy or operationalma tter the Co mm issione r of Polic e ma y app ly to the SupremeCo urt of Tasma nia for a Dec lara tory Order.

Rec om menda tion 24 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tTasmania Police Interna l Inve stiga tion files involving a lleg ations ofcriminal misconduct which the Director of Public Prosecutions hasdec ided not to p rosec ute should b e referred to the Tasma nianIntegrity Commission (videRec ommenda tion 29) for inde pe nde ntreview as to the ad eq uac y of the investiga tion.

Rec om menda tion 25 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t theGovernment show cause why the recommendations of the LawReform Institute Report on the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1995have not been ac ted upon.

Rec om menda tion 26 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t theCommissions of Inquiry Act 1995 be amended to provide that onapp lic a tion o f a c om missione r of inquiry, a ma g istra te b e g rantedthe power to issue a warrant to use listening devices to acommissioner where the magistrate is satisfied that thecommissioner holds a reasonable belief that the use of suchdevices is necessary and appropriate to obtain evidence inrelation to a ma tter relevant to the inquiry. Tha t suc h po we r berestric ted by the same restric tions as app ly to the granting o f suc hwarrants to police officers under the provisions of the Listening

Devices Ac t 1991.Rec om me nda tion 27 - The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha t theAttorney-General initiate a review of section 69 of the CriminalCode Ac t 1924 to asc ertain its c urrent a pp lic ability or the nee d foran ame ndm ent to remo ve any ambiguity or pe rc eived a mb iguity.

Rec om menda tion 28 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t theAtto rney-Gene ra l req uest the Tasma nia Law Refo rm Institute to


17/201

16

exam ine a nd rep ort upon the C riminal Code Ac t 1924 with a viewto proposing recommendations for any necessary legislativec hang e. Such review to b e adeq uate ly funded b y theGovernment.

Rec om menda tion 29 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tleg isla tion prov id ing for the c rea tion o f the Tasma nian IntegrityComm ission be dra fted .

The ob jec tives of the Co mm ission are to:-

1. imp rove the standard of gove rnanc e in Tasma nia ;2. enhance public trust that misconduct, including corrupt

conduct, will be investigated and brought to account;and

3. elevate the quality of, and commitment to, goodgovernance by adopting a strong, symbolic anded ucative role.

The Co mm ission will ac hieve these ob jec tives by:-

1. ed uc ating pub lic officia ls in Tasma nia on integ rity;2. investigating allegations of corrupt or inappropriate

beha viour ma de aga inst p ub lic offic ia ls in Tasma nia ; and

3. making findings in relation to those investigations andtaking the a ppropriate ac tion.

Rec om menda tion 30 The Co mmittee rec om mends tha t thematters detailed in paragraphs 18.1 to 18.21 of this report beinc luded in the d ra ft leg isla tion.

Rec om menda tion 31 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha tpursuant to Recommendation 11, the Executive Commissioner ofthe Tasmanian Inte grity Commission furnish the Trea surer and/ orthe Budg et Sub-Comm ittee o f Ca binet, with ad vic e ap propria teto inform the annua l formulation of the prop osed expend itures forthe Tasma nian Integrity Com mission for inc lusion ea c h year in theCo nsolida ted Fund Ap prop ria tion (No. 2) Bill.

Rec omme nda tion 32 The Co mm ittee rec om mends tha t a reviewof the Elec toral Ac t 2004 be c ond uc ted to p rovide for thedisclosure of the identity of sponsors of political advertisingc ond uc ted by persons or orga nisa tions othe r than p olitica l pa rtiesduring elec tion ca mp a igns

Rec omme nda tion 33 - The Co mmittee rec omme nds theestablishment of a Lobbyists Register and calls upon the


18/201

17

Government to progress its commitment to develop such aregister.

4 OVERVIEW4.1 The q uestion as to w hether or not the re existed a nee d for an

inquiry was one for the two Houses of the Tasma nianParliament which was self-evidently resolved in theaffirma tive. The C om mittee is of the view howe ver, tha t it isentirely appropriate to provide some background to thedecision of the Houses in order to inform any readersunderstanding of the prevailing sentiment within thec ommunity whic h b roug ht abo ut the inquiry.

4.2 The follow ing issues b roa d ly rep resent the foc us of the d eb atein the Assem bly on the mo tion:

the issue o f c onnec tivity b etw ee n Tasma nians withtheir democracy;

the opportunity the proposed inquiry would providefor discussion of the degree and strength of trust inTasmania s pub lic institutions;

wha t flaws, if any, c ould b e ide ntified in the c urrentmechanisms available to support open and ethicalc ond uc t b y pub lic offic ials; and

whe ther there wa s a need for a new bod y, va riouslydescribed as an: Ethics Commission; IndependentCommission Against Corruption (I.C.A.C.); or Anti-Co rrup tion Com mission .

4.3 It is a matter of history that a number of public proceedingshave, in recent times, given rise to a level of disquiet withinbo th the Tasma nian c ommunity and the p olitic a l ec helon o fthe Sta te. Suc h wa s the leve l of d issa tisfac tion tha t som eform of intervention by the political leadership was, in theview of many, required to address what was perceived bythem as the existence of institutionalised corruption whichhas emerged as a consequence of the failure of themechanisms currently in place to support ethical and openGovernment in Tasma nia .

4.4 A number of submissions to the Committee communicatedpersona l imp ressions in rela tion to the politica l cu lture extantin Tasmania which sup ported the ra tiona le fo r an inq uiry tobe c ond uc ted . The freq uenc y of the use of the wordpercep tion wa s notew orthy amongst suc h submissions. The


19/201

18

following extracts are indicative of the nature of suchevidence and address the broad areas of concernexp ressed by many w itnesses:

I am very co nce rned ab out the op eration of state go vernment inTasma nia; as a sma ll sta te there is a grea ter da nger that the

voices of p ow erful interests will be heard d isp rop ortiona tely by thego vernment, that me mb ers of the go vernment itself will havevested interests in suc h p articular conc erns, or that the y will beund uly swa yed by pressure app lied by suc h interests.

The mo st e greg ious exam ple of this c urrent ly relates to theprop osa l to b uild a la rge p ulp mill in northern Tasma nia.4

... Tasma nia ha s had a long and tumultuous history of d isc ord,related to a lleg ations of c ollusion and c orrup tion. This d isc ord isusua lly related to w hat a re seen to be sweet-hea rt de als withfavoured ind ustries suc h a s Hydro-elec tric ity, mining a nd forestry.My p erception is tha t muc h of this discord ha s risen from pe op le s

d issatisfac tion w ith proc ess. Suc c essive Tasmanian Go vernments,of b oth p ersuasions, have b een mo re intent on o utc omes thanproce ss and have be en p erce ived to c ut co rners, chang e therules or dec ide wha t is best for the future o f Tasma nia, whe ther ornot the ma jority of Tasma nians hap pe n to a gree w ith them or not.5

Currently Tasma nian pe op le ha ve low c onfidenc e in andexpec tat ions of t heir elected offic ials and senior pub lic servantswith respe c t to the ir c ommitment to o pe n and fair p roc essesac ross a b roa d range o f issues c ritica l to the future of the Sta te inthe c hallenging times ahea d.

It is c lear to m any Tasma nians tha t there is evide nc e o f po orprac tic e at be st a nd c orrupt ion at wo rst. There is ob vious leg a l

and fina nc ial disc rimina tion in favour of p articular industries andbusinesses and the strong p ercep tion of sec rec y in dea ling w iththese industries.

Ma ny exam ples are a va ilab le a s c ase stud ies but the fo restryindustry (and Gunns Ltd in p a rtic ular) and the ga mb lingindustry (and Fed eral Hote ls in pa rticula r) a re the mo st 'in yourface' examples.6

Comm unity disquiet ove r parliame nta ry shortc uts in the Gunnspulp m ill app rova l p roc ess wa s a significant fac tor in the d emandfor this investiga tion a nd its em pha sis on ethics . This assessme nt isreinforc ed by the d emand by g roup s such a s Tasma nians for a

Hea lthy Democ racy that a non-pa rliam enta ry proc ess be used forthis inquiry ra ther tha n to e ntrust it to the joint selec t c om mittee.Evidenc e tha t c itizens so d istrust the parliame nt to p rotec t the irinterests aga inst the Gove rnment tha t they wo uld p refer othe rmec hanisms should de ep ly conc ern a p a rliam enta ry committee .

4 W.J. Spenc e, Sub mission 36, p. 1.5 P. Pullinger, Submission 63, p.1.6 F. Nicklason, Sub mission 81, p.1.


20/201

19

Comm unity ac c ess to the p arliame nt is not only essent ia l toc onfide nc e in it a s a dem oc ratic institution; it is vital in ma intainingbelief in its probity.

Parliament must a cc ep t its own long-standing ob liga tions onbe half of the p eop le to ensure e thic al stand ards in p ublic life.There c an b e little d oub t tha t ha d the Parliam ent o f Tasma niaexercised fully its ob ligations to ove rsight a nd restrain Governme nt,muc h of the c ont rove rsy in rec ent years ove r ethics in politicswould have be en m od erated substantia lly. It is no service to theGovernment, or even to m embe rs of one s ow n party or those w ithwhom an MP is philosophically aligned, to compromisepa rliam enta ry standa rds of ac c ounta bility to promote aGovernment s age nda. There is no theo ry of an elec toralma ndate tha t supersed es the p a rliame nt s responsibility to thepeo ple. Thus, the sta rting po int for ensuring ethica l beha viour inpolitics must beg in with pa rliame nt adhering fully to its ow nconstitutiona l duties and conventiona l proc ed ures.7

I believe tha t the re a re various dysfunc tions in Tasma nia. They a reimportant and institutionalised and are creating massiveunnecessary conflict

Basica lly, ethics imp lies sta nd ards. There's not muc h po int havingeth ics if we don 't know wha t the stand ards are. It also impliesdefinitions. For our purposes, I wo uld suggest to you tha tcorrup tion is any c ondition in which a system w orks aga inst its ow nwide r interests or causes the system to bec om e unsusta inab le. Forexample, I can say tha t a c ancer that sudd enly takes over andsta rts grow ing a t the expe nse o f eve rything e lse is a c orrup tion ofmy bod y's norma l proc esses. Tha t is wha t we mea n by c orrup tion;we d on't mean mo ney in pa pe r ba gs. That might be one form ofcorrupt ion but c orruption m ea ns to c orrupt a system into wo rkingaga inst its ow n p urposes.

The Universa l Dec larat ion o f Huma n Rights in 1948 sta ted:

'All are eq ual be fore the law and they a re entitled , without a nydisc rimination, to eq ual protec tion o f the law .'

Tha t is not true in Tasma nia. Tha t dem onstrates, as fa r as I c an see ,that for the entire po pulation the Government is entirelyhypo c ritic al. Whether it is the g overnment of the d ay o r previousgo vernments, that c lass of p rob lem is c rea ting ma jor ang eramongst community members.

The sec ond thing is tha t eve ryone has the right of eq ua l acc ess to

the pub lic service in this country. Tha t is not true in Tasmania.Many p eop le ha ve b een d enied ac c ess to elements of the p ublicservice, most p articularly in the p ulp m ill assessme nt b usiness. Tha tdenial is creating anger...

7 R. Herr, Sub mission 45, p p . 2-3.


21/201

20

The o ther thing is unfa irness. When we say to one group , 'We a rerelieving you of t hose responsibilities', then w e c rea te c haos in the

system be c ause we c an't p red ic t it. 8

4.5 These submissions c lea rly indica ted to the Co mm ittee theattitude o f a num ber of Tasma nian c itizens who ma de

submissions which ranged from at least, a strong sense ofbreakdown in confidence in specific public institutions andOffices, to at worst, a feeling of betrayal and lack ofabsolute trust in a flawed and dishonest system ofgovernment.

4.6 Such evidenc e supp orted the argument that a d isc onnec tbetw ee n som e Tasma nian c itizens and their system ofgovernment had evolved into distrust which naturally leadthe Committee to consideration of how terms such asethical conduct and corruption were understood and

utilised during the inquiry. The C ommittee was assisted in thistask both b y a c onsiderab le b od y of litera ture on the subjec tand b y evidenc e it rec eived . The Comm ittee is of the viewthat the inclusion in this Report of relevant extracts of suchevide nce would be of be nefit to a ny rea de r.

4.7 The follow ing evidenc e suc c inc tly expresses one v iew ,rep ea ted by a numb er of witnesses:-

Ma ny peop le think that c orruption only exists whe n mone y hascha nged hand s or when the law ha s be en b roken. Howe ver,integrity spec ialists and anti-c orruption b od ies wo rldwide

inc rea singly use a b roa de r definition of c orruption a s the ab use ofentrusted po we r for illeg itima te go alsgoa ls that ma y not belimited to financ ial ab use, but c an inc lude enha nc ing p ersona l ororga nizationa l rep uta tion or po litica l pow er. By this definition,corruption e nc om pa sses prac tic es tha t ha ve p reviously ea rnedthe lesser c harge of unethica l beha viourfor instanc e,c ronyism in rec ruitme nt prac tice s. It a lso enc om passes p rac tice ssuc h a s reg ulato ry c ap ture, which o c c urs when offic ia lsina pprop ria te ly identify with the interests of a c lient or industry.

I believe tha t it is imp ortant for Tasma nians to rec og nize that awide rang e of b ad p rac tic e, whethe r illeg al or simp ly unethica l,

ca n and should b e c alled c orrupt.9

4.8 Rob McCusker, of the Australian Institute of Criminologyexpand s up on the issue:-

Definitions of c orruption a bound , but t he m ost c om monly usedone refers to the ab use o f a pub lic position for private g ain.Corruption is fac ilitate d by bribe ry, emb ezzlement a nd theft b ut

8 M. Bolan, Hansa rd , 6 Nove mber 2008, pp . 28/ 38-39.9 W. Russell, Sub mission 118, p . 2.


22/201

21

also b y nep otism a nd c ronyism. Corrup tion a ffec ts bo th theprivate a nd pub lic sec tors and is often subd ivide d into g rand a ndpetty corrup tion whic h rang es from the p rovision of sma ll gifts inthe fo rme r to m isapprop riation of p ub lic assets a t the highest leve lsin the latter. Furthe r classific a tions d istinguish b etw ee n incidenta l,institutional and system ic c orrupt ion a nd betwe en po litic al a nd

bureaucratic corruption.10

4.9 The submission of And rew Hollida y prov ided the Co mm itteewith a further level of deta il:-

The b ound ary betw een corrupt a nd no n-co rrupt a c tivities isdiffic ult to de fine b ec ause the issue is at hea rt a n ethical one .(Newburn, 1999)

Most orga nisa tiona l definitions and und ersta nd ings of c orruptionare of little use, be ing t oo narrow and leg alistic in c onc ep tion toac hieve their ostensible goa ls

Corruption is essent ially an ethica l mat ter rather tha n (and

befo re it bec om es) a lega l one. The Kenned y Roya l Comm issioninto p olic e c orrup tion in Western Australia resulted in the WesternAustralian Polic e Servic e a dop ting a simpler and mo re usefuldefinition:

Corruption is the abuse o f a role o r position held , for persona l ga in,or for the ga in or to the d etrime nt o f others. This definition isstraightforward and c omprehensive. It a pp lies to a ll emp loyee sand enc om passes a ll forms of c orrup tion, leg a l or othe rwise.Corruption is at o ne end of a c ontinuum enc ompa ssing a range o fbe haviours, whic h inc lude s ac tions that, a lthoug h they d o no tmeet the c riteria d eemed nec essary to be regarded a s c orruption,nevertheless op en the wa y and be gin the de sc ent into c orrupt

ac tivities. Althoug h not all of those w ho e nga ge in orga nisationa lde viance w ill bec ome c orrupt their professiona lism and thereforethe professiona l sta nd ing o f a n entire orga nisation is d iminished .

These a c tivities ma y not them selves be illega l or brea ch anyreg ulat ions but they do b rea c h the spirit o f those reg ulat ions andlaw s. Prac tic es that a re b oth unethic al and pave the way for thede velopm ent o f co rrupt p rac tices are sometimes referred to a so rga nisationa l devianc e . Corruption is the e xtreme culminationof unethica l be haviour and o rga nisationa l devianc e is the fuelfrom whic h c orrup tion is ignited . By intercepting th is process, notonly at an individual level but a lso at the c ultural a nd struc tura l

level, an orga nisa tion c an be fortified aga inst c orrupt prac tic e.11

4.10 The C om mittee rec eived further evidenc e in relation to theusage o f terminolog y relating to e thics:-

10 R Mc Cusker, Review of a nti-c orruption strate gies, Tec hnica l and Bac kground Pap er,No. 23, Austra lian Institute of Crimino log y 2006, p .4.11 A. Holliday, Submission 75, p. 2.


23/201

22

the noun ethic relates to the moral principles and rules ofcond uc t that d istinguish be tween right a nd w rong . In relationto the pubic administration this involves public officers acting inaccordance with the concepts of integrity, transparency andac c ounta bility that ha ve been ide ntified by the United Nations

In public administration, integrity refers to honesty ortrustworthiness in the discharge of their official duties, serving asan antithesis to c orrupt ion or the ab use of offic e . Transpa renc yrefers to unfettered access by the public to timely and reliableinformation on decisions and performance in the public sector.Accountability refers to the obligation on the part of the electedParliamentary representatives and public officials to act truthfullyand competently or suffer the consequences for any unlawful orinco mp etent a c tion. Above all they must not b e c orrupt

The b asic cause of c orruption is mo nop oly and disc retion w ithoutad eq uate a c c ounta bility. This imp lies that the expand ing role ofgovernment in development has placed bureaucracy in amonopolistic position and enhanced the opportunities forunlimited administrat ive d isc ret ion. Co rrup tion results fromexcessive regulation, increased bureaucratic discretion and the

lac k of an a de qua te, ac co untable and transpa rent system.12

4.11 Profe ssor Stua rt Mc Lea n p rov ided insight from an extra -political perspective, that being the ethical framework ofmed ic a l resea rc h:-

the g enera l set o f princ iples develop ed for health resea rch c anbe usefully app lied t o o the r situa tions. Sec ond ly, the m ethod s usedin the resea rc h workplac e to a c hieve high ethical standa rds ma yind ic ate how this c ould be ac c omplished in pub lic life.13

There a re four ma in ethica l values in huma n resea rc h. Theco mme nts under eac h have b een mo dified to ma ke theirrelevanc e to public ac tivities c lea rer.

Respec t for human be ings

This me ans tha t the intrinsic va lue o f eac h p erson is rec og nised .There a re seve ra l aspec ts to this, but of p a rticular releva nc e here isthat t he individua ls should ha ve the freedo m to c hoose w hether tobec om e involved and tha t this is assisted by the p rov ision ofsufficient information, in an understandable form, for them toma ke this c hoice . An imp ortant c onseq uenc e is that p eop leinvolved must b e fully informed about a propo sa l and its risks, in

plain lang uag e, befo re they c onsent to it.

Merit and integ rity

Several q uestions c an be used to test whether a p rop osal hasthese values. Is the prop osal sound , and ba sed on a thorough

12 R. Pa tterson, Sub mission 19, p. 1.13 S Mc Lean, Sub mission 26, p.1.


24/201

23

review of c urrent knowledge ga ined from previous experienc e?Do the p eop le involved have the required experienc e,qua lifica tions and co mp etenc e to c arry out the p rop osed work?

Justice

This va lue req uires tha t a ll peo p le be treated eq ua lly. For exam ple,

will the b urdens be sha red fa irly among st tho se invo lved? Will therebe a fa ir d istribution o f any b ene fits a rising?

Beneficence

For those p ersons invo lved a nd for the wider co mm unity, are thepote ntial be nefits likely to o utweigh the risks of ha rm or othe rad verse effec ts?

These va lues are not e xhaustive, and others of p articularrelevanc e to g overnment ac tivities inc lude ma king a c ontributionto soc ieta l goa ls and a respec t for cultura l diversity. These a ndother values co uld be ad de d t o ma ke a m ore c omp rehensive list

suitab le fo r pub lic life.14

4.12 The Com mittee found tha t suc h ethica l va lues app ly eq ua llyto the a dministra tion o f government.

4.13 The ev idenc e of the Professor of Philosophy o f the University ofTasmania, Professor Jeff Ma lpa s in rela tion to the issue wasa lso pa rticularly instructive:-

One of the fea tures of e thic al prac tice a nd expertise is that itde pe nds on judg ment, and it is not judg ment tha t is ea silyred uc ible to a single set o f cod es or rules. It is not a t ick-a-bo xsystem . One o f the p rob lem s with qua lity assuranc e measures is tha t (it) has ac tua lly deg ene rated in many cases into, first of

a ll, a tick-a-box or a qua lity a ssessme nt m ec hanism, o r a riskmanagement system.

Risk is an interesting c onc ep t b ec ause it's a conc ep t tha t a llow syou to quantify things. It a llow s you to d o t ic k-a-box stuff, but riskand ethics are very different c onc ep ts. Som etimes in fac t ethica lcond uct might req uire that you und ertake c ertain risks in extrem ecases, so e thics and risk are ac tua lly d istinct c onc ep ts tha t oug htnot to be conflated , but c ertainly within some q uality assuranc eand ma nag eme nt systems they are be c ause the aim of ethica lreview is very often to red uc e risk. When tha t happens you a re indanger.

ethics is funda menta lly ab out judgment. It is abo ut be ing a bleto exercise jud gment in a ll sorts of cases and , as I say, it is notred uc ible to the tick-a-box or the usua l sorts of mec ha nisms tha twe use w hen w e ta lk ab out q uality assuranc e

Jud gme nt is a q ua lita tive issue. The q ua lity assuranceme chanisms typ ica lly try to foc us on things like excellenc e a ndqua lity, but they d o it in a quantitative fashion.

14 Ib id, pp . 2-3.


25/201

24

(quality a ssuranc e m ec hanisms) do not connec t a t a ll withthe things that we rea lly do , so w hat you ha ve is a ho llow ing out. Aterm like 'excellence' comes to function within a quality assurancesystem but the m ea ning tha t it ha s in terms of exc ellenc e inteac hing, which are a ll ma tters of judg ment, do not c onnec t upwith it at a ll. So not o nly do you have a c orrosion of the c ap ac ity

to judg e and a reduc tion of judg ment do wn to a tic k-a-boxarrange ment but you a lso ha ve a hollow ing-out o f terms. I thinkthat has hap pened within a spe c ts of the State Service in whichma ny Sta te servant s and pub lic servant s no long er view , forinsta nc e, eth ic a l not ions like trust, honesty, ap olitica l judg me nt a ndso on, as meaning anything significant because they are simplyviewed as pa rt of a qua lity assuranc e m ec hanism w hic h you tickoff tha t is to do w ith reduc ing risk, mana ging a nd c ontrolling

difficulties rather than meaning anything substantive. 15

4.14 The Co mm ittee he ard tha t over the last 10 to 20 yea rs, thedevelopment of an audit and quality assurance mentality

had negatively impacted upon the operation ofprofessiona l judgme nt. Suc h mo veme nt has ma nifesteditself in the situation where it is no longer the case, forexample, that experts in particular areas are seen as havingsome b etter ac c ess to the truth of the ma tter than a nybod yelse does. Professor Ma lpa s c ited e vents of rec ent histo rywhere he sa id :-

it wa s quite c ommon for ac ad emics on m atte rs like c lima techa nge to b e a ttac ked a nd ridiculed , irrespe ctive of theirc red entials, and it wa s almost as if anyb od y could ha ve a view onthese m atte rs be cause it wa s a ll a ma tter of op inion a nd spin.

There have b een a numb er of fac tors that ha ve led to thisunw illingness for peo ple to say they trust any mo re. Part of it is aloss of c lea r moral orienta tion fo r peo p le, which is not nec essarily aba d thing b ec ause in the end e thic s ought to be ab out our abilityto ma ke our ow n judgm ents. At the same time there has be en thedeve lopm ent o f a sense o f plura lism - relat ivism, ac c ording towhich the re really are no judgments that a re sound anywa y - andthe d evelopme nt of a c ynic ism a nd sc ep tic ism a bo ut there b einganything on w hic h you c an found things.

Those a re b roa d soc ial mo vements and they a re ve ry hard toaddress. Ob viously I am not sugge sting you c an ad dress themhere but I do think that when it c ome s to matt ers of government,and whe re we d o ha ve som e a bility to set up struc tures and tode velop different sorts of c ulture, one of the things we oug ht to bedo ing, one o f the a rea s whe re we should b e lead ing o pinion, istrying to return atte ntion to sets of ve ry b asic ethica l commitments

that in fac t we all have.16

15 J. Ma lpa s, Hansa rd, 11 Sep tember 2008, p . 8.16 Ibid, pp.16-17.


26/201

25

4.15 The C ommitte e was d irec ted to the writings of His Holinessthe Da la i Lama :-

We c an think of honesty a nd d ishonesty in terms of the relat ionshipbe twe en a pp ea ranc e a nd rea lity. Som etimes these synchronise,often they d o not. But whe n they do, tha t is honesty, as I

unde rstand it. So w e a re ho nest whe n our ac tions a re w ha t theyseem to b e. When we pretend to be one thing b ut in rea lity weare som ething else, susp ic ion d eve lops in othe rs, causing fear. Andfea r is som eth ing we a ll wish to a void . Co nversely, when in ourinterac tions with our neighbo urs we a re o pe n a nd sincere ineverything we say a nd think and do , peop le ha ve no need to fear

us. This holds true b oth fo r the individua l and for com munities.17

4.16 The e vide nce c lea rly indica ted to the Com mittee thecomplexity of the issue on a number of levels, summarisedby Professor Malpas as: structural; behavioural; and cultural.The structural leve l rela tes to the proc esses, p roc ed ures and

formal lines of communication within an organisation, in thisc ase, the system of government. The beha vioura l leve lrelates to the character of individuals within the system.Finally, the cultural level, which relates to sets of behavioursthat are promulgated within organisations, that areexemplified by leading figures within the organisation andupon which expectations on the part of individuals withinthe organisation and within the wider community areformed. 18

4.17 Muc h o f the a ttention o f the inquiry wa s nec essarily devo tedto a rev iew of m a tters of struc ture a nd p roc ess: rules; co des;leg isla tion; organisa tiona l relat ionships; and the vog ue tick abox qua lity assurance c om p lianc e reg imes. The Co mm itteewas strongly motivated however, to also consider whatrecommendations, if any, might be made to facilitatec ultura l c hange to re-d ress the very deep sea ted a ttitudes ofd isa ffec tion b y ma ny in the Tasma nian c om munity, forwithout a positive shift in that direction, any structuralc hang es would be fundamenta lly unsupp orted .

4.18 In ac c orda nc e with pa ragrap h (a) of the Terms of Referenc e,the Comm ittee review ed the follow ing:-

Parliament of Tasmania; the Exec utive;

17 Dalai Lam a, His Holiness the : Ethics for the New Millenium, Riverhead Boo ks, New York,1999, p. 167. Presented to the Co mm ittee by Luc ia Ikin-de Brauw and ad de d to thec ollec tion o f the Parliamentary Library, Pa rliame nt House, Hob a rt.18 Ma lpa s, pp . 10-11.


27/201

26

Ministe rial sta ff; Tasmanian Sta te Service; Sta te Service Co mmissione r: Office o f the; Aud itor-General: Offic e of the ; Omb udsma n: Offic e o f the; Tasmania Police; Pub lic Interest Disc losures Ac t 2002; Commissions of Inquiry Act 1995; Free dom of Informa tion Ac t 1991; and Crimina l Co de Ac t 1924.

5 PARLIAMENT5.1 Co nsiderat ion of the institution of the Parliame nt o f Tasma nia

within the c ontext o f this inquiry enta iled the examination bythe Committee of two distinct areas: first, a review of themechanisms in place to subject the operations of the twoHouses of the Tasma nian Parliame nt a nd the c ond uc t o fmembers of each such House to appropriate scrutiny; andsecond, the ability of the Parliament to execute its role ofscrutinising the Executive through Parliamentary processes.Eac h suc h area of inquiry is deta iled hereunder.

Parliam ent - GeneralCandidates for Parliament

5.2 The submission o f the Gove rnment b roa dened the sc op e o fthe inquiry to some extent by including the conduct ofc and ida tes for elec tion to the Parliament o f Tasma nia .

5.3 Whilst candidates are neither elected Parliamentaryrep resenta tives nor a rguab ly servants of the Sta te in anystrict sense, the Committee was of the view that it wasentirely log ic a l for the c ond uc t of c and ida tes in elec tions for

sea ts in the Parliament to be inc luded in the c onsiderationsof the Comm ittee : first, for the rea son tha t ma ny inc umb entMembers of the House of Assembly become candidates inGeneral Elections following the dissolution of the House, andMembers of the Legislative Council similarly becomecandidates in the periodic elections for Divisions of theLegislative Council; and second, as potential Members of


28/201

27

Parliament, these ind ividua ls c ond uc t should approp ria telybe sub jec t to sc rutiny.

5.4 The Elec tora l Ac t 200419 contains a number of prescriptions inrelation to candidates seeking election to the Parliament,including members of Parliament seeking re-election,c onc erning c onduc t rega rding elec tion, ca mp aigning andadvertising. These inc lud e:

Sec tion 187 - elec tora l bribe ry; Sec tion 188 - elec tora l treat ing, that is the supp ly of enterta inment,

food or p rom ise to d ona te mo ney with the intention ofinfluencing a pe rsons cond uct at an election;

Sec tion 189 - elec tora l intimida tion; Sec tion 191 - ca mp aign ma terial must b e authorised ; Sec tion 196 - c and idates names not to used without a uthority; Sec tion 197 - mislea ding a nd dec ep tive e lec toral ma tters; and Sec tion 198 - ca mp a igning on po lling d ay.

There a re a lso rules in rela tion to elec tora l expend iture o f cand ida tes inrespec t of Loc a l Go vernme nt elec tions. These a re deta iled in Part 7Division 6 of the Elec to ral Ac t 2004.

Rules for Sta te Servants

An officer of the Sta te Service w ho is a c and ida te fo r elec tion to eitherHouse o f State Parliam ent must va cate the o ffice on bec om ing ac and idate , i.e. when nominations have c losed , and the pe rson isformally rec og nised as a c and idate .

An em ployee of the State Servic e who is a c and ida te for election toeither House o f Sta te Parliame nt d oe s not have t o resign prior toconte sting a sea t but is entitled to leave w ithout p ay fo r a pe riod of upto tw o m onths for the purpo se o f c ontesting an elec tion - Sec tion2(2)(b) of t he Constitution (Sta te Emp loyees) Ac t 1944.

If elec ted, the Constitution (Sta te Emp loyees) Ac t 1944 provide s tha tservic e a s an employee o f the Sta te Service is automa tica llyterminated.

While on lea ve without pay to contest an e lec tion, ca re should b etaken by the em ployee to ensure c omp lianc e with the Cod e ofCond uc t p rovisions as outlined in Sec tion 9 of the Sta te Servic e Ac t

2000. The Sta te Servic e C od e o f Co nduc t req uires sta te servants:When ac ting in the c ourse o f their Sta te Servic e emp loyment, to

be have in a wa y that upho lds the State Servic e p rinc iples (theSta te Service Princ iples assert that the Sta te Service is apolitic a l,performing its func tions in an impartial, eth ica l and profe ssiona lmanner);

19Electoral Act(No. 51 o f 2004)


29/201

28

To b eha ve in a way tha t does not a dve rsely affec t the integrityand go od rep utation of the Sta te Servic e;

To d isc lose a nd ta ke reasona b le step s to avoid conflic ts of interestsin c onnec tion w ith State Servic e e mp loyme nt; and

To use Tasma nian G ove rnme nt resources in a p rope r manner.Rules a round the use of G ove rnment resources ap ply at elec tion timeand to a ll Sta te Servants whe ther sta nd ing for elec tion o r not . Forexamp le, Sta te Serva nts:

Must no t use agenc y resourc es or the ir positions to supportpa rticular issues or pa rties during the e lect ion camp aign; and

Should not use g ove rnme nt em ail, faxes etc . to distribute p olitica lma terial. This ac tion would be a b rea c h of the Sta te Service

Code of Conduct.20

5.5 The a bovem entioned p rov isions are c om prehe nsive inproviding the safeguards to encourage the appropriate

c ond uc t o f c and ida tes for elec tions within the jurisd ic tion.

Findings

5.6 The Comm ittee finds that on the evidenc e p resented , thepresc riptions of the Elec toral Ac t 2004 regarding the c onduc t

of candidates in relation to: elections; campaigning; and

advertising, provide a level of protection appropriate to

ensure the proper conduct of elec tions in Tasma nia.

5.7 The Comm ittee finds that on the evidenc e p resented, theprescriptions regarding the candidature of State Servants

provide the separation from their officia l position app ropriateto enab le their participa tion in elec tion c am pa igns.

Memb ers of Pa rliame nt

5.8 The Co mm ittee no tes the imp ortanc e of the opp ortunity thatthe periodical conduct of free and open elections providesas the ultimate mechanism available to citizens to holdmembers of Parliament accountable for their actions andbehaviour both individually and in the case of the House ofAssem b ly, corpo ra tely.

5.9

The following sta tuto ry instruments c onta in provisionsgoverning the ethical conduct of Members and werec onsidered by the Comm ittee.

20 Tasmanian Governm ent, Sub mission 125, pp . 29-30.


30/201

29

Constitution Act

5.10 The Co nstitution Ac t 193421 prescribes specific offences thatapp ly to Mem bers of Parliame nt. Som e of which relate toethic al behaviour and inc lude :

Sec tion 32, which p rovides tha t memb ers c anno t hold a n office o fprofit, that is, rec eiving m oney from the p ub lic ac c ounts orbe c ause of a Government ap po intment.

Sec tion 33, which p rovides that any p erson w ho ho lds a contrac tor ag reement with the Go vernment of the State shall beinca pa ble of b eing elec ted or of sitting o r voting a s a mem be r ofeither House d uring the time he or she ho lds tha t contrac t. Furthe r,if any me mb er cont inues to ho ld a c ontrac t unde r which he o r sherec eives bene fit his or her sea t will be va c ant.

Sec tion 34, which p rovides tha t a memb ers sea t sha ll be b ec omevac ant in ce rta in c irc umstances inc luding:

The me mb er fails to a ttend for one ent ire session w ithoutthe permission of such House; and The membe r is atta inted of treason o r c onvicte d o f any

c rime a nd is sentenced or sub jec t to b e sentenced toimp risonment for any t erm exceed ing one yea r unless he

has rec eived a free pa rdo n.22

Findings

5.11 The Comm ittee finds that on the evidenc e p resented , theprescriptions of the Constitution Act 1934 regarding the

conduc t of memb ers of Parliam ent in relation to: the holding

of an office o f profit under the Crown; and attendanc e in therespective Houses of Parliament according to their duty

require no a mendment.

Parliamentary (Disclosure of Interests) Act 1996

5.12 The Parliamentary (Disc losure o f Interests) Ac t 199623establishes a register of interests for the members of eachHouse which contains information on any pecuniary andother interests of members. The reg ister of ea c h House isavailable for public scrutiny and contains full details of theinterests d isc losed by members. The registe rs a re also

req uired to b e ta b led in Pa rliame nt to e nsure tha t the p ub liccan readily see any interests of members which might beperceived to impact on decisions being made in theParliament.

21 Co nstitution Ac t (No. 94 of 1934)22 Government, p . 32.23 Parliam enta ry (Disc losure o f Inte rests) Ac t (No . 22 of 1996)


31/201

30

5.13 The o b jec t of the Ac t is to ensure the ac c ounta b ility ofMembers and enhance public confidence in Parliament.The Ac t req uires d isc losure o f deta ils of:

ea c h sourc e o f income g rea ter than $500 rec eived bya me mb er, inc lud ing inc om e from trusts;

a ll rea l esta te interests of a me mb er exc ep t where theinterest is as exec utor or administra tor of a dec ea sedesta te o f which the m em ber is not a bene fic ia ry or asa trustee related to the memb er's non-pa rliame ntaryoccupation;

any interests or any p osition, whether rem unera ted ornot, that a memb er ma y hold in a c orpo ration, excep twhere the c orpo ra tion is set up as a non-profitorganisa tion for c ommunity purposes. This inc ludes

shareholdings; any po sition, whether remunerated or not, held b y a

me mb er in a trade union, professiona l or businessassociation;

all de bts owed by the mem ber excee d ing $500,excep t where the money is owed to a rela tive, anormal lend er of mo ney suc h a s a bank or build ingsoc iety or a rises from the sup p ly of good s or servicesas pa rt of a memb er's oc c upa tion o utside o fparliament.

gifts of va lue g rea ter than $500, excep t where rec eivedfrom a relative;

d isposition of p rop erty by a me mb er where there is anarrange ment for the member to reta in the use orbene fit of the p rop erty or a right to ac quire theprope rty at a later da te;

c ontributions to travel undertaken by a memb er ofva lue g rea ter tha n $250. Travel contributions wo uldnot need to b e d isc losed where provide d by theGove rnment, a relative or where m ade in the no rma lc ourse of a m ember's oc c upation outside parliament.

Contributions ma de b y a memb er's politic a l pa rty fortravel on party business are a lso e xem pted .

5.14 The d isc losure of the priva te financ ia l and other inte rests ofParliamentarians is an imposition that is warranted, onbalance, in the public interest as it provides a level oftransparency which enables one to determine thatMembers are serving the public, not private, interest when


32/201

31

they ta ke office. Spec ific a lly, tha t they a re not using the irpub lic offic e for p riva te ga in.

5.15 Failure to provide the relevant information is regarded as ac ontempt and sanc tions are p resc ribe d in the Ac t.

5.16 The Committee rec eived evidenc e which deta iled c onc ernsrelating to the Registers of Members Interests24, suchconcerns arose from three particular issues: a broadening ofthe application of the Act to include the immediate familyof Members; a broadening of the application of the Act toinclude the issue of extra-parliamentary work; and theava ilab ility of the Returns for pub lic sc rutiny.

5.17 The Comm ittee c arefully c onsidered widening theapplication of the Act to include the family of a Member.Gerard Carney summarises the arguments against the

dec la ra tion of family inte rests as being tw ofo ld : the inva sionof privacy and the difficulty for a member in knowing of thereleva nt interests 25.

5.18 The c ounter argument of course is tha t family interests a re justas capable of raising an actual or apparent conflict ofinterest as the members own interests and second, thattheir exclusion would lea ve o pe n an ave nue of a voida nce ,the mere existence of which could undermine publicc onfidenc e in the reg isters.26

5.19 The Co mm ittee a lso c onsidered the e nforc ement o fbrea c hes of the Act. At present the leg isla tion de finesbreaches as a contempt of Parliament and punishable bythe releva nt House of the Memb er so offend ing. TheCommittee considered whether such a regime mightprovide an opportunity for partisan protection of Members,particularly in the Assembly.

5.20 The Com mittee fina lly considered the lac k of a c om pla intmec hanism for a lleg ed breac hes of the Ac t. TheCommittee noted the procedures in place in Queenslandwhich provide a complaints process for the treatment of

a lleg ed infringe me nts. Comp la ints ma de by Memb ersabout other Members are referred to the Members Ethicsand Parliamentary Privileges Committee, whilst complaints

24 Parliam enta ry (Disc losure o f Interests) Ac t (No . 22 of 1996), Pa rt 4.25 G. Carney, Mem be rs of Parliam ent: law a nd ethics, Prospec t Med ia Pty Ltd , 2000, p.362.26 Ibid.


33/201

32

from the public are referred to the Committee after adetermination has been made that there are reasonablegrounds that there is evidence to support the complaint.Such dete rmination being made b y the reg istra r.

5.21 The Committee finds that the ap plic ation of the Parliam entary(Disclosure of Interests) Actbe extended to include peoplerelated to a Mem ber of Parliam ent.

5.22 The Comm ittee finds that on the evidenc e presented, thereshould be an avenue for any person to pursue a concern in

relation to a n alleged conflict o f interest.

Rec ommendation 1 The Com mittee rec ommends that the

Parliamenta ry (Disc losure of Interests) Ac t 1996 be streng thened by

am endments to provide for the following:-

(1) The definition of related person to be adde d. Such

de finition to mea n

(a) the spouse of a Member;

(b) a child of a Member who is wholly or

substantially dependent on the Member; or

(c ) any o ther pe rson

(i) who is wholly or substantially dependent on

the Memb er; and

(ii) whose affairs are so closely connected with

the affairs of the member that a benefit derivedby the person, or a substantial part of it, could

pa ss to the Mem ber.

(2) Consequential amendments to require the declaration

of a related persons interests in the Reg isters of Interests.

Rec omme nda tion 2 The Comm ittee rec omme nds that the Loc al

Government Ac t 1993 be a mended to provide for a Reg ister of

Interests for eac h Loc al Government Counc il.

Rec omme nda tion 3 The Comm ittee recomm ends that, with the

exception of the detail of each Members residential address, theRegister of Interest of Members of the Legislative Council and the

Register of Interests of Members of the House of Assembly be

published on the internet site of the Parliament o f Tasmania.

Rec omme nda tion 4 The Comm ittee rec omme nds that, in orde r to

provide a further level of public accountability, the Parliamentary

(Disclosure of Interests) Act be amended to provide that


34/201

33

complaints regarding alleged breaches of the Act may be made

to the Tasmanian Integ rity Com mission (vide Rec omme nda tion

29).

Code of Conduct

5.23 Other non-legislative prescriptions for the conduct ofMembers such as the Code of Ethical Conduct 27 and theCode o f Rac e Ethic s28 of the House of Assembly were citedin evidenc e. Such codes were ad op ted a s Standing Ordersin 1996 following a n inquiry of the House of Assem b ly Selec tComm ittee on the Reform o f Parliame nt.

5.24 The Cod e o f Ethic al Cond uc t c onta ins a preamb le,statement of commitment and a list of nine generaldeclarations about a range of issues relating toenhancement of ethical conduct, preventing conflicts of

interest, gifts and using public property for personal gain.Post Parliamentary employment is also dealt with in theCode.

5.25 The C od e o f Rac e Ethics c om prises a number ofcommitments including: respect of cultural beliefs; valuingdiversity; help without discrimination; and Aboriginalreconciliation.

5.26 Members of the House of Assembly are required to declarethat they have rea d and subsc ribe to the Cod es when theyare sworn in following their elec tion to the House. There is no

presc ribe d mec hanism to d ea l with a lleg ed breac hes of theCodes. An alleged breach would be dealt with by theHouse b y wa y of substantive motion be ing m ade.

5.27 Since the inc lusion of these Sta nd ing Orde rs, no b rea c h o feither of these Codes has been formally alleged in theAssembly.

5.28 The Leg isla tive Counc il doe s not ha ve eq uivalent p rov isionswithin its Sta nd ing O rders.

5.29 A reference of substance in relation to the Codes wascontained in the submission of Emeritus Professor PeterBoyce:-

The Select C om mittee will be we ll plac ed to d ec ide the e xtent towhic h a new w atc hdog ag enc y should b e entrusted w ith anyfunc tion to m onitor and advise Parliame nt itself with reg ard to its

27 House of Assem bly Sta nd ing Rules and Orders, S.O. 3.28 Ibid , S.O. 4.


35/201

34

own e thic al stand ards, but the c urrent c od e of c ond uct formemb ers embe dd ed in Standing Orders is quite inade qua te.Within the ag enc ys ed uc ation rem it, how ever, there would be ac lea r expec tat ion tha t the e lec torate be assisted in understand ingthe e thic al basis of c onventions which ha ve long informedWestm inste r-derived pa rliaments, inc luding ministeria l responsibility

(notwithstanding t hat the o ld text-bo ok d efinition of tha t slippe ryconcep t requ ires revision), but the pena lties for serious b rea c h of

these stand ards are o f course fo r the e lec torate to imp ose.29

5.30 The sub mission o f the Co mmissioner of Polic e a lso madereferenc e to the Codes:-

Despite the existenc e of the c od e of c ond uc t and reg ister ofinterests, and similar mecha nisms in o the r Australian jurisd ict ions, DrAJ Brown is c ritic a l of the lac k of effec tive ethic a l stand ard-sett ingand enforce ment reg imes governing elec ted pa rliam entariansand ministers (Brow n 2005: 72). He rec om me nds a number ofme asures to a ddress this defic ienc y, inc luding a sta tuto ry

req uirement for a c od e of c ond uct fo r ea ch House of Parliam ent,for p residing o ffic ers of ea c h House, a nd for Ministers (inc ludingministerial staff), and the ap po intment o f a pa rliam enta ry integrity

advisor and a parliamentary standards commissioner. 30

Findings

5.31 The Comm ittee finds that on the evidenc e p resented, theCode o f Ethical Conduc t and Code o f Rac e Ethics of the

Assembly are valuable public declarations of the standards

of conduc t expec ted of Mem bers of that House.

5.32 The Committee finds that Members of Parliam ent wouldbenefit from participation in an appropriate programfoc ussed on the theory a nd p rac tical app lication of ethics as

they apply to politics specifically and the wider social

context.

5.33 The Comm ittee finds that there is a lac k o f any m ec hanism toallow a member of the public to pursue an alleged breach

of either of the Codes and accordingly finds that a need

exists to provide a complaints process for the treatment of

alleged infringem ents.

Rec ommendation 5 The Com mittee rec ommends that theLeg islative Counc il ad op ts a Code of Ethical Cond uc t and a Cod e

of Rac e Ethics.

Rec ommenda tion 6 The Com mittee recomme nds that one of the

princ ipa l roles of the Tasmania n Integrity Com mission (vide

29 P. Boyce, submission 44, p. 3.30 Co mmissione r of Polic e, Sub mission 109, p . 16.


36/201

35

Recommendation 29) will be to encourage ethical behaviour by

developing, in consultation with external bodies such as the

Centre for Applied Philosop hy a nd Ethics and the Tasmanian

Institute for Law Enforcem ent at the University o f Tasmania:-

guidelines and c ode s of conduc t; tra ining c ourses; resources for Government; and c ivic educ ation to sc hools, interest groups and the

public.

Rec ommenda tion 7 The Co mm ittee rec omme nds that, in orde r to

provide a further level of public accountability, complaints

regarding a lleged b reac hes of the Code of Ethic al Conduc t and

Cod e o f Rac e Ethic s of the Assembly a nd a ny similar co de / s of the

Counc il ma y be mad e to the Tasma nian Integrity Comm ission(vide Recommendation 29).

Privileges Committees

5.34 Pursua nt to the ir respec tive Sta nd ing Orders, a t thecommencement of every Parliament, both Houses eachap po int a Privileges Com mittee to rep ort up on c omplaintsof breach of privilege which may be referred to it by theHouse 31. The prac tic e for suc h co mp la ints being ma de isfor a member to rise in their place in the Chamber/s andspea k to the ma tte r of p rivileg e suddenly arising . There is

no prescription for matters, other than those suddenlyarising , to be refe rred to the Privileg es Co mm ittees.

5.35 It is, of course possible for the Houses to refer matters to theirrespective Committees by way of substantive motion.However the Committee was of the view that a needexisted to prescribe a mode of referral of matters to suchPrivileges Committees other than immediately in thereleva nt House.

5.36 Reference to the issue of members conduct as part of theproceedings of Parliament is perhaps relevant at this point,particularly in respect of the use of parliamentary privilege,Professor Richard Herr made the following point in hissubmission:-

31 Sta nd ing O rde rs and Rules of the Leg islat ive Counc il, S.O. 170; Sta nd ing O rders andRules of the House of Assembly, S.O. 385.


37/201

36

I would like to a dd ress the m atte r of pe rsona l cond uc t in thecha mb ers. Perhap s the mo st contentious aspec t of this in theeyes of the pub lic is the use o f p arliam enta ry p rivileg e to imp ugnthe c harac ter of other MPs or MLCs. I rea lise tha t ma ny mightbe lieve the rough a nd tumb le o f adversarial p olitic s d ispa rag ingep ithets, de rision and the like is the rea l prob lem but I do not see

this as an e thic al co nc ern. Alleg ations of dub ious prac tices ormo tivations are va stly mo re serious since these confirm in thepub lic mind that m emb ers co uld be getting aw ay with tric kery,d ishonesty, or worse c orrup tion. Unfounded and irresponsib lec laims a re ta ken up b y the media a nd so g iven wide r pub licexposure, which d isc red its the p arliam ent a nd the G overnme nt byinnuend o. The a nswe r is not in curtailing privileg e to cont rol cow ard s c astle . The p arliamentary privileg e to spe ak free lywithin the p arliame nt is c ritica l to system ic t ranspa renc y. How eve r,me mb ers must not misuse the pub lic trust by ma king c laimsmisc hievously and solely for pa rtisan advanta ge . Where there is age nuine issue o f corruption, it must be trea ted in suc h a wa y as to

respec t na tural justice ...

32

5.37 The C om mittee c onc urs with the sent ime nt expressed by Dr

Herr. The rules of deb ate c onta ined in the Sta nd ing Ordersof each House proscribe: the use offensive or unbecomingwords in reference to any other Member; the attributiondirec tly or by innuendo to ano ther Membe r of unbec omingconduct or motives; and all offensive references to aMember's private affairs and all personal reflections, aredeemed to b e highly disorderly33.

5.38 When a Memb er wishes to pursue a serious ma tter perta iningto the conduct of another Member, it must be initiated bywa y of substantive motion. It is incumb ent upo n theMembers of each House to responsibly abide by theStand ing Orders and not abuse the privileg e of freespeech.

5.39 The Com mittee notes tha t both Houses have p resc ribedwithin their respec tive Sta nd ing Orde rs a me c hanism toenable any person who has been referred to in debate topursue a claim that they have been adversely affected inreputation or in respect of dealings or associations with

others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financialc red it, or tha t their p rivac y has been unrea sona b ly invadedby reason of that reference; and to request that they be

32 R. Herr, Sub mission 45, p . 4.33 House of Assembly S.O. 181 (1).


38/201

37

permitted to incorporate an appropriate response inHansard.34

5.40 There a re tw o p rinciple c ritic isms of the self-reg ulatoryapproach to the enforcement of ethical standards ofMemb ers. Gerard Ca rney outlines them a s follow s :-

The first is the lac k of safegua rds aga inst p olitic a l pa rtisanshipwhe n a House o r comm ittee judges violations of sta ndards. Thesec ond is the p unitive po wers of eac h House to punish me mb ersand others by fine o r imprisonm ent .

The former conc ern co uld b e remedied b y the ad op tion of anindepend ent externa l bo dy suc h as ICAC in NSW. The latte rconc ern has be en p artly ad dressed in relation to theCom mo nwealth, Quee nsland and Western Austra lian p a rliam ents,where the po wer to c omm it for contem pt is now subject torestrictions. 35

5.41The C ommittee sought a nd rec eived a c ompa ra tive a nalysisof the roles and func tions of Privileg es Co mm ittees op erat ingin othe r Australian jurisd ict ions. The Co mmittee p a rticularlynoted the prov isions of the Sta nd ing Orde rs of the Leg isla tiveAssem bly of the Parliament of N.S.W.

Findings

5.42 The Comm ittee finds that there is a need for an add itiona lavenue for Mem bers to raise ma tters of p rivilege.

5.43 The Committee finds that in respec t of the Assem bly, thecurrent methodology for referrals to the Privileges

Comm ittee and the m embership of the Com mittee exposes

such Committee to claims of partisanship in the conduct of

its affa irs.

Rec ommendation 8 The Com mittee rec ommends