HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MEMBERS, STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

Debate resumed.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:22): I just want to say a few words about the code of conduct. This is something that has been a fairly long time coming. I think it is an appropriate time, really, for members to reflect on what we expect of one another and what the public should reasonably expect of us.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr RAU: I never do. I think it is very interesting that we are talking about this. It just seems to me that some of the points that have been made by the member for Mitchell are good points in the sense that the community does have a very unrepresentative view of what goes on in this place most of the time. I think that is a pity, because there is actually a lot of good work that goes on here, in both the chamber and in committees—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr RAU: —and in the corridors—which is very useful and ultimately produces results that are often very beneficial to the community. Not only should we be in the business of trying to do the right thing but, as much as possible, we should be observed by those who care to look into it to be doing the right thing. That said, there is a point to which you can twist yourself into a position where you go so far overboard in appearing to be doing the right thing that the substance is not there, and that needs to be borne in mind as well.

The only matter that I think might be worthy of reflection is that, whatever might be thought by some commentators in the media and by some people who sit at home in front of their television set or by the radio, members of parliament, at the end of the day, are just human beings. Indeed, from observation, we have a representation here of all the good and bad things that one might expect to find in the community, roughly in the same proportions.

I think it is important for us not to set for ourselves unrealistic or unachievable trip-wires which, inevitably, will lead not to members of the public having a higher view or a more realistic view but to members of the public being disappointed that members of parliament, collectively or individually, have not achieved a certain standard. I will be listening, as always, with great interest to the rest of this debate because—

Mr Pengilly: What are you going to do? Support it or vote against it?

Mr RAU: It will depend on what you have to say. Whatever the member for Finniss has to say may be the final element in my decision-making process. It does strike me that anything which imparts a more realistic view to members of the public about what is achievable by the parliament and what should or should not be expected of members of parliament is a good thing. By the same token, there should be some comprehension in whatever scheme is put together that there are reasonable expectations that should be imposed upon human beings, not unreasonable expectations.

Along with the member for Fisher, I served on a committee that looked at this issue some several years ago now. We actually ranged over a number of different sources to look at what might or might not be a reasonable consideration of these matters. We looked at other jurisdictions in Australia and, I think, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Great Britain. We even went as far as to look at other sophisticated systems such as those in France and Italy.

It might surprise members to know that, certainly in Italy and I believe in France, those who hold executive office—in particular, the president of those countries—are immune from suit in their courts, including for criminal matters. I found that a bit surprising. In fact, I have read in the newspapers, and I do not know whether this is true or false, that one of the great advantages accruing to the current President of Italy is that, whilst he holds the office he presently holds, investigations into certain aspects of his corporate behaviour are unable to proceed, and the longer he is there the more the statute of limitations eats into the time during which those investigations might occur. It would seem that this gentleman has a particular advantage in being in that office, at least until the statute of limitations expires.

I also understand that at least one of the former presidents of France was a person against whom certain allegations were made of improper behaviour. Again, by virtue of his holding that office, those were matters which were not capable of either being investigated or pursued through the ordinary courts.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr RAU: No. The honourable member asks whether I think we should introduce such a system here. I am not advocating that, and I would like that on the record. I am not suggesting that anything like that should occur. The point I want to make really dovetails into what I was saying before; that is, in countries we would regard as having sophisticated legal, parliamentary or legislative systems, there are some things which to us would seem a little peculiar. That does not mean that country is not a proper member of the civilised world or a country which is run by a despotic government or anything of the sort.

The point I am trying to make is that being too prescriptive about what is or is not correct may not be the best way to proceed. A statement of general principle seems to me to have a better appeal than something which sets up a series of very detailed and perhaps inadvertently unachievable trip-wires.

That is just a general reflection on the matter and I am sure that after I have heard the contributions from the members for Finniss, Stuart and Schubert and others on this topic—and the member for Kavel, of course—I will have a far clearer picture on this. I will listen with great interest to what—

The Hon. S.W. Key: What about the other side? Do you want to hear from them as well?

Mr RAU: Of course, I do.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr RAU: Absolutely. The member for Ashford asks whether I am interested in hearing from people on this side. Of course, I am, but I have had the benefit of hearing some of their views already, and I was very impressed with them as well. It is really the ladies and gentlemen on the other side, whose views I have not yet had the benefit of hearing, who are weighing in the balance. Obviously, I will be very interested indeed in hearing what they have to say as this debate meanders through the Thursdays to come.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT