Wednesday, 2 August 2023

Privileges committees

Appointment of a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser for the 60th Parliament

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:32): I am very pleased to speak to the report of the joint Privileges Committee on the Appointment of a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser for the 60th Parliament. Cutting to the chase, the essential recommendation from the committee, jointly is:

In accordance with (5)(a) of the 2019 resolution, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly appoint Professor Charles Sampford –

and he has already been spoken to, quite rightly, today for good reason –

as parliamentary integrity adviser under the terms and conditions of appointment in Appendix A of this report –

and I will speak to that a little later –

which have been agreed in consultation with the Speaker and the President, for the period that terminates on the day that is four months after the next general election.

So obviously this is a very important appointment, and hence it is worthy of speaking to this matter in the chamber today – a very worthy report indeed.

Now, thinking about process, obviously when we are talking of matters of integrity, process is critical. I should say that the committees met jointly on 5 April 2023, and they actually – which happens from time to time – established a subcommittee to undertake the appointment process and make a recommendation to the committees. The chairs and deputy chairs of the Council and Assembly committees were appointed to the subcommittee. I want to commend the work of the chairs – or of the members of the subcommittee, I should say, to be more specific. We had a member for Eastern Victoria, a member for Southern Metropolitan Region, and in that case it was Georgie Crozier MLC, we had the member for Mill Park and also the member for Rowville as part of the subcommittee. In accordance with due process they advertised the position through the Careers.Vic website and sought candidates for the position through a range of networks.

The reason I am going into detail on this matter is of course it is an integrity adviser, hence we want to know that the process was thorough, and it certainly purports to have been so when we look at this report in detail. The subcommittee interviewed candidates and obtained reports from referees for the preferred candidate Professor Charles Sampford, as I have already stated today. Professor Sampford’s background was summarised a little bit earlier. I may go into further detail on that if we have time, but I do know that the member for Point Cook did duly provide that detail, which I think is very helpful for the chamber as well.

When we are looking at what the parliamentary integrity adviser must do, I did refer earlier to appendix A. This is regarding the terms and conditions of the appointment:

• The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser (PIA) must:

– exercise due care and skill and provide the Services to a high professional standard and to the best of their ability, knowledge and expertise;

– comply with any reasonable direction given by Parliament –

and I say ‘reasonable’ –

in relation to the provision of the Services;

– comply with all the applicable standards and codes, laws and regulations in force from time to time;

– when using premises or facilities owned or controlled by Parliament, comply with any occupational health and safety requirements –

I would certainly hope so –

and security guidelines notified to them from time to time;

– provide to Parliament on request periodic progress reports relating to the Services; and

– comply with any policies and procedures notified to them by Parliament from time to time.

I again am referring to the detail on that matter because of course we want to make sure that this role is conducted appropriately.

I should say, while we are discussing the report, a thankyou to Richard Willis, Assistant Clerk, Committees, Legislative Council; Vaughn Koops, Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; and Vivienne Bannan, Bills and Research Officer, Legislative Council. I know that they will have conducted this report with rigour to ensure that it has been delivered to the Parliament in a satisfactory way that certainly meets the requirements and the understanding of all members. Can I collectively say – yes, I think I can – that we see all the due diligence that has been undertaken in terms of selecting an appropriate person for this role and that everyone is in broad agreement that this will be certainly positive for all members because, as was referred to earlier by the member for Point Cook, this is about helping all members to meet those ethical and integrity requirements.