The ACT Legislative Assembly's expert ethics and integrity adviser has cautioned against blanket bans on territory politicians taking their spouses on travel that is not privately funded.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In August, Speaker Vicki Dunne sought advice from former Attorney-General's Department secretary and lawyer Stephen Skehill about the acceptance of third-party gifts and benefits received by Assembly members. The advice came during planning for an Assembly delegation to travel to Taiwan, with all costs for the cross-party trip being paid for by the Taipei government.
Controversy about Assembly members' travel came after Mrs Dunne used her declaration of interest to record taking her husband, Lyle Dunne, on a $2200 trip to Malaysia for a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The April travel to Sabah came more than a year after a ban on taxpayer-funded spousal travel for ACT Legislative Assembly members by the Remuneration Tribunal. Mrs Dunne received contradictory advice about her plans and ACT taxpayers paid just $361, as the majority of the trip was paid for by the association.
On August 6, Mr Skehill cleared the Taiwan trip to go ahead as it would not be in breach of official travel rules or present any "necessary concern of an ethical or integrity issue".
In his latest advice, provided to Mrs Dunne late last month, Mr Skehill said he did not see any inadequacy in the present rules over members' gifts or benefits.
He said suggestions of a new rule banning all benefits from corporations or governments could present a series of challenges on politicians being paid, receiving simple hospitality at meetings and functions and even opening major avenues for other kinds of abuse.
Any ban on travel that is not "privately funded" would need careful consideration, including if travel paid for by another government or quasi-public body would be excluded, or if a trip paid for by a private person or non-government corporation should be banned.
"It seems to me that there is no reason, inherently or in principle, why accompanied travel should be singled out for special treatment over and above the provision of any other benefit that might be extended to a Member's spouse or family members," the advice said.
"It would be far preferable that any change to the existing rules as they affect the provision of benefits for persons other than the Member directly should be of general application."
Mr Skehill said a move that was not of general application could result in a change to the type of benefit on offer "without dealing with the underlying issues of ethics and integrity".
His advice was designed to provide broad guidance and assistance, but was general in nature. He said Assembly members should continue to seek his advice on a case-specific basis.
"Clearly, any Member contemplating the acceptance of a benefit (and any person contemplating offering the same) needs to exercise caution to ensure that they do not, wittingly or unwittingly, commit a breach of the criminal law," Mr Skehill said.
In the 2014-15 financial year, eight Members sought specific advice from Mr Skehill on 12 occasions. One request for advice in the period related to use of office and travel entitlements.
