I move amendment No. 21:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 29, to delete "(other than a member who is an office holder)".
This section seeks to preserve the term, "other than a member who is an office holder". Why should an office holder be exempt from its provisions? Section 8 states:
A person (other than a member) who considers that a member (other than a member who is an office holder) may have contravened section 5 or 7 may make a complaint in writing in relation to the matter to the Clerk....
The Bill is arranged in Parts under the headings of "Members" and "Office Holders". I do not understand why a distinction is made because a Minister is also a Member of the House. Why should such a distinction be drawn? Why should the Minister, in his or her capacity as a Member, not be subject to the same rubric as a Member of the House?
A Minister also discharges functions as an ordinary Member of the House. In his or her capacity as a TD — as distinct from his or her capacity as a Minister or office holder — he or she might seek to make representations to progress a certain matter. Unless an obvious reason is offered by the Minister, it is undesirable that we should exempt Members of the House who also happen to be office holders. Many backbench Members — unfortunately, a number of them have left at this late stage — would agree that it is one of the ironies of this Bill that there is a significant intrusion or imposition on Members of the House who have little influence to dispense while office holders, who have a significant influence at their disposal, appear to be exempt from this section. The distinction between Members and office holders that the Minister has made elsewhere in the Bill should not apply here.