Canberra Liberals and Ginninderra MLA Peter Cain formally apologised for breaching the member’s code of conduct. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
Canberra Liberals and Ginninderra MLA Peter Cain has been required to apologise after it was found the employment of an intern and an email to his constituents breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Standards Commissioner Ken Crispin KC received two complaints about Mr Cain in late 2023 – one over his son-in-law working as an intern in his office and the other over an email that appeared to be a misuse of public resources. His input was relied upon during a committee inquiry into the complaints.
Mr Cain had one of his sons-in-law as an unpaid vocational placement from September to November 2021.
The law around who MLAs can employ as staff states a member of the Assembly “must not employ a person who is a family member of [them]”.
While the law specifies this applies to partners, partners, siblings, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and aunts, it doesn’t refer to in-laws.
Mr Cain argued that since a son-in-law didn’t fall into these descriptions, he didn’t breach the code.
But Mr Crispin pointed out the code also stated MLAs should “not seek to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or friends”.
“I have no reason to doubt Mr Cain’s assurance that he sought to treat [his son-in-law] the same as other interns. However, the vocational placement itself was clearly to be of benefit to him,” he noted.
“It was intended to fulfil a requirement of his course of study … and presumably to give him valuable experience.”
The other issue related to a widespread email sent in November 2023 about the Canberra Liberals’ Putting Your Suburb First policy.
There were concerns that the “bulk” of the email was critical of the current Labor-Greens government and used as a promotion of the new Liberals policy.
The last paragraph invited people to submit community projects for Ginninderra. However, it was in the context of a political policy and directed people to the Canberra Liberals’ website.
Mr Crispin recognised that members had the right to use resources provided to them for the preparation and dissemination of communications with the public, but they were not allowed to use those resources to make political statements.
Mr Cain submitted the email’s purpose had been to “engage with the community and elicit feedback on potential projects within [his] electorate”.
He also took no responsibility for the communication, submitting, “This email was sent by a staffer in my office without my personal review”.
But as the email had been issued under Mr Cain’s Legislative Assembly address, promoted a Canberra Liberals policy and directed people to a party website, Mr Crispin was of the opinion that the communication was “political in nature” and that it did “involve the misuse of public funds” – but not necessarily by Mr Cain.
“Whilst members may bear vicarious legal responsibility for actions of their staff, there is nothing in the Code to suggest that Members may be taken to have breached relevant principles by reason of the conduct of others,” he commented.
“I have no reason to doubt Mr Cain’s explanation that the email was not sent by him and that he had not reviewed it before its dissemination.
“Consequently, I am unable to find that he has personally taken any action involving a misuse of public funds.”
But the committee inquiry took a different view, feeling that the fact he hadn’t seen or sent the email didn’t “abrogate” him from his responsibility as an MLA to ensure the resources provided to his office aren’t misused.
“The Committee, despite the Commissioner’s recommendation that the complaint [in regards to the email] be dismissed, formed the view that Mr Cain … had failed to ensure that his personal staff were mindful of his commitment to the code,” it stated.
“To suggest Mr Cain was unaware of the email is disingenuous. It is hard to imagine that the staff initiated, crafted and disseminated the email without Mr Cain’s input or would have done so of their own accord.”
Mr Cain formally apologised, stating: “I note there are two recommendations out of four [from the committee report] that recommended I apologise to the Assembly, and I do so accordingly.”
The Committee also recommended the Office of the Legislative Assembly update its internal forms and documents to specify that in-laws are, in fact, family, and to clarify in the code of conduct that “as far as practicable”, an MLA’s personal staff are to be made aware of the member’s commitment to the code.
Original Article published by Claire Fenwicke on Riotact.
