Bills
Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025
Standing orders suspension
On motion without notice by Mr David Michael (Leader of the House), resolved with an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable:
1. the immediate introduction without notice of the Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025; and
2. the passage of the bill through all stages without delay between the stages.
Introduction and first reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Daniel Pastorelli (Parliamentary Secretary), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the parliamentary secretary.
Second reading speech
Mr Daniel Pastorelli (Landsdale—Parliamentary Secretary) (1:12 pm): I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025 ensures that determinations by and reports of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal are valid and effective. Section 5(7) of the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975 prohibits a person being appointed as a member if they are a person whose remuneration is determined or reported upon by the tribunal under the act. Notwithstanding that the current entitlements of former members of Parliament and former ministers of the Crown is zero, the tribunal still determines the remuneration of former members of Parliament and former ministers of the Crown under the act.
On 7 September 2021, Hon John Day AM was appointed as a member of the tribunal. Mr Day is a former member of the Legislative Assembly and a former minister of the Crown. It recently became apparent that, as he was ineligible to be a member of the tribunal pursuant to section 5(7) of the act, Mr Day's appointment was invalid. The potential for determinations of the tribunal dating back to Mr Day's appointment to be invalid has implications for the payment of remuneration out of the consolidated account.
This bill validates Mr Day's appointment by providing that section 5(7) of the act is taken to have had no effect during the "validation period", being the period beginning 7 September 2021 and ending on the day before the day on which the bill comes into operation. The effect of this is that Mr Day's appointment is taken to be—and to always have been—as lawful, valid and effective as it would have been if section 5(7) had no effect during the validation period. Further, anything done or purportedly done on or after 7 September 2021, including determinations made by the tribunal, are taken to be as lawful and valid as they would have been had Mr Day been validly appointed as a member of the tribunal.
The bill will also make minor amendments to modernise the act. First, to provide for gender-neutral language, such as replacing the references to "Chairman" with "Chairperson". Second, to enable members of the tribunal to attend meetings remotely, consistent with contemporary governance practices. Third, to enable the tribunal to pass written resolutions outside of meetings and to clarify how many members are required to pass resolutions outside of meetings.
The bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 to replace a reference to the SAT "Chairman" with "Chairperson".
I commend the bill to the house.
Second reading
Mr Basil Zempilas (Churchlands—Leader of the Opposition) (1:16 pm): I rise on behalf of the opposition as the lead speaker to indicate our support for the Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. It is important that at the outset I explain that this bill seeks to amend the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975 to address what is, quite frankly, an embarrassing and entirely avoidable error from this state government that led to an invalid appointment of someone to the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal that went unnoticed for not one, not two, not three, but almost four years. I want to be clear that it was almost four years. As we have heard, it is now clear that the appointment of Hon John Day AM to the tribunal on 7 September 2021 was made in direct contravention of section 5(7) of the act, which prohibits the appointment of any person whose remuneration is determined or reported upon by the tribunal. Hon John Day AM was asked by the government to be part of this very important tribunal and then it became clear that in a direct contravention of section 5(7) of the act his appointment was actually invalid because the act prohibits the appointment of any person whose remuneration is determined or reported upon by the tribunal.
I want to be clear here that Mr Day, as a former member of Parliament and a minister of the Crown, deserved better. He stepped forward to continue his service to the people of Western Australia. He was an exemplary parliamentarian with a long and distinguished career as a minister of the Crown. When he was asked to continue his service to the people of Western Australia, without hesitation—in the belief that all would be okay with his appointment—he stepped forward. Yet, despite the former member of Parliament and minister of the Crown falling within that category, his appointment was made and he served on the tribunal for nearly four years.
Obviously, I would like to put on the record today that my comments in no way reflect on John Day's capabilities to carry out his commitments as a member of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. I know that members on both sides of the house will speak to the character, long service and outstanding contribution of Hon John Day AM. As a former member and minister of this place, John is eminently qualified to fulfil a role on the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. Clearly, the government in 2021 recognised his skill and experience as being suitable for SAT. In doing so, and by not being aware of the government's own regulations that cover this, the government has put Mr Day in a very difficult position.
I want to take a moment to mention that I took the opportunity today to call Hon John Day and check in on him to see that he was not feeling an undue level of discomfort by what is being presented here today and to assure him that this is not in any way, shape or form a reflection on his character or on what was in his control and what was not in his control. I am pleased to report that Hon John Day acknowledges that it is awkward, unusual and irregular for somebody to be asked to perform a role on SAT and for those doing the asking to not be aware of the rules and regulations that cover such appointments. They asked him to do that and put him in this position. The problem, of course—this is the crux of the issue, as we have said—is that he was not eligible to be appointed. I am very pleased that he has seen this for what it is: a gross error on behalf of those who should have known the rules and regulations much better. The law is explicit about this appointment, and the law was breached. I will say that again: the law was explicit and yet the law was breached.
Today we are gathered here and the government has brought forward this bill to retrospectively validate that appointment and all tribunal decisions made during the so-called validation period from 7 September 2021 to the day this bill comes into effect. Although the opposition accepts the need for this bill to avoid significant legal risk and to ensure the validity of remuneration determinations made during that period, we do so with a strong degree of discomfort. We do so because of the irregularities that have occurred because somehow those who should have known better did not, and we do so because of the discomfort and inconvenience this has caused Hon John Day AM. It is one thing to make an error, but it is another thing entirely for that error to remain undetected for four years. I think this is the point. It was not one, two or three years, but almost four years in the context of one of the most important statutory tribunals in this state that determines the pay and entitlements of judges, members of Parliament and senior public officials.
The public absolutely has a right to expect rigour in the appointment of individuals to positions. They do not have a right to expect rubber stamps. They expect that when these appointments are made, the required level of due diligence has been done. It is very clear, and it is the reason that I am on my feet now, that the required level of due diligence over this very significant appointment was not done by those who should have been aware of their responsibilities and should have been across the detail. Obviously, this error raises a number of issues, with the most pertinent being how on earth did this happen. This is the State Administrative Tribunal. This is not a school judging group or a community panel; it is the State Administrative Tribunal. The public and members on this side of the house expect that these things will be right every time—not occasionally, not every now and then and not one, two or three years in, but that it will be right at the time these decisions are made.
Why was the statutory conflict not identified at the time of Mr Day's appointment? What does the public find acceptable for something like this? I am almost certain that when they find out about what we are discussing today in Parliament they will not find this acceptable and they will ask the same questions we will ask: How could it happen? Why did it happen? Why does nobody know the rules? How could Mr Day be put in this position? And, if it has happened here with the State Administrative Tribunal, where else might it have happened? The Salaries and Allowances Tribunal should be a body for which everything is scrupulously accurate, correct and entirely above board. Most importantly, it is important that we ask what changes have been made within government to ensure that this sort of oversight can never happen again. Although this bill seeks to correct the past—we acknowledge that this bill seeks to correct the past of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal and this erroneous appointment—we want to know what changes have been made within government to ensure that this oversight can never happen again. If it offers nothing else, what can we take from this to assure us that this will not happen in the future?
With that, the opposition calls on the government to explain what due diligence processes are now in place to vet future appointments to statutory boards and tribunals, in particular the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal? Who bears responsibility for this appointment being made in breach of the act? What confidence can the public have that this will not happen again? Which members in this chamber were involved in the decision-making process at that time, whether as members of Parliament or perhaps in other senior government roles? This must have come through somewhere. This cannot have just been waved into being. One would think that one set of eyes of all those sets of eyes in the gold-standard transparency government might have picked up, "Hang on a minute, John Day is a former member of Parliament. John Day, as a member of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, will be asked to determine future salaries and allowances for former MPs. He is a former MP and therefore he is not eligible to sit on the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal." Members might recall that in the previous term of Parliament, the 41st Parliament, there was a record number of Labor MPs. We know there is often idle time—
Mr Dave Kelly: Good to see you were paying attention.
Mr Basil Zempilas: Is that bloke still a minister? Perhaps the member for Bassendean, by speaking up at this time, is identifying himself as one of those sets of eyes that could have had a good look yet did not. Perhaps the member for Bassendean is highlighting to this house why decisions about ministerial appointments were made. Perhaps due diligence did not come from that area. Or perhaps the member for Bassendean had another, less clear reason for getting to his feet a moment ago while we are dealing with a very serious matter that pertains to appointments to the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal.
I ask the government directly: is it confident that all recent appointments were made with full compliance? This is a very important question. If it can take four years for John Day's appointment to the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal to be revealed as an incorrect appointment, are we certain that all recent appointments were made with full compliance and statutory eligibility requirements?
I know that the member for Bassendean has more time on his hands than he previously had. Given that the member for Bassendean is vocal on this topic today and wishes to interject during the second reading contributions to the debate on this very important Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025, perhaps he might make himself available as the member of government who can assure the public that this will not happen again and that all recent appointments have been made with full compliance and statutory eligibility requirements. I am sure that if he were a willing participant and volunteer, we would be hearing from the member for Bassendean right now. But no—now he has gone quiet.
It is not enough to say that the error was administrative. That is not enough. This error requires legislation for it to be fixed. We are here with a suspension of standing orders and with the Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025 on our tables because of this significant oversight. It is the reason this bill has been moved today. This is not an everyday event or an everyday occurrence. It is not something we should be flippant about or wave away and say, "These things happen." They should not happen in the Parliament of Western Australia, and the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal should understand and have confidence that all its appointees are appropriate.
As I have said, this error requires legislation to fix. It requires Parliament's time to unwind the error—that is what we are doing now—and it exposes the state to reputational, legal and financial risk. We are all custodians of this place. We are all here to make sure that things get done properly, accurately, fairly and in the correct way, and we are all here to ensure that the public of Western Australia can have confidence in the very important tribunals and other bodies that emanate from this Parliament of Western Australia.
The remainder of this bill is uncontroversial. It simply updates gendered language and formalises quorum requirements and provisions for remote participation. As I say, that is uncontroversial. It also clarifies procedural aspects of the tribunal's decision-making. These changes are appropriate and overdue; they are going to happen. But, in conclusion, this is not a matter to be treated lightly. This is not something that happens every day. Do not confuse the relative inexperience of some of the members on my side of the chamber with people who do not understand what propriety looks like. The members behind me have come from a diverse range of professional backgrounds. In their daily lives and professions they have had to make sure that they complied with the regulations and rules of law in their communities, in the state of Western Australia, within the organisations they work in and in the various associations they might be a part of because of their employment or the businesses that they ran. I say that if it is okay for them and other members of the public to have to get it right, understand the rules and know when things are correct or incorrect, that should also apply to this state government.
In conclusion, the opposition supports this bill because the consequences of inaction would be too great, but we do so today with a clear message to the government. Diligence is not optional. Diligence is something that we, the government and the people of Western Australia should expect every single day. Let us not let them down. Statutory compliance is not negotiable, and the people of Western Australia deserve better than retrospective patch-ups. They deserve governance that gets it right the first time every time. I commend the bill to the house. Thank you.
Mr Lachlan Hunter (Central Wheatbelt) (1:34 pm): I rise today on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025. It is a remarkable bill that has been put forward to this Parliament by way of suspending standing orders, something that this Parliament has not seen from a government in a very long time. The Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition know this because in a briefing at the end of last week the government said that it was going to bring in this bill. Let us step through a bit of a timeline about why we are doing this today. We are not here today to fix legislation; we are here to legalise what is basically a government cover-up. This bill is not housekeeping. It is a politically charged rewrite of history, covering up four years of government incompetence. The backbench can laugh and moan all it wants, but this is a very serious bill that could have very serious implications for our hardworking public servants and for members and former members of Parliament. A serious breach of law has occurred here, and Labor's solution is to just pretend that nothing happened.
If the Premier and the government were serious about this and owned up to their mistakes, like the current Minister for Police has done with the Firearms Act under his portfolio, the Premier would have called an immediate press conference when the government knew about this back in April. The government was obviously going through its new reappointment briefs for its cabinet, and it maybe saw some advice—we will ask about this in the consideration in detail stage—that Mr Day was actually ineligible to be a member of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. Instead, at the end of last week we saw a rushed briefing for the opposition, and today we have seen a suspension of standing orders to rush this bill through the Parliament for a government cover-up.
We know the history of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. It was actually formed by the former Court coalition government in 1975, and we know that it plays a crucial role in setting the remuneration for members of Parliament, judicial officers and other public office holders in Western Australia. It was designed back in 1975 because we needed independence, transparency and high levels of trust from the public about public officials' pay.
The tribunal has a longstanding reputation of impartiality, and the expectations around its appointments are that they must be strict and clear. But we know that in 2021, Hon John Day AM, a former minister, was appointed to the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal by the former McGowan government. Under section 5(7) of the act, Mr Day was ineligible to serve on the tribunal itself and set remuneration for former ministers—a class to which he actually belongs. I know that the government has stood up here and said that no decisions were made in those particular areas, but section 5(7) of the Salaries and Allowances Act is clear: anyone whose remuneration is set or reviewed by the SAT cannot be appointed.
We did some research into where this came from. We went onto the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal's website, and it is plain as day there. I will read directly from the website. It states:
The Tribunal is required from time to time, to inquire into and determine the entitlements and benefits to be paid or provided to former Premiers of the State, former ministers of the Crown and former members of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State.
Mr Day, the former member for Kalamunda, was two of those things. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly and he was a minister of the Crown. It was on the website: Mr Day was clearly ineligible. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it was to his own detriment that the government actually put him in that position, but, as it does, Labor appointed him anyway. This is not a clerical oversight or some sort of loophole; this is a blatant breach of statutory law in Western Australia.
This conflict was only discovered in April 2025, after almost four years, during which the tribunal issued pay rulings with its unlawful membership—with Mr Day. The legitimacy of all the tribunal's determinations is now in question. If this oversight had not been uncovered, further improper appointments could have continued. Was the appointment brief for Mr Day given to the Premier's office? Was it given some sort of advice from the State Solicitor's Office or the Attorney General's office? Surely the Premier has a legal adviser in his office giving him that advice. If this oversight had not been uncovered, the legitimacy of the tribunal's decisions would be further at risk.
What are we now seeing from the government? As I said, no press conference was held. The media only found out about it because the opposition actually informed them that a bill was before this Parliament. We have not heard one member of this government come out and apologise for these remarkable events. No-one is accountable. No-one is launching an inquiry as to how this could have occurred. Instead, what this government will do—what the Labor Party loves to do—is introduce a section 12B of this bill, which will retrofit and erase the law. This is not because it is something, but because failing to do so would expose the state of Western Australia to significant legal and financial risk. This is an embarrassing cover-up. This is not governance. This is gaslighting.
We must ask, at the time of the former Premier—Dave Kelly might have known a few advisers in the former Premier's office—who in his office gave this appointment the green light? Was it the current member for Landsdale, Daniel Pastorelli MLA, the then chief of staff? I know the role of a chief of staff is very vibrant and diverse. Did he get all the appointments before his desk, before they were given to then Premier Mark McGowan? I know there is a little list in the bottom of his drawer to put his Labor Party mates on boards, but was this appointment brief signed off by the now member for Landsdale? It is quite remarkable that he is bringing this bill through Parliament, given his current role. At the time of the appointment of Mr Day, was advice sought or was a brief given by the State Solicitor's Office or the former Attorney General? Was there a little pink slip on the top of the appointment brief as it headed off to cabinet to say, "Hey, does this check out with the law?" Not if they looked at the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal's own website, which said the former minister that they were appointing was absolutely ineligible.
This opposition, in the next days and weeks, will be prosecuting the government to find out whether advice was provided to that office at the time. If there was no advice, why was it not provided? Section 5(7) is clear. It is not obscure or complex. The fact that basic eligibility checks were missed or ignored is alarming. If it happens to the independent and transparent Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, on what other government boards is this happening? Members can legitimately go to the SAT website and, as I said, members can go and read it.
Let me be clear; there is a pattern of arrogant behaviour with this government. We had the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, another botched piece of legislation that was run through this Parliament. What would happen if a wheatbelt farmer or a constituent of mine, maybe from Toodyay, breached a regulation? They would be dragged before the courts, before a department and penalised. What if a nurse made an error? They would be brought before a disciplinary hearing. However, when former ministers are appointed to the SAT, Labor writes a new law to excuse it. That is the Labor way: one rule for Labor insiders, another for the rest of us.
Will Mr Day, an honourable gentleman and obviously a key component of the former government, be forced to pay back the over $123,000 that he received in pay over four years? What if this Parliament had a bit of an unruly crossbench like we have seen in the other place and this bill did not pass? What if we got the crossbench on side and the government did not have the numbers? Will everyone who benefited from those SAT decisions over the four years—including, Mr Pastorelli, your mate the former Premier of Western Australia—have to pay back their entitlements? What is Labor hiding by refusing to have an external inquiry? What is it hiding if there is nothing to see here? The Leader of the House can smirk and laugh all he wants. Labor just wants to bring in the standing orders to suspend them and change the law. We have not even heard one government minister come out and say they are sorry they got it wrong. This is the pattern of behaviour from this government.
At the same time this unlawful appointment was happening, the SAT handed out large pay rises to senior bureaucrats over the past 24 months. I will read them out. The Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner Darren Klemm, who does a fantastic job from regional Western Australia, got a 22% pay rise of $446,000. Is he going to have to pay that back? Under Treasurer Michael Barnes, Premier and Cabinet former boss Emily Roper and Public Sector Commissioner Sharyn O'Neill both had 16% increases of $528,000 per year. Are they going to have to pay that back?
The government must explain. What new vetting procedures are now in place? Does the Premier's new chief of staff have a little box in the adviser spreadsheet before it goes to cabinet for sign off, that says, "Maybe check this with the Attorney's office?" Or maybe to get some legal advice on whether whatever they are doing actually fits with the justifications very clearly pointed out on the website. Who will take responsibility for past oversights and failures of this government? What assurance is there that no other appointments on any other tribunals or committees are similarly invalid? I bet there are a number of public servants and political operatives in this government checking every single ministerial appointed person on a board to see whether they are actually allowed to be there under the laws of Western Australia.
This bill does not modernise the new law—it sanitises a scandal. It does not correct an error—it conceals one. We will not be opposing the bill because, as I said, not passing it could unravel public sector payments and we know they do a fabulous job and we would never want to do that. But let me be clear, the public of Western Australia deserves answers. The Premier owes the Parliament an explanation and Labor must be held to account. This is not just an error; it is a symptom of a government that believes the law does not apply to it.
Mr Daniel Pastorelli (Landsdale—Parliamentary Secretary) (1:48 pm) in reply: I thank the members opposite for their contributions to the debate on the Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill 2025. I also appreciate their support for the bill going forward. I will address some of the points raised by the member for Churchlands and the member for Central Wheatbelt. I appreciate them both foreshadowing some of the questions that we will probably go through in consideration in detail a bit later on. I will do my best to answer all their questions in due course. I want to echo the comments of the member for Churchlands about the former member for Kalamunda and former minister John Day. John Day was obviously an eminent member of this chamber. He had a high quality career as a public servant, a long-time member of Parliament, a minister in the Court government and a minister, of course, in the Barnett government.
He held numerous portfolios throughout his time in Parliament. He was Minister for Health, Minister for Planning and Minister for Culture and the Arts—a whole range of portfolios. He was an eminent member of the Legislative Assembly and we need to acknowledge that. Of course, this was not his doing at all. He took on the role. To his credit, I think he did a very good job during his nearly four years on the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, and I thank him for his service and his career to date as a public servant. I know that he continues to hold some board positions. I think he is still chair of the Library Board of Western Australia, amongst other things. He did a fantastic job as part of the panel that independently reviewed Western Australia's response and management of the global pandemic. In my former role, I was interviewed by John and I think he did a fantastic job on that report and he should be commended for it. We should acknowledge that here in this chamber today.
How did this happen? I think the member for Churchlands raised that question in terms of what oversight we had and how it was not picked up. I think that is a fair point given the rigorous steps taken when it comes to making these appointments, but I will say that the government did identify this invalid appointment in late April, and contrary to the member for Central Wheatbelt's statement, we have moved very fast to ensure that we can correct the error. We brought this legislation to the chamber as soon as possible. Obviously, we have done that at a very fast pace and in a short time.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lisa Munday): Member!
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Lachlan Hunter: How was your press conference, Pastorelli?
Point of order
Mr David Michael: Point of order!
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lisa Munday): Thank you very much. Member for Central Wheatbelt, you do not refer to people by their surname. The member for Landsdale was silent when we heard you, so we will give him the right to be heard in silence.
Several members interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you! Go ahead, member for Landsdale.
Proceeding resumed
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: Thank you, Acting Speaker.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: The member for Churchlands queried what changes will happen in government to ensure that this does not happen again. I can say that the State Solicitor's Office is going to be added to the administrative process observed by the tribunal in considering eligibility going forward to ensure that an issue like this one, if it were to happen again, would be picked up as soon as possible. I also want to make the point that at the time, and since a determination made by the tribunal in 2017, former members of Parliament have not received any allowances or any entitlements. The last remaining entitlement for former members of Parliament was for a rail pass, and that was removed in 2017. They have not had any entitlements since then, and this government is not proposing to bring any entitlements forward. Therefore, from Mr Day's and the government's perspective, obviously there was clear oversight in that no entitlements were provided during the time he was a former member, and, hence, he was therefore appointed to the tribunal. Look, errors are made all the time. The member for Churchlands referred to this tribunal as the "salaries administrative tribunal". I think he mentioned that four times. It is the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, but those things happen, mistakes—
Several members interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Members! Leader of the Opposition and member for Central Wheatbelt, thank you very much. Member for Landsdale, please continue.
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I was just making the point that errors are made and they are corrected, and then we continue.
With this bill, we will validate all the determinations made over the past four years, or since 7 September 2021, when John Day was appointed to the tribunal. I acknowledge that it is a unique piece of legislation, and the government acknowledges that. We appreciate the support of those opposite to allow us to bring it forward urgently so that we can ensure John Day's appointment and also all those determinations during his appointment are valid. To his credit, Hon John Day resigned from the tribunal as soon as he became aware of the issues with his appointment. I think that is a credit to John Day; it was a very good thing for him to do. But, like I said before, he continues to serve the public. He has a range of different roles in public life. I think that is what we want to see from former members of Parliament into the future because quality former members should have a role to play in public life; their service should not just end when, for whatever reason, they leave this chamber. I think John Day continues to do that.
The government wants to thank and acknowledge John Day for his service on the tribunal. We bring forward this legislation so that we can ensure his appointment was valid and all determinations will be valid going forward. I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Consideration in detail
Clauses 1 to 7 put and passed.
Clause 8: Section 9 amended
Mr Basil Zempilas: Clause 8(4) refers to the amendment of section 9. What technologies or standards are considered acceptable for remote communication?
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: The advice I have is that the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal will be using Teams as the method of communication to ensure that those meetings can take place.
Mr Basil Zempilas: With that, is there any risk that this could undermine procedural integrity or confidentiality?
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: There is no risk of that happening. Proposed section 9(7) goes into detail about remote communication when meetings are held remotely, and states:
… in relation to a meeting, means any technology that enables all the persons taking part in the meeting to communicate with each other at the same time in a reasonably continuous way.
I do note that Microsoft Teams has been used many times before for other remote meetings.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
