Page 4666 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But Mr Berry did not think of that one. He just saw a chance to grab onto the idea that Mr Prowse was selling filters, when he was not, and he would say, "That was a conflict of interest". There would be a conflict of interest if someone kept putting fluoride in the water supply, like you have, because then people would be more inclined to buy the filter. Mr Prowse was working against that, against his partner's business, by trying to get it removed. But, once again, who is to split hairs about these fine points in debate?
As I said, I support Mr Berry's right to bring up this matter. It is an important thing to think about. I believe that Switzerland operates in a far better style than we do, and I think it is because they work in the real world. All of us can get cut off from the real world if we are not out there amongst people. It is all very well someone telling you that they have a problem with income tax and the dozens and dozens of other taxes that we impose on those gallant individuals who get out there and try to work at their own business. That is commitment. If anybody in the Assembly is prepared to do that, you have to admire them. It is something that most people could not confront. In fact, many people in this Assembly have never done it. I would suggest that that is one of the best requirements you could ever have for making laws governing what happens in a community, particularly in a business community. After all, that is what keeps the society going. It is not the parliament; it is the business community. If you have had experience in the business community, I think that that would be nothing but a benefit. It is an important point to bring up, and a quite reasonable one. It is good to debate it. I thank Mr Berry for the opportunity to do so.
MR STEFANIAK (11.30): I will be brief. Mrs Carnell, and even Mr Stevenson, in a weird roundabout way, have made probably one of the most important points in this debate. Firstly, members are expected to serve the community full time, and they do. I think that no-one does that better than Mrs Carnell in the hours she puts in. I think everyone in this Assembly, as Mr Kaine has said, is here full time; but that does not mean that there is any harm, if there is no conflict of interest, in a member doing other work.
Mr Berry, all I am going to do is to refer you to that very good talkback show after your comments on ABC radio this morning. Many people rang up and said that they were very much in favour of members having a second job because it got them out into the real world. In effect, they queried whether you could do your job terribly well if you had only one. The clear view there was that if members had no outside interests, apart from this place, they would be in an ivory tower; they would be devoid of reality. I think the point that those people were making is that it is very important for members here to get out amongst the community. Mrs Carnell works for only a brief period in her pharmacy, but it is terribly important to get out into the community and to hear the real concerns of people. What possible harm can that do? That is, I think, what the community expects of its politicians. Mr Berry, the final comment I would make is to agree with what the commentator of the particular show said, and that is that some people can do a number of things well, and some people can do only one thing at a time. Maybe in your case you might even be doing that rather badly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .