Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 2979 ..

Mr Hargreaves: I take a point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The minister has referred to members coming in here day after day after day and voting with a conflict of interest. I suggest that that is not true. I ask him to withdraw that. Check Hansard. You want to say to us that we are coming in here and voting on gaming legislation and whatever. Fine. We will wear your accusations.

MR HUMPHRIES: What is the point of order, Mr Speaker?

Mr Hargreaves: The point of order, Mr Speaker, is this: his reference was offensive. He said that we come in here day after day after day with our conflict of interest and vote. That is offensive and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, it is no less offensive than anything Mr Hargreaves said in his speech about Liberal ministers. It is absolutely true. You have a conflict of interest. You come in here-

Mr Hargreaves: Not every day and not every issue. In fact, we don't have a conflict of interest at all.

MR HUMPHRIES: Oh, not every day. Mr Speaker, I take a point of order here. I heard Mr Hargreaves in complete silence. I heard Mr Berry in complete silence. I think it is unreasonable to expect-

MR SPEAKER: I will not uphold the point of order. I ask members, however, to be aware of what they are saying. There have been some very sweeping generalisations on both sides of the house. I do not uphold the point of order, but I do uphold Mr Humphries' point of order about silence.

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we have here is a gross conflict of interest, totally ignored by the Labor Party, who now come forward and tell us that we ought to be raising the bar, as they put it. That is pure hyperbole. The ordinary person in the street would regard the ethical position taken by the Australian Labor Party as being totally and utterly a sham. What they are doing on this occasion by arguing for a change of the status of disclosure provisions in the Electoral Act is also a sham.

This legislation, Mr Speaker, is to reinforce the status quo. It is not to lower the bar. It is to reinforce the status quo. The de facto status quo at present is that members are required to disclose details of amounts received as gifts other than personal gifts. That is the requirement on members. The requirement technically on Independent members in this place is different. The requirement on them is to disclose details of all amounts received from all sources except for personal gifts.

I say that that is the technical position because it has not been the position adopted in respect of disclosure by members to date, and it has not been a matter that the Electoral Commissioner has required members to disclose to date. The Electoral Commissioner has understood the situation applying to Independent members to have been the same as that which applies to party members, until a short while ago, a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago a matter, as described by Mr Rugendyke, was raised with the Electoral Commissioner and the commissioner, I gather, took advice and determined that in fact there was an anomaly in the legislation, a previously undetected anomaly, if you like,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .