Page 3443 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly do a bit better. I am glad to know that a number of the members opposite - not including the Chief Minister, obviously - support that move.
One other matter that I would like to traverse is the clear implication in a number of the Government members' speeches, and indeed in Mr Stevenson's, that the Labor Party would somehow be exempt from this code of ethics and that we may find ourselves embarrassed by it. The code of ethics that I propose would in fact apply to all members of this Assembly and that is, indeed, the very reason why I have put it forward. I do not think anybody should be exempt, whether it is a Minister, a member of the Liberal Party, a member of the Abolish Self Government Coalition or a member of the Labor Party. It is intended to apply equally to all members.
A number of particular points have been raised in connection with the draft code of ethics that I have put forward in the motion. The first thing I would like to say is that it is quite clearly a draft code of ethics. It says that in the motion. It is not supposed to be the definitive set of words. It is put forward in an attempt to get the debate started and, in fact, it has been singularly successful in that. A number of members, in particular, have drawn attention to that part of the draft that refers to people's personal relationships. But it is a draft and it is subject to discussion and modification. I think there have been any number of occasions in Australian political history and, indeed, in international political history where personal relationships have been the very subject of scrutiny and have brought down governments and Ministers and have caused any number of controversies.
There are some in recent history in Australian political life. If you cannot recall them yourselves, there was the incident of the Sheridan sheets, when Mr Peacock's then wife, in taking part in a commercial promotion, caused Mr Peacock to offer his resignation. They quite clearly saw that their personal relationship in some way entered into Mr Peacock's role in political life - in public life. There was also the Jim Cairns occasion - - -
Mr Duby: It was not accepted, I understand.
MS FOLLETT: No, it was not accepted. Dr Cairns' brother-in-law, I believe it was, was involved in overseas loans raising and Dr Cairns' resignation was required by the then Prime Minister. That was a relationship between him and his brother-in-law. So, if you think that personal relationships cannot ever be the subject of debate about propriety, you are quite wrong. I think that they are quite properly, from time to time, relevant to our role in public life. What the motion seeks to do, of course, is to allow some debate on when it is relevant and when it is not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .