Page 5533 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.16): Mr Speaker, this is the sort of pointless debate that we get into sometimes on matters that are really not of great consequence. I am not a lawyer; I am a lay person. But when I read the words "pecuniary interests" I assume that it means all kinds of pecuniary interests. It does not mean only positive ones; it means negative ones as well. When I made my declaration as a member of this Assembly I included all my liabilities as well as my assets. If I am capable of making that interpretation - I am not all that smart - I am sure that a lot of other people are as well. So, I think that it really is rather pointless.
The point is that it does not need to be built into the legislation. When an officer is asked to make his statement of pecuniary interests he can be given a written information sheet that says, "This is what we mean; these are the sorts of things that you have to say". I do not think it needs to be built into the legislation to achieve that end. We would do much better to get onto some of the substantive and fundamental issues in this planning Bill than arguing this kind of nonsense.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.17): Well said, Mr Kaine. Mr Collaery is right. This does not change the meaning of "pecuniary interests", which means either liabilities or assets. The case that Mr Collaery raised should have been dealt with, if he had a concern, at that time. It is not the answer to change things here and in a host of other pieces of legislation. If you had a worry, you should have raised it then. No doubt you did, or maybe you did; but do not, some time down the track, attempt to change legislation. I do not think that is the answer to the problem. We know what it means. Let us hold to the meaning that we understand.
MR COLLAERY (3.17): Mr Speaker, I am pleased that Mr Wood has made those comments. On the extrinsic test, I think it is clear now what the provision means and I think we have achieved our objective. Frankly, we are growing tired of Mr Kaine's empty rhetoric on issues like that. It is unnecessarily - - -
Mr Kaine: Well, you should see what I wrote against your next amendment.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Kaine, who has introduced next to no legislation in his whole time in this chamber, takes petty points, Mr Speaker. All we wanted was for Mr Wood to make the statement he did, and we are satisfied with it. We do not press the issue any more.
Mr Wood: Do you want to withdraw it now?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .