Page 2462 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Just a minute. You may deviate and make a point; but if you did say it you will have to withdraw it first.
MR STEVENSON: What I said was that we could have a situation where members, free of improper control, can speak their mind.
MADAM SPEAKER: Right. That is a definite imputation - that we are currently under improper influence. I ask you to withdraw it, please.
MR STEVENSON: As it is true, I will withdraw for the moment and then explain it.
MADAM SPEAKER: No; just withdraw it.
MR STEVENSON: I withdraw.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. Now you may start again on what you wanted to say.
MR STEVENSON: Let me explain. (Extension of time granted) In Australia, not only does the Constitution require that members of parliament be free of hindrance to represent their electorate; but crimes Acts in Australia clearly state that if a member of parliament is bribed, influenced or controlled in any way it is an offence. In Tasmania Edmund Rouse tried to bribe a member of parliament, one Jim Cox, a Labor member, to vote on a particular issue. For that he was charged, found guilty and sent to gaol. It is a very serious offence.
If a person in the community comes along to members and tries to control, to influence, to suborn or to do various other things in respect of their vote on any one issue and that is reported, they can be charged, and if the charge is proven they can be convicted. Yet we have the situation that a member of a party in Australia, not just in this Assembly, can exert that same influence, that same improper control, and control the vote and voice of a member of parliament. When you have that, you do not have a democratic situation.
Some while ago Peter Cochran abstained from a vote on sustainable development. He felt that the people in his community, his electorate - whom he is bound to obey, legally, morally, constitutionally - did not want him to vote on that issue. He did not vote. Wal Murray delivered a tirade against Peter Cochran. Why? Because he did not do as he was told by the party. Wal Murray threatened Peter Cochran with loss of support of the party. I hold this to be clearly unconstitutional. This was an attempt to control a member of parliament. I wrote to the ICAC at the time. They acknowledged, and I am waiting for them to do something about it. I grant that not many politicians in this country will acknowledge this principle, but most people will - that members of parliament should not be under that improper party control. That is what it is, wherever it is.
We would all agree that we should involve the community, but let us do it in a fair dinkum way rather than just paying lip-service to the principle. Let us allow people the time to have a say. Let us allow them real freedom of information. Let us allow them free access to their records in this Assembly. There should be very few exceptions to citizens having access to the documents and the information on which we make decisions. There should be fewer
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .