Page 1516 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
information - I use the word "privileged" - or special information or something like that. What a disgrace! There are people in this society of ours buying - Mr Moore might say "speculating" - from time to time, but that is their entitlement, and I do not think anybody would suggest that that is not an avenue that might be followed.
As to the involvement of Mr Peter Phillips, he is the chair of ACTEW and there has been a suggestion that maybe there is a conflict of interest; that someone who works in that way as a part-time chair, paid I am not sure what amount - something like $20,000, I think - should not be involved in dealing with a government enterprise. I listened attentively to that. But we have a number of fine, upstanding ACT citizens, whose names I would not dare mention now, who serve on government boards. Look at the membership of EPACT. Would that not be a sensitive body to work on? I am sure that members opposite know a quite large number of names of people on other boards. Private enterprise or activity in the private area does not disqualify a person, nor should it, from helping in the public field. We have gained immensely from the work of many of those people. So I reflect on this. Certainly Mr Phillips should have nothing to do with anything that is to do with ACTEW. That would be a matter that I am sure he would accept instantly.
There are procedures for people, whether you are a public servant, whether you are a private citizen employed in the community area, or whether you are in private industry, working on any of our boards that are well known. First of all there is the Government's code of conduct that is circulated, as I understand it, to all members of boards. That spells out their obligations. I do not think it is necessary, but there are in the ACTEW Act the usual provisions relating to declaration of interest. If any matter arises the member concerned has to declare the interest and remove himself or herself from any debate. I think these are appropriate mechanisms, should there be need to declare an interest. But I am not convinced that there is any such need for Mr Phillips. He does not have the need to declare his interest in this matter.
On the advice I have and that I accept, there is no connection between ACTEW and this Housing Trust joint venture. Someone tried to draw a line with the sewerage connections. After today, that might be a reasonable sort of thing to get about, because that is where we have got to, I think; but there is no connection. Better cities money to the extent of about $1m is being used for the main extension of the North Canberra sewerage line. It may be that eventually some of the outflow from this area will finish up in that main, but I do not think that that is a real connection. That has to affect every citizen in North Canberra. The North Canberra sewerage main is grossly overloaded, even now. It is going to have to be done up no matter what. So if there are concerns about the role of one person in this there are proper ways of dealing with it. In any case, in this circumstance, let me repeat, I do not think there would be need to acknowledge anything because the connection seems to me to be distant. Indeed, there is no connection.
Madam Speaker, we will have an inquiry. There is no question about that. It will not be into the mixture of things that Mr Moore spoke about when he wrote to me some time ago. Nor should it be, because his speech today has focused absolutely on personalities. That is what it has focused on and that is what we should look at. He has made an allegation - let me repeat it, and I hope that it is emphasised in the future - that is absolutely unsubstantiated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .