Page 4657 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is the big question: Is there a conflict of interest? The community want to know this: "Are they in there working for themselves or working for us? We elected them to work for us. Are they working for themselves?".
Mr De Domenico: They will decide, Mr Berry, in February.
MR BERRY: Indeed they will. When they look at all the candidates who line up at the next election they ought to make a judgment - "Is this person going to work for me or work for himself?". I feel confident that most people out there will make the decision that - - -
Mr De Domenico: All the punters will decide in February, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: For the likes of Mr De Domenico, whom they pay something in the order of $70,000 a year, they will say, "We reckon that we deserve to have his undivided attention for the whole year for that sort of money". They might not want him doing something else for the whole year. The same applies for Ministers, backbenchers, managers of government business, and so on.
Mr De Domenico: Prime Ministers?
MR BERRY: And Prime Ministers. The Prime Minister has made that clear. He gives his undivided attention. As far as this place is concerned, we do not get that from the Liberals. We heard them arguing the case this morning. My position on this is that this is a statement of principle which this Assembly can adopt or reject. The first thing the Liberals do is to come out and defend Mrs Carnell, saying, "What a damned good idea it is to be behind the cash register on Saturdays and Sundays. How good it is to be close to the community".
Mrs Carnell: Yes.
MR BERRY: That is your job here. That is why you have an office here. The community pays over $300,000 to maintain it so that you can do your work here. It gives you a great big luxurious office with lots of staff. What we end up with is an Assembly where some members are being given support to run their political affairs - fair enough - but they are then going out and involving themselves in other business affairs. I think the community would have a question mark over their head about that. They would be saying to themselves, "Is this person working for me or is this person working for himself?". There are the issues of principles that you have to address in the debate on this matter.
There is no question that there is plenty of work here for people who are interested in doing it. If people choose to oppose this motion we will take the free kick. It demonstrates that people are prepared to say to the community out there, "Look, when I am elected I deserve the rate of pay that has been determined by the Remuneration Tribunal; but I can go out and take on any other business interests that I like, even if they create a conflict of interest, or a potential conflict of interest, in this place". I say to you that if you go down that path you will be judged on the merits of your case. It is unacceptable, and that is why the motion has been put forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .