Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2121 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

We have heard also, Mr Speaker, that there is really no conflict here; that Ministers hand out cheques all the time and get their photo in the paper. The Ministers mentioned were not taking advantage, through their private business interests, of their public duty. That is the difference. That is a difference that you must try to understand. It is very clear that in this particular case an MLA, through private business interests, was seeking some advantage through the letting of a government contract. It is very difficult for the Government to deny that.

Mr Speaker, I believe that, had Mr Hird wanted to uphold the ethics that the Assembly has previously found acceptable and that we have every right to expect will also apply in the public service, then he had a couple of courses of action open to him, and he still does. The first of those, of course, was to ask his spouse to sell her shares in the business of Harold Hird and Associates. I do not for one moment propose that that is what he ought to do. If he did ask Mrs Hird to do that, she would be quite within her rights to tell him to take a running jump. The other course of action, and the one which Mr Hird should have taken, and still can take, is to refrain from bidding for ACT Government auctions.

Mr De Domenico: It is not his company, though.

MS FOLLETT: I hear members opposite say that it is not his company. On that matter, I would like to say a few words. As we have seen in the Chief Minister's annual report, the licensed auctioneer H.J. Hird is listed. I presume that that is Mr Harold Hird, MLA. The trading name for Mr Harold Hird is listed as Harold Hird and Associates. Mr Speaker, I understand that a corporate veil is being drawn here. I do not believe that it is appropriate or within an appropriate code of ethics for MLAs that that corporate veil ought to be invoked in order to justify what is clearly a conflict of interest. That is all it is. Mr Speaker, I do not believe that it is appropriate to invoke that corporate veil in this circumstance, any more than it is appropriate to invoke a corporate veil for the more usual reason - tax evasion. It is simply inappropriate. It does not fit with any code of ethics that I have ever heard of, and it is not appropriate for a member of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I would like to mention just a couple of other matters. First of all, there is the question of whether or not Mr Hird has previously had contracts for auctioning ACT government assets. We have heard a great deal of conflicting evidence on that matter from the Government. The fact of the matter is that, until Mr Hird became an MLA and became a member of the Government, it did not matter how many auctions he conducted on behalf of the ACT Government. He was perfectly entitled to do so as a member of the ACT's business community. Attempting to justify the current situation by saying, "Aha! The Labor Government gave him the auction rights" in no way condones the current situation. Mr Hird was not an MLA. Mr Hird was not a member of the Government. Had he been, then the view taken by my Government quite clearly would have been that he had a private business interest in this matter and ought to be excluded from it. That is what should have happened this time.

Mr Hird: So you would victimise my wife. You would victimise a lady and a lady's business, a small business.

Mr De Domenico: You change the rules with the case.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .