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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3434 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

We have to make sure that in any code of conduct in this place we ensure, as we did with the ministerial code we lifted from South Australia, that we allow people to continue to run the farm, as John Howard has done. John Anderson is running his property while he is Minister. The reason for that is not conflict of interest. The reason for that is to make sure that the people in our parliaments around Australia have expertise in particular areas. I know it gets under Mr Berry's skin that he has expertise in bugger-all; but, honestly, just because Mr Berry does not know anything about anything but firefighting does not mean that he should attempt to undermine everybody else who might have some expertise in something. I am proud of being a retailer; I still enjoy getting behind the counter and looking after my customers. I think that is something that is a useful experience for this place. It is also something that at some stage in the future I will go back and do again. I think that is a very appropriate approach for every member of this place and every member of every parliament.

We have to make sure with codes of conduct that there are no pecuniary interests involved, that the decisions people are involved with in the parliamentary situation do not produce for them any money or any particular prestige. I believe that everybody here totally supports that approach, but that does not mean that people in parliament simply cannot have other lives or other expertise or other involvements.

Mr De Domenico: Or pig farms.

MRS CARNELL: In fact, as Mr De Domenico says, we should have things like pig farms, things that show that people still understand and are part of the way the community works outside this place. I believe, and I am confident that people at least on this side of the house believe, that it is important to retain interests and expertise in things other than politics while you are sitting in this place. But our code of practice categorically says that I may have no interest in the day-to-day running of my pharmacy, which I do not, to the extent that I rarely even go into my pharmacy anymore. I think that is very hard on my staff; but that is the code of conduct, so that is the way we operate. I have a very competent manager and very competent staff, and I think they run a very good little business there - certainly one that at this stage I own.

Mr Speaker, again, this is nothing to do with me as a pharmacist. This is everything to do with Mr Berry and those opposite in budget week - in budget week! - believing that the only way they can get at this Government, at my budget, at me personally, is to try to take me out, to undermine potentially my credibility. They have not achieved that. I think it is tragic, I think it is sad, that they would even bother. Fancy, in budget week, getting questions about cough mixture. For the life of me, I am horrified and I am shocked. I think personal attacks always backfire on the people who put them forward. The problem is this situation of my owning a pharmacy in this town - something I had when I was elected. "Kate Carnell's Cough Mixture" has existed for 10 years. Those products are very much part of running a pharmacy anywhere. The fact is that I was elected as a pharmacist. I was elected with a pharmacy that operates like all other pharmacies. I believe that I was elected because people did want small business operators in this place. They did want people who knew about being behind counters. We will be supporting the code of conduct because we believe that it is an appropriate approach, but to use this for a straight-out personal attack in budget week is reprehensible, Mr Speaker.

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