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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3438 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 77.

Motion (by Mrs Carnell) agreed to:

That the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I think these issues need to be discussed in that context, and I believe that this amendment would strengthen the motion to ensure that that was the case.

MR MOORE (11.27): I will take this opportunity to speak to both the motion and the amendment. It seems to me that, although the amendment is unnecessary, because I think it will be considered by the committee, it certainly does not do any harm to ensure that the committee does take that into consideration. I am quite comfortable about accepting the amendment and supporting it.

When I raised this issue with the Administration and Procedure Committee as part of the report Mr Berry referred to, I was particularly interested in the way the British Parliament had dealt with the issue in the Nolan report. One of the most interesting suggestions that came out of the Nolan report resolved the very sorts of problems we have heard this morning. What is a conflict of interest? Is membership of a trade union a conflict of interest for a Minister for Industrial Relations or, indeed, for any member voting on an industrial relations issue? Is there a conflict of interest in a Health Minister having their name on a health product? These are important issues on which there will be a difference of opinion, and that is what we have seen happening here this morning.

The Nolan Committee report came out of a much more serious conflict of interest where one of the tabloid papers in the United Kingdom discovered what they dubbed "cash for questions". People who were asking questions in the Parliament were paid a significant sum of money to ask those questions. "Was that a conflict of interest?", they were asking. We have never stooped so low in this house, and we have taken many criticisms about it.

Mr Humphries: That we know of.

MR MOORE: I would be very surprised, I must say, to find that any member currently sitting in this house had been in that position. Furthermore, I must say that the calibre of the questions probably does not warrant their being paid for, in many cases.

The report in the UK arose out of a very important issue which, to an ordinary person in the public looking in, was clearly a conflict of interest, and there were a series of other things that happened. The report suggested the establishment of a position of commissioner at arm's length from the parliament who would consider issues of conflict of interest. Members of parliament could go privately to that person and say, "Do you think I have a conflict of interest in this way or in that way?", on a whole series of issues that have been raised today or previously in this Assembly. An opinion would be provided which the member could then either accept or reject; but, should the issue be

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