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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3444 ..

Mrs Carnell: It is a huge distinction.

MS TUCKER: It is a huge distinction; exactly, because you are worried about your own personal profiles. You do not seem to be worried about the outcome of the issue the committee is looking at. The issue here is what will happen to the findings of the committee inquiry, which you have chosen to discredit for political reasons on the issue of conflict of interest. You might argue that it is a different and not so important issue, but I would disagree. I hope the Administration and Procedure Committee inquiry will bring some light to these issues.

MR BERRY (11.49): Mr Speaker, I think Mr Humphries's amendment is covered by paragraph (b) of the motion, but I have no objection to it if Mr Humphries wants to couch it in those terms as an additional matter for consideration. The first point I want to deal with is that there seems to be no understanding amongst the Liberals of the issue of conflict of interest and how it might affect people. They accept, it seems, that there is a conflict of interest for somebody who works in the Public Service if they take up a position in this place, but they do not seem able to accept that a person in the Executive who has ministerial responsibility for the area of their business has a conflict of interest. That is sheer nonsense and shows why we are having such difficulty in getting the message across and why they feel so stung by it all.

The fact of the matter is that this matter was raised not by me but by the Administration and Procedure Committee at its meeting on Monday. Fortuitously, a member of the public complained that it looked as though there was a conflict of interest between Mrs Carnell's position as Minister and her operation of a pharmacy, and bought this cough mixture. I am glad Mrs Carnell brings forward further evidence of what a person in the community thought was a conflict of interest.

Mr De Domenico: What branch of the Labor Party was that person in? Is it the same one who rang up this morning?

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, would you please ask Mr De Domenico to be quiet.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR BERRY: The next issue I would like to mention is Mr Humphries's deliberate ignorance of the issue I raised with him in relation to what is the rule of law on conflict of interest. That maxim is determined by what is thought to be the view of the world of the ordinary person in the street. If an ordinary person in the street believes that there is a conflict of interest, then it is fair to assume that there probably is one, according to law. That is the issue I raise.

I heard the Liberals bleating a little while ago about personal attacks. They are not bad at it themselves. I remember Mrs Carnell driving Mr Aliprandi out of this town. She drove Mr Charles Wright out of this town, with personal attacks time after time. Do not ever come in here and complain about personal attacks. You people set the standard.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Maintain relevance to the motion before the Chair.

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