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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 2970 ..

Mr Stanhope: We are happy to adjourn it. Let's adjourn it until October. That would give everybody time.

MR MOORE: To a later hour today would be entirely appropriate.

Mr Stanhope: October would be much better.

MR MOORE: Mr Stanhope continues his interjection, Mr Speaker, in spite of you having to rise to your feet earlier, and says, "Why don't we adjourn it until October?" The reason, Mr Stanhope, is that the Electoral Commissioner has identified a particular problem that affects people in the next few months and makes it the thing that you said you are opposed to, an uneven playing field. What we ought to do is rectify that. Now, whether we rectify it the way you are suggesting or whether we rectify it in the way the Electoral Commissioner suggests is something we should sort out as soon as possible because we know it affects some people before we sit the following time. So it is an appropriate thing for us to do today before we rise, and when we come to the amendments we will work out which is the best way to do it. The reality is that we have a commendation from the Electoral Commissioner and we ought to respond to that in the fairest possible way we can in spite of the embarrassment for the Labor Party.

MR CORBELL (11.28): Mr Speaker, once we get past Mr Moore's hyperbole, I think that was actually a speech in favour of Mr Stanhope's amendments. Quite frankly, let us make very clear what Mr Stanhope's amendments are about. I know that Independent members have raised this so I am very happy to reinforce Mr Stanhope's point. Mr Stanhope's amendments propose that all members in this place meet the same obligations which are currently imposed on Independent members under the existing legislation. That is what Mr Stanhope's amendments do. Simple and straightforward. We do not believe that there is any problem with all members in this place having to disclose all their income.

Mr Humphries: Why haven't you done it before then? It was your legislation in the first place. So it's a really important issue. You didn't bother to do it for seven years.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Corbell has the floor.

MR CORBELL: We heard Mr Humphries interject, "Why haven't you done it before?" I ask Mr Humphries whether he pointed this out when he was shadowing this bill back in 1994-95? Did he point it out? No. Did he vote for this bill? Yes. Yes, he did vote for this bill. Every party in the Assembly at that time voted for the bill. It is an oversight. We do not deny that, but it is an oversight that has been committed by all members; not just the Labor Party but by all members. Okay. So let us get that point very clear. It is an oversight. There is no doubt about that.

Just as the government has proposed a solution, so has the opposition; but, unlike the government, we are not suggesting that the bar be lowered. We are not suggesting that the bar be lowered as the government is doing. We are suggesting that the bar be raised for party MLAs. That is what we are suggesting-that the bar be raised. What is the difficulty with all MLAs disclosing all income?

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