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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 2980 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

which indicated that Independent members had a higher duty of disclosure than ordinary members in this place.

A standard had been set in the legislation which was introduced into this place by the former Labor government. That standard said that members should disclose certain things but did not have to disclose other things. That was the standard. It is a standard which has applied consistently to the government, the non-government, to party members and Independent members for the six or so years since that original legislation was passed in 1994, or possibly even earlier than that. I forget. There were a number of bills on this, but, whenever it was, it has been applied consistently for at least six years. We have discovered that there was technically a different requirement. We are attempting to restore the requirement that was intended to be in the legislation from day one.

It was the intent of the Labor government of the day that members should disclose their gifts other than personal gifts. It was not the Labor government's intention that they should have to disclose income that was personal in nature. We know that from the nature of the debate that took place when that legislation was first introduced. So the hypocrites opposite, who now say that they believe that now that we have drawn this anomaly to their attention and that we now have two different standards and we should go to the higher standard, are being absolutely insincere.

They have seen, for the last six years at least, that there was no need to disclose these things. This lack of necessity to disclose did not trouble them in the least. Where was their motion, their legislation, at any time in the last six years to raise the standard, to raise the bar as they now say it should be raised? Where was it? They did not have any legislation; they did not have any motion. They did not even express any public or private concern apparently about the situation as it stood because they were perfectly happy with it.

It is only the opportunity to have a go, apparently, at the crossbenchers at this stage that generates this opportunistic and highly hypocritical resort to "probity" by the Australian Labor Party. These people who rake in the dollars from poker machines year in and year out have absolutely no compunction about coming into this place and casting votes in this place that protect and shore up their vested interests. Mr Speaker, that is what the ordinary person in the street, I suspect, would have considerable concerns about, not the fact that members are not disclosing their private incomes.

I am not aware of any state or territory in Australia where disclosure of the kind that Labor is now talking about is required. I am not aware of it happening anywhere. In fact, I suspect that the existing ACT requirements for disclosure and the register of members' interests probably falls close to the upper end of the benchmark for disclosure for members of parliament in this country. So we have nothing to apologise about in this place in terms of disclosure of our position, nothing whatsoever. If Labor suddenly thinks that they have a problem with the level of disclosure, the question could well be asked: why didn't you do anything about it before now?

Mr Quinlan: FAI/Waldorf.

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