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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1339 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Ms Tucker's bill has the effect of putting all members on the same footing as far as disclosure goes, as Labor proposed last September through our unsuccessful amendments. I understand from what the minister just said that the government may be introducing amendments along those lines again. I am pleased to hear that.

Ms Tucker's bill also takes the requirements for the Register of Members' Interests into the provisions of the Electoral Act. I will perhaps dispense with the Labor Party's attitude to that initiative. Mr Smyth has just indicated that he would be prepared to proceed with this issue in some form in the future.

We wondered whether we might divide Ms Tucker's bill so that we could support the provisions that we previously supported or introduced and which were unsuccessful. However, on the basis of the statement that has just been made by the minister, I have to inform you now, Ms Tucker, that we will not be supporting this particular bill. I am pleased that at least those aspects of your bill that we have previously raised will be further pursued and debated when the government brings forward a further electoral amendment bill.

The Labor Party is not inclined to support taking the requirements of the Register of Members' Interests into the provisions of the electoral bill. The reporting requirements of the Electoral Act and the Register of Members' Interests reflect the electorate's right to know the pecuniary circumstances of their political representatives and those who are striving to become members. This right to know is the basis of Labor's view that the disclosure bar should be set as high as practicable.

Ms Tucker's bill, however, raises two questions, and I acknowledge that these same two issues were very much the focus of the comments just made by the minister. The two significant issues that arose for discussion are: firstly, should a distinction be drawn between members and candidates; and, secondly, how intrusive into family and members' circumstances do we need to be to satisfy the public's right to know?

In regard to the first question, Labor believes a distinction should be maintained between candidates and members, although I do concede in relation to the amendments we previously moved that it is difficult not to blur the distinction. The Electoral Act, however, regulates the conduct of elections and candidates. The Assembly's requirements are confined to members and their dependants. Thus the distinction between candidates and members will be maintained if the current system of reporting is maintained-that is, the Electoral Act dealing with all candidates and the Assembly, through its own members, dealing with the pecuniary interests of members.

Ms Tucker's bill would give a public servant, or at least a statutory official in the office of the Electoral Commissioner, a role in checking on the affairs of members and initiating, were the circumstance to arise, punitive action in the event of a breach. This would mean, as the minister indicated, a weakening of the separation of powers doctrine and it would also raise the possibility of abuse through the executive using the power to direct inquires against particular members.

Further, if the Electoral Commissioner were to act against a member, the commissioner would have no option but to take legal action. This would mean either no action or inappropriate action if the proper sanction should be political rather than legal. I must say

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