Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1946 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Having regard to the high standards, the height of the bar that has been set and advocated here tonight, I know that each of the Independents will support the Labor Party in this amendment. They have no option but to support it, having regard to the very fine speeches that we have heard tonight in relation to the need for openness and accountability and the right of all to know everything about each of us. I know that each of you will be only too willing to support a Labor proposal that each of us declare all sources of all our income. I commend this amendment. I think the Liberal Party has indicated that it will not support it. I am looking for the support of Independents and I am sure that I will receive it.
MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (10.27): Mr Stanhope is quite right: the Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendment, which would reverse the amendment made to the disclosure scheme last year to limit the disclosure of income that is required of MLAs. The effect of the amendment would be to require all MLAs to disclose all sources of income other than personal gifts which have been made to the MLA in a private capacity and which have not been used, and will not be used, for a purpose related to his or her position as an MLA.
Under this amendment, all MLAs would be required to disclose income from salary, investments, bank accounts, property, all sources of employment and so on. This disclosure obligation used to be included in the Electoral Act as it applied to Independent MLAs before the amendment made last year, although the breadth of this provision was unintended and it was not enforced. This amendment reduces the disclosure obligation of Independent MLAs to a requirement only to disclose gifts received by an MLA in his or her capacity as an MLA. It was considered that the pre-2000 provisions were unduly onerous and intrusive, particularly as they applied only to Independent MLAs, not to all MLAs. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 extends the disclosure entitlements currently imposed on Independent MLAs to all MLAs, but does not change what income has to be disclosed, that is, only gifts received in an official capacity have to be disclosed. We will be opposing Mr Stanhope's amendment.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (10.28): Mr Stanhope implies that you never have to declare these gifts anywhere. In fact, that is not what it is about. When you become an MLA you are required to provide to the Speaker a declaration of your personal interests, and that is accessible. That is the correct place to have it. I have to say that I have no personal interest here, because this place is my only source of income, apart from very small amounts of interest occasionally when my accounts go into the black. They are contained in our declarations of interest, which a member of the public can go and look at. Being intrusive in regard to family incomes and other sources beyond that is not the role of the Electoral Commissioner. It is a role here for the Clerk. For Mr Stanhope to stand there in a self-righteous way and run things in the fashion that he has is entirely inappropriate because the declaration has already been made in the appropriate place.
MR RUGENDYKE
(10.31): Mr Stanhope's amendment is contrary to the advice of the Electoral Commissioner. The Electoral Commissioner gave a very well argued view that it was not in the public interest to have this degree of disclosure. Public interest is an interesting thing. I suppose Mr Stanhope will be able to tell us the public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .