Page 3416 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 August 2008

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

It does raise some concerns, though. For instance, what if a family member of a party is employed by another member? Is that a conflict of interest? What if a member employs, for instance, a member of the management committee of their party, seeking influence? Is that covered? That could be far more telling. What if a family member or a partner is employed by the Assembly? Is that a conflict of interest? Where does this stop?

We of the Liberal Party have always believed in merit—that people should be employed because they are capable of doing the job. Part of the ability to do the job is to have the integrity to act appropriately when doing that job. What this says is that there are two classes of people. So much for the Labor Party and its view of equity—that all should be equal. What this is doing is saying that there are two classes of people: those who can be employed by the Assembly and those who cannot. Perhaps it is timely that we have a real discussion about where this finishes, because what this starts is most unfortunate.

I would like to point out the dictionary definition to members. The dictionary definition refers to a family member who is:

(a) a domestic partner of the person; or

(b) a parent or step-parent of the person; or

(d) a child or step-child of the person; or

(e) a child or step-child of the person’s domestic partner; or

(f) a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister of the person; or

(g) a grandparent of the person; or

(h) an uncle, aunt or cousin of the person.

I would like somebody—perhaps you would like to clarify your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker—to identify the person in Mr Seselja’s office who falls into those categories from (a) to (h). Unless you can—unless you can point that out—your ruling is false and inaccurate.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, you can—

MR SMYTH: I am asking for clarification, Mr Assistant Speaker. You have made a ruling. I am just trying to clarify your words.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, you can either debate the bill or move a motion in—

MR SMYTH: I am trying to debate the dictionary. Don’t you like the dictionary, Mr Assistant Speaker? I am just asking you about the—

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