<< back to archive index Speech Regarding a Bill Date: Unknown Subject: Disclosure and Elimination of Pecuniary Interest in Legislative Assembly From Hansard "Ms Lee Rhiannon (Greens) moved: That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 126 be amended to read: ”126 No Member shall be entitled to vote in any Division upon a Question in which the Member, the Member's spouse or the Member's children have a direct pecuniary interest, not in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects and on a matter of State Policy, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed.” ACE said in response to the Motion: “I am pleased the Greens have taken up the issue of probity of members' pecuniary interests, which has been of concern to the Democrats for a long time, as has election funding. I understand the amendment will not affect members who have an interest in a profession, be they doctors, farmers or lawyers, who could, at least in theory, be argued to have a personal conflict of interest if debating a bill or other matter the subject of which related to their professions. I am given to understand by the explanation given by the honourable member that her proposal merely adopts Senate procedures. That does not, however, mean that the standing orders should be written in stone. This is an evolving issue, and if the Senate is a little ahead of this State in this area, that should not preclude members of this Parliament considering this matter further. ”The freedom of members' partners and children is somewhat curtailed by the amendment to the standing order. It is an unfortunate fact that we live in an age when adult children are non-dependent and have lives quite separate from those of parent members. It is not simply a question of spouses' financial interests. The unresolved question is: Who will determine whose vote should be disregarded? It is one thing to say that a vote should be disallowed. It is another to say who will determine which vote should be disallowed. If a vote is tight, should members of Parliament involved in the tight vote exclude from voting a member whose vote may decide an issue on the basis that that member has some pecuniary interest? What if some of those members have an interest in excluding that member's vote in order to fiddle the numbers? That also is an issue that should be considered. We should not just consider what the Senate is doing and go right ahead with that. I am inclined to accept the Government's amendment. I congratulate the Greens on moving to amend the standing order, but I accept the Government's amendment so that the committee may examine the issues more closely and advance the matter in historical terms, rather than quickly latching onto the Senate amendment as the status quo and inserting it into our standing orders."

home | about | ace at work | issues & projects | media | links | sitemap