- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 13 November 2002
Leader of the Opposition Pecuniary Interest Disclosure
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 24 of 53
| Next Item »
Page: 6689
Urgent Motion
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [3.41 p.m.]: I move:
(1) requests the Leader of the Opposition and member for Pittwater to present to the House by 11.00 a.m. on 14 November 2002 all documents, including contracts, letters of engagement, instruction invoices, payment advices, client activity reports, receipts, correspondence and all other papers concerning:
(a) income received by him and Northmist Pty Ltd from PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dunhill Madden Butler either directly or indirectly through any third party;
(b) details of specific services performed by the Leader of the Opposition that gave rise to income from PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dunhill Madden Butler; and
(c) his full list of clients.
(2) Further requests the Leader of the Opposition to table all documents relating to his relationship with any other company to which he has provided paid service while he was a shadow Minister for Planning or a member of Parliament.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald reports matters of grave concern that go to the heart of the integrity of one of the senior members of this House—the Leader of the Opposition—and to the fact that while he was a member of Parliament and shadow Minister he was acting as a consultant for law firms Dunhill Madden Butler and PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal. He has been paid $110,000 in that capacity through his consultancy firm, Northmist Pty Ltd. He had not openly declared that source of income to this House in accordance with the Constitutional (Disclosure by Members) Regulation 1983 until the matter was brought to his attention by a journalist, and asked questions in this House as shadow planning Minister in matters in which PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal was acting for developers and he was, at the same time, acting for that firm as a consultant.
The Leader of the Opposition has been the most voluble champion of the pecuniary interests register and the most shrill defender of ministerial and parliamentary standards. Let him be held by those standards. The Leader of the Opposition must explain why he has asked questions in Parliament about matters in which his client is involved and from whom he has received money. The Leader of the Opposition must explain whether he received cash for asking questions in this House. This House has the right to know and the duty to ask. What did the Leader of the Opposition have to hide in not disclosing the sources of income being received by his company, Northmist? Why did he only declare the source of Northmist's income when asked by a journalist?
Why did he continue his arrangement with Dunhill Madden Butler and Pricewaterhouse Coopers Legal after being made shadow Minister for Planning in April 1999? Did he act for Dunhill Madden Butler or PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal in any of the matters upon which he has asked questions in this House? Did he otherwise use his position as a member of Parliament to raise issues and seek information that would directly or indirectly benefit Dunhill Madden Butler or PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal or their clients? Who were the clients of Dunhill Madden Butler and PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal for whom Northmist was paid to provide advice?
The Leader of the Opposition must make the position clear with respect to the Victoria Park project. When he asked his questions on notice was the Leader of the Opposition acting on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers because of its dispute with Landcom or did he ask them on behalf of the unsuccessful tenderer, St Hilliers, which was also a PricewaterhouseCoopers client? Until these questions are answered the Leader of the Opposition must stand accused of entertaining, for a period of more than four years, an intolerable conflict of interest. He must labour under the suspicion that he has abused his position of trust as a member of Parliament and shadow Minister to gain private advantage for himself, the company engaging him and its clients.
This Parliament is entitled to suspect, until otherwise proven, that he has engaged in cash for questions and in doing so has brought grave disrepute to himself and to this House. The secretive nature of the payments to Northmist and the fact that they continued for three years while he was shadow Minister are suggestive of moral turpitude. This matter invariably brings into question the fitness of the Leader of the Opposition to hold the high office to which he has been elected by his party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the fourth time.
Dr REFSHAUGE: That therefore brings into question his fitness to continue to represent the people of Pittwater. It brings into question his fitness to continue to represent the people of Pittwater with the degree of confidence they are entitled to have in their representative. No more serious allegations have hung over the leader of his party since the late Robert Askin. This Parliament is rightly the judge of its own standards and those of its members. In today's press conference the Leader of the Opposition said in answer to a question, "Landcom were a client of PWC Legal. I criticise Landcom." Why? Is it because Landcom was in conflict with his own client, PricewaterhouseCoopers? The Leader of the Opposition must be and will be held to account. He must be and will be judged by the standards he has set for others. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [3.48 p.m.]: I have no concern about complying with this motion in whatever capacity I am able to, and I will do it at my earliest convenience. However, I will do two things. First, I want to explain to the Minister the true events surrounding the Landcom matter. On 15 October 2001 an article in the Australian Financial Review entitled "Height bungle bumps St Hilliers" referred to the incompetence of Landcom with respect to a property matter at Zetland. As the Minister well knows, I have been a reasonable critic of Landcom's commercial activities for some time, and have been consistent on that point. On that same day I issued a press release entitled "Landcom's inexperience with the Zetland site". That was run subsequently on 16 October 2001, with the Australian Financial Review quoting me. I subsequently asked a number of questions of the Minister on 27 November and answers were received—
Mr Souris: On matters in the public domain.
Mr BROGDEN: On matters in the public domain—on matters with respect to Landcom, a matter for which I was responsible as shadow Minister. In debate on the Landcom Corporation Bill on 5 December 2001 I also criticised in some detail the whole Landcom Zetland deal. At no stage was I aware, until yesterday, that PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal had any role with Landcom, and that matter was brought to my attention by the Sydney Morning Herald in questioning. Finally, I refer to a document entitled "Re: Ordinary Returns and the Constitution (Disclosure by Members) Regulation 1983". It is a memorandum of advice provided and signed by Henric Nicholas of Selborne Chambers, who is one of the country's leading barristers. The advice refers to my pecuniary interests returns lodged in 1999 and 2000. The advice concludes:
It is my firm opinion that the disclosures made in paragraph 3, section B in each case in the terms already referred to constitutes full compliance by Mr Brogden with the requirements of clause 9(2)(c) of the Regulation.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [3.51 p.m.]: The Leader of the Opposition has found himself with a substantial conflict between his public duty and his private interest. As a member of this place, as the Leader of the Opposition and as a frontbench member, he has a number of duties to this House, to his electorate and to his party. Those duties include discharging his obligations without fear or favour. Those duties require him to perform his various functions without being paid, in effect, by private interests. Those public duties seem to be in clear conflict with his private interest, that is, being paid a substantial sum of money by PricewaterhouseCoopers via Dunhill Madden Butler. As I said, there is a clear conflict, on the face of it, between his public duty and his private interests.
This Parliament has developed a structure to deal with such conflicts and that is a thing called the pecuniary interests register so that declarations can be made. In that context, it is particularly disturbing that a very large payment of money was not recognised or acknowledged on the pecuniary interests form for a considerable period. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has hidden it. The item concerned was not on the 1998 register, the 1999 register or the 2000 register. It was only mentioned on the 2001 pecuniary interests register. In that context, it is utterly beside the point, and it does not deal with the criticism to produce a silk's advice to say that he complied with the technical requirements. If that is the case, why did he change the register? If the silk's advice is right, if in fact the Leader of the Opposition complied with all his obligations, why did he have to change the register? There is a fundamental problem with the position he adopts. If the silk's advice had dealt with that point it might be a lot more substantial.
Mr O'Farrell: Did you give that advice to Eddie?
Mr LYNCH: I thank the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai for giving me a point to attack the Leader of the Opposition. The interjection of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai relates to another issue. Another problem for the Leader of the Opposition in this debate is that he has been complaining at length, and loudly, about other issues and other members. If that is the case, he must stand condemned by his own words. He cannot pretend to have one set of standards for Government members and another set of standards for himself and other Opposition members. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has inconsistent standards for himself and for Government members leads to one conclusion: He is a hypocrite. There is no other word to describe his performance. In his view, producing a silk's advice solves his problem. Other people who produce similar advice cannot—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on three calls to order.
Mr LYNCH: The question of why the Leader of the Opposition has only got around to declaring this interest three years later is interesting. One must inevitably ask the question: Why has he declared it now? What has brought about this extraordinary recollection, and this display of honesty and integrity? It is very simple—journalists got to him. That is the only reason that he has declared this interest now. Inevitably, that goes to his credit and his integrity. As has been said in this debate a couple of times already, the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour, which is currently under discussion, goes to the heart of this institution and to the integrity of this place. It is about the payment of private money to perform public duties. That is thoroughly inconsistent with anything that can be regarded as a proper discharge of duties.
It means that the Leader of the Opposition becomes a member of Parliament [MP] for hire. It means that he is adopting the same sordid tactics that were adopted by Tory backbenchers at the tail end of the Major Government. He is replicating that sleazy exercise in the House of Commons. He has adopted all of the worst aspects of the Tory Party in England—in this way and in a number of other ways, I hasten to add. Another interesting point that emerges from this is that many people in my electorate would regard MPs as being fairly well paid. We do comparatively well in terms of pay, compared to the people in my electorate. Why does the Leader of the Opposition need the extra money? Why are members opposite so greedy that they are not content with an MP's salary? What drives them to get every last conceivable cent they can?
[Interruption]
The honourable member for The Hills interjects about the politics of envy. This is about the politics of greed—the greed of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not prepared to perform his duties in this place for the salary the public pays him. He needs more money; he wants an extra $100,000 over a number of years because he is not content. If he is not prepared to perform the functions and duties he has in this place for the money he gets paid, there is a simple solution. He should get the hell out and go somewhere where he can make more money. There are certainly enough members opposite to cover his position. I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he wants to comply with the motion and produce all the documents. However, another question is: How many other times has he been paid? What else has he been paid for?
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [3.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Liverpool for his support of this motion. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition said that he will be able to comply with the motion to the best of his abilities. The nub of this question is clear: The Leader of the Opposition must explain why he asked questions in Parliament about matters in which his client was involved and from whom he received money. He must explain whether he received cash for asking questions. Neil Hamilton did exactly that in the British House of Commons. We need to ensure that it does not happen here. I urge all honourable members to support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:40:50 : Update this page