Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, I'm quite happy to. I don't want to be interjected on while I'm making my remarks, through you, Mr Deputy President. We have looked at this debate. These questions that have been asked of Mr Dreyfus—he has disclosed in his member's interests register everything that is required of him. On the other hand, we have seen countless episodes from members in the Liberal Party where we've been unable to even have a public debate about the nature of a conflict of interest, because they have squirrelled and hidden away their interests and their vested interests.

Mark Dreyfus, our Attorney-General, has been absolutely clear and transparent about his interests, and he has said very clearly that he expects to have to divest those interests if—if!—it should be satisfied that there is a perception of a conflict of interest, according to the requirements of the code.

This high standard that the Attorney-General has set and that this government has set is not a standard that those opposite were ever prepared to hold themselves to. There was not even a provision in the code of conduct of the previous government that would see someone divesting themselves of shares because of any perceived conflict of interest. We've seen this over and over again. Those opposite have had inherent conflicts of interest as ministers in the cabinet, making decisions whilst owning shares.

We have set a high standard, and there's nothing wrong with probing the merits of that here in question time. That's fine. That's appropriate. But we have a collective responsibility in this place—be we senators, members of the executive or not—to bear in mind what has gone on for decades before. We are pursuing, under the Prime Minister, a divestment process where these matters are ultimately asked about, and that is indeed what is taking place. Those opposite never held themselves to account in such a way.

Senator Wong, in responding to those questions, was very clear in what she said. The minister outlined that those questions have been asked about a number of ministers in the House this week and that they have been appropriately answered, based on the accountability of the ministerial standards. I liked the colour and flavour in Senator Wong's answer, where our leader said, 'That doesn't satisfy your thirst for some political chutzpah, that we should have such straightforward, clear, transparent processes.'

It's all very well for those opposite to seek to get some political mileage out of this, when they have never ever sought to set a decent standard at all. To that end, under the last government we did not ever see a national anticorruption commission that could also have oversight of such matters. We are very clear and positive in our duty to introduce legislation to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission in the next session of parliament. (Time expired)