David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

Well, they're different because they actually raise different subject matters—actual rather than potential and potential rather than perceived. Many people might recognise that there's a perceived conflict of interest even if they don't recognise there as an actual one. Let me see if I can think of any random individual who might adopt that approach. Major General Brereton would be a case in point.

My second question is just a matter of clarification. It's my party's assumption that these amendments to schedule 3 only operate prospectively, not retrospectively. Therefore, if there had been any defect to date, it wouldn't be cured by this. But can we just be clear?