Mr FITZGIBBON (10:46 AM) —I think it was appropriate that you allowed the member for Calare to range widely on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Members of Local Government Bodies) Bill 2002 because it does give us an opportunity to pay some recognition to those who make such a large contribution to our local government bodies.

Following on from the member for Calare I, too, would like to acknowledge my local mayors, with whom I am very fortunate to have a very good working relationship—Peter Blackmore at Maitland, John Clarence at Cessnock, Fred Harvison at Singleton and John Colvin at Muswellbrook, a fine group of men. It is unfortunate that they are all men. We have had women filling those positions in the past in the valley. These men have very good teams of people behind them and they do an excellent job in every sense in a non-political way. I am very fortunate that there is not too much politics in councils in my local area. I work very well with the mayors, their councillors and their council staff regardless of the varying political persuasions.

Like others, I support this bill. As the member for Banks said, it is commonsense to do so. I do not know why the Queensland Labor government in 1993—I think it was the Goss Labor government—chose to attempt to block councillors seeking federal office. No doubt it was politically motivated. I think it was a pretty silly thing to do.

The member for Blair said it was about blocking the career paths of some conservative politicians. I suspect that it might have been more about trying to get corruption out of local and federal politics. I know there were some very deep concerns in Queensland at the time about corruption at the local government level. I suppose people saw a blurring of the responsibilities. I can understand why people might not want members sitting in the federal parliament when they are, at the same time, sitting on the local government authority. But that does not excuse the state government's attempts to block someone from entering parliament as a councillor. That is grossly unfair.

The member for Braddon may have been forced to resign his position on the council before coming to this place. Why did he do that? Because there was some concern at that time that to be elected to the federal parliament while sitting as a councillor might offend section 44 of the Constitution, the office of profit under the Crown provision. If the member for Braddon had resigned his position on council and been unsuccessful in his bid for the parliament he would have been left stranded and the people in his local area would have been all the poorer for it. They would have lost the opportunity to have not only a fantastic member representing them in this place but also a fantastic local representative. It makes no sense to stop the transition from council to the parliament.

I am very pleased that the latest legal advice seems to be that sitting in this place and on a local council at the same time does not breach section 44 of the Constitution, although it does go to the question, not of the words `profit' or `office', but of what constitutes a position `under the Crown'. When the founding fathers inserted this provision they were looking to uphold the separation between the bureaucracy and the legislature, which was a very fine thing to do. But the High Court in its judgments really does draw a very long bow on this provision, particularly in the case of the electorate of Wills, where Mr Cleary was found to be ineligible simply because he worked for the department of education at a state level and was on long service leave at the time. At some point the parliament should really have a look at addressing that by way of a referendum. Of course, we all know how suspicious and cynical the electorate can be on these matters, and history tells us such a referendum would be unlikely to be successful. But to claim that someone working for a state department of education holds what the Constitution terms an office of profit under the Crown really is drawing a very long bow.

Similarly, I do not mind acknowledging that to disqualify the member for Lindsay on the basis that she had not formally resigned from the Air Force was just silly. That is not what our founding fathers had in mind at the time of framing this provision, and it is unfortunate that it has been interpreted so widely. But, having said that it appears on the balance of legal advice that councillors do not hold an office of profit under the Crown, it very much depends on the state, the legislation that gives effect to the local government body and the relationship between the two. In New South Wales you probably do not have an office of profit under the Crown, but in other states—I am not so familiar with their legislation—that could be the case.

Local councillors have to be very careful when, as a councillor, they are appointed to statutory bodies constituted under state legislation, or federal legislation for that matter. In these cases, it could be that the councillor may not be disqualified on the basis of holding the council position, but might hold an office of profit under the Crown on the basis that they are a member, as the councillor, of the statutory body. I can give an example. The member for Paterson was elected to this place as a local government councillor and remains a local government councillor. But, prior to re-entering the parliament in 2002, the member for Paterson was appointed to the insurance inquiries and complaints board, which is a limited liability company—which poses questions in itself. Being a limited company, obviously it is an office of profit under the Crown. But the appointment was made by Minister Hockey—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have shown tolerance for the wide-ranging nature and content of this debate. This is a debate where there is no contention. The honourable member on the other side has made his point about office of profit. I do not think it is appropriate to be going into other members' issues in the terms of this debate. I would ask you to rule that he move on to the subject matter of the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—The honourable member for Hunter will come to the matter before the chair and the consideration of the bill.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I am addressing the matter of office of profit under the Crown, which is something very relevant to the bill before the House. Indeed, when I first saw the bill, I immediately asked in my own mind whether, like the Queensland government in 1993, we were acting ultra vires and whether we were in a position of usurping the Constitution and deciding who should and should not run for office. That is a question in itself. These are very important issues. As I was saying, Minister Hockey appointed the member for Paterson to this board, effective from 23 August 2000. The member for Paterson continued to sit on that board until the middle of last year.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member is reflecting on another member of the House.

Mr FITZGIBBON —Not at all, Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hunter is getting very broad in relation to the subject matter of the bill. I ask him to come back to the details of the bill, which is the local government bodies bill.

Mr FITZGIBBON —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not reflecting on the member for Paterson. I am just stating issues of fact. I have drawn into the debate questions about—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr FITZGIBBON —This is becoming ridiculous now, Bronwyn.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —In terms of what we are discussing, this is not germane to the subject matter of the bill. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member to move on in his speech.

Mr FITZGIBBON —On the point of order: this is a bill which seeks to validate the right of a local government councillor to run for high office. This is a question very important in the Australian community. There are also questions arising from this bill that go directly to the Constitution. I am outraged that the member for Mackellar should seek to deny me the right to raise constitutional issues in this place.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Further to the point of order: the point I was making is that, if there are points that he wishes to make about constitutionality, he can do it quite well without reflecting on another member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —On the point of order, the bill does touch on the electoral acts of the Commonwealth and it also deals with the Constitution. I ask the honourable member for Hunter not to reflect on any member of the House and to be conscious of that fact.

Mr FITZGIBBON —Out of respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do my very best not to do so. But this is a new precedent. One is not allowed to reflect on another member of the House? We are not allowed to pass judgments on people's decisions in this place? What an outrageous point for the member for Mackellar to be raising.

We have serious issues here about conflicts of interest. That is why the Queensland government drafted the legislation. I think their legislation was flawed. I think they got it wrong. But now the federal government is seeking to use its power over the states. These are serious matters. It is a serious matter when there are questions arising about one's eligibility to sit in this place. I ask the member for Mackellar this: if I cannot reflect on someone's qualification to be sitting in this place, what can I do here? What an outrageous thing to do. She is just protecting her mate; that is what she is doing. All those listening out there understand that only too well.

I was not reflecting on the member for Paterson; I was stating a fact. Minister Hockey appointed him to a board on 23 August 2000, and he continued to sit on that board until mid last year. That is not a reflection. I am just raising a question. What constitutes an office of profit under the Crown? I have had advice on this from John McCarthy QC—not particularly on the matter of the member for Paterson, but we had wide-ranging discussions on this matter.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The whole point about matters coming into this chamber is that they are to be non-contentious.

Mr FITZGIBBON —Like Iraq.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Member for Hunter.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —They come in here by agreement, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the rulings that you have made previously are quite appropriate, and I ask you to rule again.

Mr FITZGIBBON —On the point of order: these bills come here by agreement, but there is no agreement to be gagged—no agreement to forgo our constitutional right and our obligations to represent our electorates.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! You are talking to a point of order. Let me rule on the point of order raised by the member for Mackellar. Standing order 76 states:

The member for Hunter has not reflected on a member of the House in any way improperly. I do not uphold the point of order on the standing order, but I remind the member for Hunter of standing order 76. By substantive motion, he can raise issues of substance against any member he wishes.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a very astute one. The member for Mackellar raises the concern that I may be reflecting on another member. I am not. But I seem to recall another member reflecting on me this morning. That member just happened to be the member for Paterson, when he stood in the House and denied outright all the allegations I made about him in this place yesterday. It was an extraordinary thing for him to do. Unfortunately, I did not hear all of his contribution, but I did hear him deny certain things; for example, that he illegally excavated his property in the Port Stephens Shire. I have here a letter from the council, which states:

I seek leave to table the letter from the council.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to your ruling on standing order 76, when you ruled that the member was not reflecting on the member for Paterson. Clearly, in his last utterances he was. I ask you to uphold the standing order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the member for Hunter want to speak to the point of order?

Mr FITZGIBBON —No. I do not want to waste more time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member has raised matters that were raised in debate in the chamber. I ask the member to come back to the substance and to keep away from improperly reflecting on other members.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I seek leave to table the letter from Port Stephens Council to the member for Paterson or someone representing him, saying:

That work was carried out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Are you seeking leave?

Mr FITZGIBBON —I am.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Leave is not granted.

Mr FITZGIBBON —Surprise, surprise. This is a bill which seeks to clarify the qualification of local councillors to run for the federal parliament. It addresses legislation introduced by the Queensland parliament, obviously out of concern about conflicts of interest that can arise if people make the transition from local council to the federal parliament, and become a member of this place and a local councillor concurrently. That is what this bill is all about. These are the issues I raised in the parliament yesterday: about the member of Paterson threatening and bullying council officers in his capacity as a federal member sitting in this place to get his way on his development in his local electorate. This is outrageous stuff.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is again reflecting on another member. Clearly, he is trying to use this speech to make a personal attack. It is quite inappropriate. I ask you to uphold standing order 76.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hunter is going down a track which is far from the matters before the House. I ask the member for Hunter to come back to matters within the bill which do not reflect on an individual member's propriety.

Mr FITZGIBBON —If this is not a bill about the potential conflict of interest when people sit on a local council and in the federal parliament at the same time, I do not know what the bill is about. That is exactly what the bill is about. The member for Paterson came into the House this morning accusing me of misleading the House—as he did in relation to the ICAC investigation about the three-storey dwelling—but there it is! Yet the member for Mackellar reckons I am not being relevant to the bill.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, the member is flouting your ruling. I ask again that he return to the subject matter of the bill and not simply use this debate as a means of trying to denigrate a fellow member of parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Hunter is going down the lines of discussing one individual member. I ask him to broaden his discussion to the debate before the chair, which deals with this local government matter.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I will leave the member for Paterson momentarily and go to Councillor Geoff Robinson, one of the member for Paterson's colleagues. I want to extend an apology to Councillor Robinson because yesterday in the House I claimed that he was the person who undertook the illegal excavations. I was wrong. He was the person who carted away the excavated works and illegally dumped them in the sand dunes at Anna Bay. So I apologise to Councillor Robinson. He did not undertake the excavation; he took the rock away and illegally dumped it under the sand dunes at Anna Bay, where he has some contractual right to take sand.

These are serious issues. All the issues I am raising are entirely relevant to the bill—like Councillor Baldwin's attempt to stifle development in the arena development where his house is located—or will be located—by having the area rezoned.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to standing order 76. Clearly, the member on the other side thinks that it is highly hilarious that, having been asked to desist from reflecting on another member of this place, he continues to flout your ruling. He thinks it is highly amusing. I ask you to again uphold standing order 76.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hunter will come to the broader sections of the bill and not reflect on members, councillors or members of the House.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I move:

Question unresolved.

Sitting suspended from 11.08 a.m. to 11.16 a.m.