Senator COOK (Minister for Trade) (11.28 a.m.) —Mr Acting Deputy President, the motion before the chamber is one proposed by the government to provide for members of this chamber declaring their pecuniary interests and having them available on the public record so that citizens in this country can check to see the vested interests of members of this chamber. They can then consider those vested interests when members speak and vote on matters of policy and on bills and legislation in this place.

  There is a fundamental rightness about this proposal. The fundamental rightness is recognised by the Labor Party, and has been so recognised consistently over a long period of time. It is, for us, a fundamental principle. It is a principle that is espoused not only by us; it is widely held by all commentators on democracy. Democracy does consist of the right of individuals to vote; and democracy consists of the right of individuals, when casting their vote, to know the policies and the personalities for whom they are voting. We would argue that democracy consists, as well, of those electors voting knowing not only the policies and the personalities, but also the private vested interests of those personalities, which may or may not have an influence over how they conduct their affairs in the parliament. Democracy consists of many things, and there will be a lot of debate about what it consists of in its entirety. But certainly it consists of those things; and of those things there can be no debate.

  It is because of that recognition, quietly held in the back of the mind of the opposition even, that the opposition has never had the courage to come out and directly oppose this motion. The opposition has never said, `We are absolutely opposed to pecuniary interests being revealed'. What the opposition has done has been more sneaky than that. The opposition has said, `We support pecuniary interests. But not at this time. But not in this form. But in some other appropriate way. And, because of the `buts', we shall not proceed with doing it now'. In that way, the opposition got around the principle by pretending to uphold it but, in reality, defeating it.

  We have now arrived at a point in time at which the opposition can run, but the opposition cannot hide anymore. The opposition has to face the fact that this chamber at last appears to have acquired a majority in favour of giving some material force to the third principle of democracy that I have espoused, the right of the electorate to know the pecuniary interests of members of parliament.

  Mr Acting Deputy President, a principle that the Labor Party has long held and espoused and presented to this chamber may now at last be enacted by this chamber. Doing so will, of course, bring us into line with the House of Representatives, whose members are required, because of a government majority, to declare their pecuniary interests.

  It will bring the practice in this chamber also into line with the practice of the Labor ministry. As a minister in this government, I declare for the public record my pecuniary interests, and my pecuniary interests and those of all other ministers in this government are available for any person to see. We do it as a matter of principle; we do it because we uphold our own principles. Despite the reticence of the opposition to oblige and to bring this matter out of the shadows into the light, we will stand by and enact our own principles.

  We have paid some political costs for doing that. So be it; we will pay those costs because the principle is more important in the observance by us than some small political damage that may be done in the way in which parliamentary and political debate is sometimes conducted in this country.

  The first point I wish to make is that, ritually, at the beginning of every session we present this motion. Ritually, at the beginning of each session, it is usually defeated; and, ritually, the argument is: `We do not oppose it, but not now. It is too difficult; there are other complications'. I think we need to go back to the very first and fundamental principles that I espoused.

Senator Newman —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Cook is misleading the Senate in that he is purporting to claim that this has come to a vote in the Senate and we have rejected it. It has never, ever come to a vote in the Senate, and I would ask you to call him into line. Rather than mislead the Senate, he should retract.

  The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Senator Newman would know that what she has raised is not a point of order. It is merely a debating point.

Senator COOK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I never said that there had been a vote in the Senate. I said that it had been defeated, and one can defeat things in this place by voting them down or talking them out, or having them deferred and put on the never-never so that they are not actually dealt with.

  It is interesting that there is passion in members of the opposition in that they do not want to be pinned down on the fact that they have avoided implementing a practice of revealing their pecuniary interests. There is a field of argument open to me now to explore under the heading, `Why would they do that? What is the motivation for it and do they have something to hide?'. I do not propose to develop that argument, but I want to note for the record that that is a field of argument. When someone so passionately objects, one is led logically to ask: why do they so passionately feel about it and is there something to hide here?

  In any case, from the Labor side, we do not want to hide anything; and that is why we have followed this practice in the House of Representatives and in the government and why we seek to obtain an observance of the practice in this chamber.

  I want to turn to some of the arguments that have been put here by Senator Hill. Before I do, let me go back to a point I made earlier. My interests are declared because the government has decided, rightly, that ministers of the Crown should put on the public record what their interests are.

Senator Archer —What does it declare?

Senator COOK —It declares all of my financial interests.

Senator Archer —None of your financial interests.

Senator COOK —It does. I filled out the form. At the beginning of each term of government, ministers are presented by the Prime Minister with a form to fill out for placing on the public record what our pecuniary interests are. I have filled it out a number of times now and I know what the form contains. What the form contains is a declaration of my financial interests.

Senator Panizza —No, it doesn't.

Senator COOK —Yes, it does. I declare on that what property I own, what mortgages I hold, in what banks I maintain accounts, what associations I belong to and what shares I hold. I have to say that mine is a pretty damn boring form because I do not happen to be a shareholder in any company and my form is that of an ordinary wage or salary earner of this country. The most enlivening thing about it would be that it would declare the extent of my mortgage. I may not be the only one in that category. Certainly a number of my colleagues are.

  But, were this resolution to be adopted, a number of my other colleagues and, I expect, a number of the opposition would have to declare what shareholdings they have and with whom they have them. That should be publicly known so that, if matters occur in debate in this chamber in which the interests of those particular companies are advantaged, then we will know what are the pecuniary interests of the people participating in that debate. It is the electorate's fundamental right to know that.

  The fact that I am not a shareholder is probably a reflection on me. The fact that my pecuniary interests declaration is boring because it just reveals my mortgage and my bank account is probably a reflection on me. But I am not a typical case in all of those circumstances. I draw the opposition's attention to one of the things that my form does declare, which they have been happy to use politically against me in debate and in trying to besmirch my name in the community. On the form I also declare the associations and organisations of which I am a member. One of those organisations is the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia. In the last term of government I was industrial relations minister, and several members of the opposition accused me of conducting my affairs of office as a minister of the Crown in a partisan way because I was a member of a trade union.

  Honourable senators will remember the debate in this chamber. I have never shrunk from that allegation. I declared it on the public record. I am proud of that membership. The point is that, because I was honest enough to tell honourable senators, they could draw the attention of the rest of the community to that fact and they could judge me and my performance accordingly—and they should have been able to do so. All I am saying in this debate is that, where honourable senators on the other side have an interest by shareholding in or by association with any organisations, the test they applied to me should equally be able to be applied to them. That is a fundamental principle, I believe.

  The second point I want to make is, because the Prime Minister also declares his interests, members on the other side are aware that the Prime Minister has an interest in a piggery. There are very few electors in this country who do not know that and they know it because of the declared interests that we put down on the forms. They know it for that reason. They were then able to pursue a line of inquiry to see whether the Prime Minister had conducted himself correctly or misconducted himself. It was a line of inquiry that exonerated the Prime Minister absolutely, but while the inquiry was being conducted by the opposition it enabled innuendo and besmirchment of his reputation to take place. That is the political cut and thrust. All we say is the standards we observe in the declaration of those interests ought to be standards the opposition observes so that where similar circumstances apply appropriate probing of motive and reason can be conducted.

  I heard here a moment ago a contribution to this debate made by the leader of the opposition, Senator Robert Hill. He made several points. I do not propose to canvass all of them but this is one of the points he made that is worthy of mention. He argued it is not appropriate for this Senate to adopt this resolution on pecuniary interests and have the pecuniary interests of all members of this Senate put on a public register for inspection by the public because the media, who may have a more influential role in shaping public perceptions and opinions, do not declare their pecuniary interests. So the argument went.

  As my colleague Senator Barney Cooney would know, being a learned lawyer and familiar with the classics, what Senator Hill has uttered is a classic fallacy. The fallacy is we cannot do it because someone else is not doing it. The logic is that we are the elected representatives of the people of this country; we make the laws in this chamber and the people of this country are entitled to know what our pecuniary interests are when we make those laws. The fact that there may also arguably be an equal case for the gallery and for journalists does not absolve us from our principal responsibility of declaring our interests. To say, `We won't declare ours because they are not declaring theirs', is not an argument; it is a fallacy to put it that way and it is a recognised classical fallacy to do it.

  It may well be there is a case for journalists to declare their interests and it may well be that that is a matter for consideration for this chamber, but it is not a reason for objecting to and obstructing the passage of this motion at all. As I return to the fundamental point—

Senator Panizza —Have you got a mortgage or not?

Senator COOK —Yes, I have actually paid mine off now.

Senator Newman —When did you declare it? When did you pay it off?

Senator COOK —It is on the record. Honourable senators are able to ask that question because they know what my commitments are because I declare mine. Why do they not declare theirs, so I can ask them a similar question?

  I will come back to this first point by Senator Hill. It may well be that there is a case for the media that report parliament to declare their vested interests too, but we are the ones that stand for election, we are the ones who make the laws and we are the ones who are under public scrutiny. It is not reasonable to say, `Because the press do not declare theirs, we shall not declare ours'. We should declare ours and insist on a proper standard of public conduct by making an example of ourselves and standing by the principle ourselves, extending a proper example of public conduct to others as well.

  The second point I heard Senator Hill raise was that in the manner in which this resolution is cast it is an invasion of privacy of spouses and children, and why not include de factos. I am not an expert on family law but my understanding as a rough layman is that in the way in which family law is often practised these days de factos or partners, as they are sometimes called, are regarded in terms of marriage breakup and property settlement as about equal to legal spouses. It may well be that an interpretation of wives or spouses or husbands includes those in a de facto relationship, but it is a minor point. It is a point that we should deal with. I do not shrink from it, but it is not a substantial point to prevent the passage of this legislation.

  Let me now go to the principal point that it is an invasion of privacy to ask the spouses and children of members in this place to lodge, privately, with a group of senators who have the responsibility for maintaining this record, their pecuniary interests. The way in which this motion is being passed protects that privacy. I think there should be a record—it is absolutely fundamental to a declaration of pecuniary interests that there be a record—of the pecuniary interests of spouses and children of members in this place. It is well known that people can escape taxation or scrutiny, and that they can evade obligations and rights by putting it in the wife's name, or in the husband's name, as the case may be, or in the kid's name and pretending that they therefore do not have any obligation. That is a well-known practice. I do not have to elaborate on that; we all recognise that it occurs.

  It would be false to pretend that pecuniary interests have been properly declared, if the real interests were not available in some way. Therefore, putting it in the wife's name, or in the husband's name, or listing the interests transferred by the principal to the children, should occur in some form, but their privacy should be protected; and this motion does protect that. There is a record so that in case there is a conflict we are aware of it. I think that is an appropriate way to do it. I do not accept the argument that privacy is a defence against a declaration of what the real and proper interests are.

  The third argument that I heard Senator Hill put was that it requires the details of shareholdings and, yes, it does. He then went on to say that some of these shares may be worthless and that some of them may have been devalued over time or have no meaning. I could equally say that some of these shares may be very worthwhile, have real meaning, not be devalued and be very important in assessing whether or not members have been motivated by financial gain rather than proper conduct as members of this place. Whether they are worthless will be obvious once they are declared and once they are seen or known to be worthless. The extra clerical work required by an individual to get out those records, and put them down on the register, is a small price to pay for having some record of the full shareholding, which is the principal point. To once again raise a minor obstruction to try to delay, prevent or obfuscate the principal issue is not an argument.

  Fourthly, Senator Hill went on to name four people, all of whom were ministers—in one case, a Prime Minister—saying that we had learnt of their shareholdings or pecuniary interests. He named Senator Richardson, Mr Howe, former Senator John Button and the Prime Minister, Mr Keating. In the case of Senator Richardson, he said that he omitted to declare a shareholding. He did, and he admitted that he had omitted to do so. I cannot see that, if someone neglects or omits to properly report on the register, that is a reason not to have a register. It is a reason to deal with what happens in the case of improperly reporting, or neglecting to report, for the register: it is not a substantial argument about the register itself.

  In the case of Mr Howe, he said that, when Mr Howe was Minister for Defence Support, he declined or neglected or omitted to declare that his wife was sitting on a town planning board. Obviously, the connection here is that the defence industry acquires property compulsorily, and the implication sought to be drawn here is that there may in some way be a connection between that ministerial activity and the responsibilities of the spouse in this particular case. No suggestion of any impropriety has ever been raised on this, I might say, and, looking at this case, I am absolutely certain that no impropriety in any way occurred. The offence is that the interest of the wife, in terms of this town planning position, was not declared. Under our system, one presumes that interest would in some way be declared, but protected in the privacy way which I referred to earlier. Again, a neglect or overlooking or evasion of the obligation is not a reason to not have a register.

  Then, in the case of former Senator Button, it was said that it was believed that he was a non-beneficiary to a trust and that that trust had an interest in BHP at a time when BHP was being taken over. I thought the salient point in that sentence was that former Senator Button was a non-beneficiary. But, of course, one could go further and say, `While he may not gain, the trust could gain by his activities'.

Senator Archer —He was in contravention.

Senator COOK —If he was in contravention then, it is not a reason once again—and I do not know whether he was in contravention and, as I recall the speech by Senator Hill, it was not alleged directly and explicitly that he was in contravention—to not have a register.

  I have dealt with the question of the Prime Minister. Very few Australians do not know that the Prime Minister has a shareholding in a piggery. One of the reasons why they know is that he declared it and it is publicly available.

Senator Panizza —Are you a member of the Wildcats or not?

Senator COOK —In case anyone is bemused by the meaning of that interjection, I take it to refer to the Perth Wildcats, a National Basketball League team. The answer is no, I am not a member, Senator.

Senator Panizza —You carry on as if you are.

Senator COOK —I thank the honourable senator for lowering the tone of the debate. I come to a conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy President, which is this: the Labor Party has consistently put this matter forward as a matter of principle. Whatever else is being said about it by members of the opposition, they have never directly opposed it; they have always found a reason to delay it or not apply it now, or a defect in it which would prevent it going forward. But if one goes back to first principles, there is a first principle in a democracy that the electors and the citizens of a country are entitled to know what the pecuniary or vested interests of their members of parliament are. What the approach of the opposition over the years has served to do is prevent them knowing that as far as this Senate is concerned because of obstruction or objections raised on matters of detail and not relating to the point. Now we have come to the point and there appears to be a will in this place to enact on the point. That is pleasing for us and it is about time, and it ought to have happened sooner.

  The second point I make is that, while a number of arguments have been raised, none of those arguments, when examined and dealt with logically, in any way defeat the fundamental point that we should do this. Maybe they argue that we should do it in a slightly different way or in a better way, or that some people have not observed the rules once they have been made in the past. None of those arguments are sufficient to defeat the point. The point should carry, and it should carry in this chamber unanimously. I would be disappointed if it did not, because it would then provide the people outside who harbour cynicism about the motivation of politicians, about whether this should properly be called the coward's castle or about whether or not we hide behind privilege, fuel and ammunition for those cynics to again make those allegations. It is about time this chamber rose above that and did the right thing.