Senator ARCHER (12.25 p.m.) —I wish to speak on the subject before us. I do not have any objection to a full declaration of my interests, if that is the system that is to be applied. I totally object to being involved in some mysterious farce which is designed around what it does not say more than what it does say. The form that we have, and the subject of the exercise, is a declaration of senators' interests. However, the form does not say anything about whether these are the financial interests of the senator or other interests.

  I am much more likely to be influenced by my non-financial interests than by my financial ones. My upbringing, my associations, my friends and my background will all influence my decisions considerably more than whether I own a house in Wynyard, Tasmania, or whether I have shares in a mining company that went broke 10 years ago or anything of that sort. It is completely fallacious to pursue this line of reasoning—that the only influence on how we perform in this place is related to whether we have dollars tied up in a house, or whether we have an investment of some sort or whether we owe money. The whole premise is ridiculous. It gets us back to the stage of where we have to decide whether the principle has been decided and whether it is only the price that has to be determined. In my opinion that is certainly not the case.

  I also noticed that the declarations that we got from the last distribution are in fact not declarations but are only statements. It may be a better idea for them to be declarations so that people have to swear to the information that is on them. In many cases, the information is incomplete and inaccurate. It may be that it is inaccurate because of a slip, as in the case of Senator Button—and Senator Ray, was it? That has already been noted. I do not think that they had any intention of wilfully misleading the parliament. The fact that the forms are so garbled makes it quite easy for somebody in the positions that they were in to make a genuine mistake. But it is still a mistake. It is still contrary to what their requirements are. We do not wish to entertain anything where that is the case.

  I put forward a notice of motion yesterday or the day before that related to the handling of shares in this social security shambles. When I came to look through the register of interests, I found that there are only three or four government members who own shares or who declare them. I wonder whether they are in a position to determine what is the best and easiest way to deal with shares when clearly they do not have any experience in the matter.

Senator Coates —Why should we?

Senator ARCHER —I find it extraordinary that they claim to understand the ramifications of the share market when clearly they do not have any idea, through lack of experience. That is clearly demonstrated; otherwise they would not produce the sort of rubbish that we are dealing with now.

  The motion in part 3 refers to registrable interests, and under that we have items (a) to (n). I would like to deal with them in order. I think it is desirable that we look at what sort of nonsense this motion really is. Item (a) refers to `shareholders in public and private companies'. Does this mean that a person has five shares in BHP or 5,000 shares in BHP? Does it mean that he has one share in XY Holdings Pty Ltd or a million shares in it? Does it make any difference whether they are worth $1 each or $1,000 each? What is it supposed to tell us and what does it imply?

  I guess, if I were to put down that I had shares in BHP, people would say, `He is obviously a very wealthy man. He has shares in BHP'. It may be two shares. But if I put down that I have one share in XY Holdings Pty Ltd, that one share may be worth $1 million or $10 million. What is this statement supposed to imply? Clearly, it is there for a purpose. It must be there to indicate that it is either good to hold shares or bad to hold shares, but I do not know.

  Then we go to item (b), the family trust. What is the difference in nature between a family trust and a business trust? Why do we need to try to divide this information up and split it into various things? If we do not put it in under family or business trusts or under holdings in companies or trusts, why do we need to explain it in a manner that is not going to clarify the matter anyway?

  Item (c) is `real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned'. What difference does it make whether it is a shop or a warehouse?

Senator Crowley —Does the honourable senator seriously ask that question?

Senator ARCHER —I have been in real estate. I cannot see that even the people on the other side who admit in the register to having property investments could really determine what that property investment was, any more than that it was going to produce for them a better opportunity for return. I feel sure that that is the purpose of an investment property. But why does it mention the location, and what is the purpose of saying, `Yes, I have got a property in Melbourne'? It may be in Collins Street or it may be at Woop Woop. It may be worth $100 million or it may be worth $20,000. What are we trying to establish by asking where the real estate is and the purpose for which it is owned? That is futile. What is the difference if I own a unit at Narrabundah or a unit in Kingston? Why do we need to know that? What is the purpose of the exercise?

  Item (d) is `registered directorships of companies'. It has already been pointed out that anybody who wants to know about registered directorships in companies only has to hit a button and it is public information anyway. Why do we need to know? It is not that I think it is one of those things that needs to be covered up, but why is it of such importance that it goes in here, and why is it in this form?

  Item (e) is `partnerships, indicating the nature of the interests and the activities of the partnership'. Again I ask: what does it indicate as to the nature of the interest if a person is a partner? He is either a partner or he is not. So what sort of nature is it that we are looking for?

  Why is it that we need to know what the activities of a partnership are if we are not required to say what the interests of BHP are? Do we think that it is going to make a difference? Do we think people are not going to buy BHP shares because they do not know what every last activity of the company is or because they cannot declare on here what the activities of these sorts of companies are?

  Item (g) talks about `the nature of any bonds, debentures' and the like. What do we mean by `the nature'? Why do we want to break all these things up? What is the difference whether it is bank accounts or in bonds? Is it likely to affect how somebody is going to vote, which I presume is the purpose of this exercise? Item (h) refers to `saving or investment accounts'. I am just pleased that it says `saving or investment accounts' but does not require one to put in a trading account or one's ordinary business account. I gather that that has probably been left out for a purpose. But why?

  The form has been so badly prepared and the requirements are so obtuse that, as we have already seen demonstrated, it really does not tell anybody anything. It will hide anything that someone wishes to hide; it will disclose anything that someone wishes to disclose. That is my objection to it. It continues:

  any other assets (excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000.

I did not notice, as I went through, a lot of caravans or boats or various collector's items, or even the family car. Perhaps government members do not own a family car. It is certainly not one of the exclusions, which are household and personal effects. If one is going to have to fill in the form, we want to know why it is in and we want to have it done completely. Item (j) states:

  the nature of any other substantial sources of income;

What is a `substantial source of income'? It may be a different amount to me than it is to some of my more wealthy colleagues on the opposite side. Is $500 substantial? Is $10,000 substantial? Let us not be under any doubts. I presume that is in there so that we can see whether people are likely to be bribed or influenced as a result of their assets. What is the price for influencing somebody in a matter like this? Item (k) reads:

  gifts valued at more than $500 received from official sources . . . or more than $100 where received from other than official sources, provided that a gift received . . .

And so on and so on. I suppose $100 would be getting towards the situation in which somebody you are dealing with offers to take you and your wife out to dinner. Do we need to declare dinners that we have with either constituents or people we are required to deal with in the ordinary course of events? If my wife and I were invited along, for instance, to one of these official annual dinner meetings of some business group or some organisation—

Senator Michael Baume —Or the British High Commission.

Senator ARCHER —It would easily run to this amount. Do we need to ask what the price is and do we need to record it and, if so, what for? Should we admit that we are likely to be influenced by a meal that was paid for by somebody else?

  Item (l) refers to `sponsored travel or hospitality received'. Again, am I going to be influenced if I get sponsored travel to Melbourne or if I am taken to the Melbourne Cup or to the Launceston Cup or somewhere like that? It says, `any sponsored travel or hospitality'. As Senator Baume has just said, it may be the British High Commission. If we go there and if we receive hospitality, do we declare it? If we do not, what is it in here for? Then item (m) states:

  being an officeholder or a financial contributor donating over $100.

Does this include the contributions that people make to the boy scouts or to some church? Does it include union dues? Does it include social clubs, racing clubs or rotary clubs—all those things? If it does, the forms are grossly inaccurate, because I cannot find instances of many members including those things on their lists.

  I venture to suggest that many of them are committed to more than $100 a year. I feel that anybody from this organisation who attends any recognised church would find that $100 a year would not go very far, but I have not found anybody listed. I notice that one senator listed his church as being one of his influencing factors, but it might just as easily have been the boy scouts or other bodies of that nature.

  Item (n) talks of `any other interests'. Everything I have done in the past influences what I do—everything to do with my upbringing, with my business life, with my belonging to a political party. Whether I am aware of it or whether I am not, I am prepared to concede that all these things are an influence on my life—on the way I act, on the reason I am with this party and not with another party, and the reason I vote in the way I do. How can I list those? I believe those things are of considerably greater influence than whether I have got a few shares in some mining company, whether I have got a house in Wynyard and a unit in Canberra, or whatever. I believe it is the same with everybody. It is a pure charade to produce a requirement of this nature because it is thought it will look good—and that is the only reason it is done. It is not done with a view to trying to establish higher principles. It is not done with a view to making sure that there is no corruption. It is not done with a view to seeing that people change their vote because they might have a conflict of interest or abstain from voting. In a house such as this, with the sort of voting we are having now, that would have certain interesting effects.

  So what is it we are after? We are just looking for some way to say, `There we are; we have got a register of interests; we are all clean; we are all clever', when in fact we are not. It makes no difference. It will make no difference whatsoever to how we behave and how we react. I believe it is time we faced this issue, and I would ask the minister at the table, the Minister for Family Services (Senator Crowley), to bear that in mind and say, `Well, it is a charade; it does not do what it purports to do. It was never intended to do that anyway, and we believe it is time we left the thing alone'.

  I repeat: I have no objection to putting in my personal details in full. I understand and accept that when one becomes a public person one loses certain private rights. I am perfectly happy to concede that this may well be one of them; but it does not mean that we need to go along with what is an absolute and total farce.

  Madam Acting Deputy President, I wish to foreshadow Senator Hill's amendment No. 2.