Senator FAULKNER (5:52 PM) —by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I was very keen to speak on this report. Senators would appreciate that it is always difficult to do so because you do not actually receive the report until it has been tabled by the chairman of the committee. Like most recent reports on the Register of Senators' Interests, those who have an interest in it go immediately to the letter `P' and see what Senator Parer has been up to lately. That is exactly what I have done upon being provided with a copy of the report.

It appears that Senator Parer has enclosed two returns of registered interests for himself and his wife. I can assure the Senate that I will be very closely examining this particular return at great length, as I am sure it will be of interest to a significant number of people in the parliament and may even be of interest to a number of people who watch the proceedings of the parliament closely.

I think you can state a couple of principles, however, without even going to all the detail in the Register of Senators' Interests that has been tabled by Senator Denman, because I do know that if anyone expects to find in this report the whole truth about Senator Parer's many and diverse interests, I am absolutely certain that they will be very disappointed. In fact, I think the electorate probably could be forgiven for being a bit cynical about the Register of Senators' Interests when they reflect on Senator Parer's case.

If there is such cynicism, it is misplaced, because this is an opportune time, with the tabling of this report, to reflect on the extent to which Senator Parer was able to conceal his multiple interests, not only from the Senate, but from the Australian people, notwithstanding the requirements of the Register of Senators' Interests.

Of course, the problem for Senator Parer was that he was sprung by the opposition. Who can forget the fact that Senator Parer was warned, not once, not twice, but three times about his obligations in declaring the shareholdings of his family trust in the Register of Senators' Interests? On 20 March 1997, the chair of the committee, Senator Denman, who has tabled this report today, announced to the Senate in regard to family trusts that, where a senator alone or with their family can exercise control over the voting rights or disposal of shareholdings, the shareholdings should be declared. Senator Denman at the same time released a very informative and important background paper that stated—and I quote:

By implication, the Senate resolution of March 17th 1994 currently requires a declaration of such actual shareholding rather than merely a declaration of the name, activity and beneficiary of the trust.

Then, on 20 March, the Registrar of Senators' Interests, Mr O'Keefe, wrote to all senators outlining the changes that were announced by Senator Denman in the chamber. First, we had the announcement by Senator Denman, then Mr O'Keefe followed that through with a letter on 20 March.

Because of the continued questioning of the opposition, holding Senator Parer accountable on these issues, we were able to establish that Mr O'Keefe again wrote to all senators on 26 March to clarify the changes to the Register of Senators' Interests. In that letter, he attached the new explanatory notes which drew explicit attention to the requirement to declare the shareholding in family trusts.

So we were able to establish that Senator Parer had three clear warnings. On each and every occasion he ignored those warnings that his family trust coalmining interests must be disclosed in the Register of Senators' Interests. He had ample opportunity to comply with these orders of the Senate, and he chose not to.

I do not have long to outline this view in relation to the importance of the declaration of senators' interests, but I do think that Senator Parer's cavalier attitude in relation to the Register of Senators' Interests probably would not surprise many people, because the requirement for registration of pecuniary interests has never been a principle that the conservative parties in Australia have signed up to. The coalition parties in the Senate, in particular, have been adamantly opposed to this. They opposed, for years and years, the establishment of a pecuniary interests register. They were forced into it, kicking and screaming, by the Labor Party.

We tried for years in government to introduce a Register of Senators' Interests similar to the register that was introduced into the House of Representatives in 1984. The coalition in the Senate, the Liberal and National parties, filibustered, delayed, obstructed, used every device that you could imagine, every way possible, to try to stop the introduction of disclosure rules.

We consider this to be another disgraceful performance from the coalition parties in the Senate, bearing in mind that there had been a similar system in place for 10 years in the House of Representatives. It took 10 years for the Liberals in the Senate to agree to have these interests on the public record.

We have seen a most contemptuous attitude on the part of coalition ministers and parliamentary secretaries, particularly in the Senate, in complying with the requirements of the Register of Senators' Interests. The Liberals were only forced into this because we encour aged the minor parties and Independents to adopt the principle of, as you would recall Madam Acting Deputy President, a voluntary disclosure of pecuniary interests from Labor Party senators, which all my colleagues complied with. I must acknowledge that a very significant number of minor party and Independent senators also agreed with the Labor Party here because of the obstructionism of the coalition senators in relation to the establishment of the register.

I will be looking very closely at Senator Parer's latest return. I hope it is more complete and I hope it is done in better faith and better spirit than his previous lodgment of his registrable interests. I guarantee you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and the Senate that these returns will be scrutinised closely by the Labor Party because Senator Parer has form on this.