Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The reaffirmation of the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Registry of Senators’ Interests.

I move this urgency motion today because it is an important matter that the Senate should debate. It is important that we get a clear statement from the Senate that reaffirms the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Register of Senators’ Interests. I genuinely hope that we get a unanimous vote on this resolution so as to reassure the public that we still uphold this important measure, which acts as part of the checks and balances in our democracy.

The Register of Senators’ Interests is a register that records the financial interests of senators. It details their ownership of assets, shares and properties, and seeks to provide a transparent system by which members of the public and the media can examine the interests held by senators and shine a light, if you like, on whether a senator’s actions, voting and behaviour are appropriate and whether or not there is any inappropriate linkage between their assets and interests and their behaviour. It is one of the checks and balances that has been brought into most democratic countries. Just as we have disclosure of donations, we have disclosure of members’ and senators’ interests.

This particular Senate provision did not come in until 1994. The House of Representatives introduced a members’ register of interests in 1983 on the coming to power of the Labor government. But the Senate resisted having a register of senators’ interests until 1994. Since that time we have had cross-party support for that register. We have a committee that administers it, and it has generally been accepted as a positive development. Obviously, for senators, the public interest should be uppermost in mind when they perform their responsibilities. That can obviously only occur when they abide by high standards of probity and integrity. The register of senators’ interests helps build public confidence in the political process. But fundamentally it relies on the honesty of senators. You fill in your form; you make a declaration as to your interests. The whole system is based on that honest declaration. We all have a responsibility to provide the information required under the rules of the Senate. As I say, these declarations are sought and administered for very good reasons that have been accepted across party lines in the Senate since 1994.

There are always some issues surrounding these measures and generally we work through those in a collaborative way. But there have been in recent times a couple of instances where there has been concern about whether declarations have been accurate. There was the case of Senator Lightfoot last year, where concern was raised about whether or not he had accurately declared his shareholdings. Senator Lightfoot made a statement to the Senate following those issues being raised, apologised and corrected the record. I and other senators accepted his explanation as reasonable on the basis that he said that he had made an inadvertent error in filing his declaration. He apologised and corrected the record. People saw that as a reasonable response given the admission from the senator that an error had been made.

The events of the last few days raise much more serious concerns about whether or not the registry is working in the way that it is intended and whether the integrity and the intent of the registry are being honoured. We have all accepted the importance of that. However, on Senator Santoro’s own evidence he has not met the requirements of the Senate in terms of keeping that register up to date. Clearly, by his letter last week—in which he detailed the share trades that he had made that had not been declared in the register—he has admitted to filing returns to the register that were not correct. We now have evidence of at least 72 share trades over a 19-month period from September 2005. Senator Santoro had not made a declaration of some of his interests but chose to be selective in the interests he declared. So, clearly, Senator Santoro has not complied with the requirements of the Senate.

I understand that tonight Senator Santoro will provide an explanation as to why that failure occurred. The Prime Minister has expressed the view that he is very angry with Senator Santoro for his failure to meet his obligations, and a number of senior coalition ministers have expressed the view that they cannot understand why such a blatant disregard for the rules has been perpetrated by Senator Santoro.

As I said, with Senator Lightfoot’s incident, clearly a defence of inadvertent omission was plausible. Such a defence in this case is clearly not plausible. Senator Santoro was trading, was buying and selling shares. He has not attempted to use the defence that the broker was doing so on his behalf; he has conceded that he was engaged. Of course, the thing that counts most against Senator Santoro is that he has made declarations of some shares and not others. He has been selective about what he has declared. We do not yet know—and I would be interested to hear his explanation tonight—whether or not he made honest declarations before he became a minister. Clearly, on looking at his declarations, he alleged he did not own more than a couple of shares prior to becoming a minister. But, as I say, that will be for Senator Santoro to explain to the Senate. Quite frankly, up until now, his explanation has been woefully inadequate.

Senator Santoro has failed to address any of the key issues as to why he failed the fundamental requirement to declare his shares and why, when issued time and time again a reminder as to the need to make full declaration, he did not do so. Why, more importantly, when he signed his name to the declaration does he now admit those declarations were false? On at least three occasions he signed declarations which he now says were false. He declared some shares but not others and, for a long period, he declared that he had no shareholdings at all. If Senator Santoro’s recent declaration is to be believed, he has systematically set out to mislead the Senate and the Australian public about the extent of his shareholdings. Quite frankly, that is a matter that this Senate ought to take very seriously.

I am prepared to wait for final judgement on Senator Santoro’s explanation, but clearly the Prime Minister and other senior ministers in the government are not. The Prime Minister has found that Senator Santoro breached the ministerial code of conduct and has accepted his resignation. But there are other tests for the Senate. While the Prime Minister gets to judge whether or not Senator Santoro has met his obligations under the ministerial code of conduct, the Senate gets to decide whether Senator Santoro has met his obligations to the Senate under the rules regarding the Register of Senators’ Interests. As I said, there is a very strong prima facie case that the Senate has been deliberately misled. The senator has admitted that his declarations were false.