Senate debates
Tuesday, 20 March 2007
Questions without Notice
Ministerial Responsibility
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to Senator Minchin, Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that in the first four years Senator Santoro was in the Senate, prior to his declaration of December 2006, he only declared owning shares in Telstra and the Queensland Gas Company? Is the minister confident that the earlier nine declarations made by Senator Santoro from December 2002 through to June 2006 are completely accurate? Isn’t it clear from the last week that Senator Santoro has been heavily engaged in share trading over an extended period, potentially since entering the Senate? Will the minister, as the government leader in the Senate, now insist that Senator Santoro tonight make a full and complete explanation to the Senate on his share trading since 2002? Don’t the public and the Senate deserve the truth?
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think I have already indicated that it is Senator Santoro’s intention to speak to the Senate tonight about this matter. I am not in a position to confirm what is said by Senator Ludwig about the declarations by Senator Santoro upon his ascension to the Senate; I have not checked his register from back in 2002, when he was a backbench senator. The responsibility on all senators is to observe the Register of Senators’ Interests. I expect that all senators will ensure that they maintain the currency of their declarations of senators’ interests. But, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, just as the Prime Minister said, I do not spend every day checking that every senator, whether on this side of the chamber or across the chamber, is maintaining the register of their interests. It should go without saying that all senators should observe the resolution of the Senate passed in 1994 to ensure that they do register their pecuniary interests and ensure that that register is maintained properly and accurately.
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
So is Senator Santoro going to seek leave to make a personal explanation?
Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Faulkner! Your colleague is on his feet.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you Mr President; I do have a supplementary question. Minister, what does it say of the government’s standards that a minister has repeatedly flouted the Senate’s rules on disclosure? Isn’t the declaration of interest a critical accountability mechanism? Isn’t Senator Santoro’s defiance of the Senate’s rules on disclosure further evidence of the government’s arrogance?
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the contrary, the situation that we have just experienced is evidence of this government’s very high standards. As I said before, ours is the first government to have a ministerial code of conduct. The resignation of Senator Santoro is a reflection of the fact that this government, under Prime Minister Howard, insists on the highest standards from its ministers, and if they fail to meet the standards—to wit, the declaration of pecuniary interests—then the consequences are that they must leave their jobs. As I say, Senator Santoro’s crime—for want of a better word—is that he failed to declare his pecuniary interest, to wit, share trading. It is not ruled out by either the Senate register or the code of conduct that senators or ministers can own shares in Australian companies. Indeed, this government has spent much of its period in office encouraging Australians to participate in share ownership. That is the accusation. The accusation being made is that you should not own shares. That is a nonsensical position for the opposition to adopt. (Time expired)