Mr BALDWIN - 1996-10-17
In light of the revelations regarding the shareholdings of the member for MacDonnell, particularly in mining companies, does any past or present conflict of interest arise from that?
Page 1731
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is fascinating. Members opposite guffaw and laugh because the heat is back on them. The question relates to any past or potential conflict of interest. It is interesting to flick through the pages of the Parliamentary Record, particularly in this technological age in which we are able to tap into the computer and draw together a few threads. Members opposite do not want to hear this, but there are people at home who would like to hear about the different standards the ALP sets for itself and for the government.
I invite the member for MacDonnell to reflect on what he had to say on 17 October 1995. He was not then the shadow spokesman on mines and energy matters. However, he was a member of caucus and the shadow cabinet ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: They are running. It is all very well for members opposite to come in here and hurl these allegations but, when the heat is back on them, they cannot stand it.
On 17 October 1995, the member for MacDonnell wove an interesting story about having a great interest in his electorate and about mineral exploration in his electorate. He then posed a question: `I ask whether there might have been greater exploration had the government taken the decision to be part of the national grid'. Members will recall that members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, were pushing hard for the sale of gas from the Territory into the national grid. They pushed hard, notwithstanding arguments put by this side, and notwithstanding the advice they had had from the Department of Mines and Energy about the folly of such a policy. The member for MacDonnell said: `I ask whether there might have been greater exploration had the government taken the decision to be part of the national grid'. He went on to say: `I am not sure what the problem is for the member for Palmerston, but it was certainly an issue'. The member for Palmerston, the Minister for Mines and Energy at that time, stated: `You are prepared to take that risk - that is what he is laughing at - you are prepared to sell it nationally in the hope that some more might be found'. The member for MacDonnell picked up the interjection: `I pick up the interjections from the members for Palmerston and Brennan, saying that it was laughable to propose that we should be connected to the national grid. I have to tell them that senior figures in the petroleum industry do not share their view'. Of course, what he was talking about was Santos. He has only to go back through ...
Mr Bell: Yes.
Mr STONE: He interjects in agreement. Guess who has shareholdings in Santos? He was in here promoting the sale of gas to the national grid. In fact, he said at one stage: `Santos is now a major player. It had no ownership in the fields until relatively recently'. He went on ...
Mr Bell: You are barking up the wrong tree.
Mr STONE: He was on his feet in this Chamber promoting the cause of a company in which he has a shareholding.
Page 1732
Mr Finch: That is why we have a pecuniary interests form.
Mr STONE: Exactly. That is why we have a pecuniary interests form. That is also why the Treasurer's shareholdings in those worthless, delisted companies were listed on his pecuniary interests form. He was up-front about them. That is why every government minister makes a full declaration.
You will not wriggle out of this one, because you have been caught cold. As I go through the task of cross-checking every one of your extensive publicly-listed company shares against what you have had to say in this Chamber over the last 12 years or so, if I were a betting man, I would bet that we will turn up a few more points of interest, particularly given that we picked that one up so promptly. The member was promoting in this Chamber a proposal for the sale of gas into the national grid. He was promoting Santos which would have been a big winner. And guess who is a shareholder in Santos? The member for MacDonnell.
Page 1733
Page 1731
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is fascinating. Members opposite guffaw and laugh because the heat is back on them. The question relates to any past or potential conflict of interest. It is interesting to flick through the pages of the Parliamentary Record, particularly in this technological age in which we are able to tap into the computer and draw together a few threads. Members opposite do not want to hear this, but there are people at home who would like to hear about the different standards the ALP sets for itself and for the government.
I invite the member for MacDonnell to reflect on what he had to say on 17 October 1995. He was not then the shadow spokesman on mines and energy matters. However, he was a member of caucus and the shadow cabinet ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: They are running. It is all very well for members opposite to come in here and hurl these allegations but, when the heat is back on them, they cannot stand it.
On 17 October 1995, the member for MacDonnell wove an interesting story about having a great interest in his electorate and about mineral exploration in his electorate. He then posed a question: `I ask whether there might have been greater exploration had the government taken the decision to be part of the national grid'. Members will recall that members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, were pushing hard for the sale of gas from the Territory into the national grid. They pushed hard, notwithstanding arguments put by this side, and notwithstanding the advice they had had from the Department of Mines and Energy about the folly of such a policy. The member for MacDonnell said: `I ask whether there might have been greater exploration had the government taken the decision to be part of the national grid'. He went on to say: `I am not sure what the problem is for the member for Palmerston, but it was certainly an issue'. The member for Palmerston, the Minister for Mines and Energy at that time, stated: `You are prepared to take that risk - that is what he is laughing at - you are prepared to sell it nationally in the hope that some more might be found'. The member for MacDonnell picked up the interjection: `I pick up the interjections from the members for Palmerston and Brennan, saying that it was laughable to propose that we should be connected to the national grid. I have to tell them that senior figures in the petroleum industry do not share their view'. Of course, what he was talking about was Santos. He has only to go back through ...
Mr Bell: Yes.
Mr STONE: He interjects in agreement. Guess who has shareholdings in Santos? He was in here promoting the sale of gas to the national grid. In fact, he said at one stage: `Santos is now a major player. It had no ownership in the fields until relatively recently'. He went on ...
Mr Bell: You are barking up the wrong tree.
Mr STONE: He was on his feet in this Chamber promoting the cause of a company in which he has a shareholding.
Page 1732
Mr Finch: That is why we have a pecuniary interests form.
Mr STONE: Exactly. That is why we have a pecuniary interests form. That is also why the Treasurer's shareholdings in those worthless, delisted companies were listed on his pecuniary interests form. He was up-front about them. That is why every government minister makes a full declaration.
You will not wriggle out of this one, because you have been caught cold. As I go through the task of cross-checking every one of your extensive publicly-listed company shares against what you have had to say in this Chamber over the last 12 years or so, if I were a betting man, I would bet that we will turn up a few more points of interest, particularly given that we picked that one up so promptly. The member was promoting in this Chamber a proposal for the sale of gas into the national grid. He was promoting Santos which would have been a big winner. And guess who is a shareholder in Santos? The member for MacDonnell.
Page 1733
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016