❓ Opposition questions Attorney General about potential conflict of interest regarding company directorships and compliance with cabinet handbook guidelines during the Westrail sale. The Attorney General denies the existence of the cited code and defends his actions.
AnsweredQoN 525Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I note that the Attorney General has held directorships in Cadogen Estates (Australia) Pty Ltd and Chelsea Land Management and Investment (Australia) Co since - Hon Peter Foss: You have pronounced it incorrectly. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I do not know the English lord; apparently the Attorney General does. The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Peter Foss: You have pronounced it incorrectly. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I do not know the English lord; apparently the Attorney General does. The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I do not know the English lord; apparently the Attorney General does. The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Peter Foss: You have pronounced it incorrectly. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I do not know the English lord; apparently the Attorney General does. The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I do not know the English lord; apparently the Attorney General does. The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The Attorney General has held directorships in these companies since 1986. (1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(1) Why did he not resign from those directorships as required under the code of conduct that formed part of the 1994 Cabinet Handbook? (2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(2) Why did he not - Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Barry House interjected. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what the Bunbury question was about - getting even! (2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(2) Why did the Attorney General not declare his directorships in these companies when the Westrail sale was being considered so that Cabinet could make a decision about whether that constituted a conflict of interest, as required in the current Cabinet Handbook? (3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(3) Will the Attorney General admit - Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Peter Foss: Do not make a speech; let me answer the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: To continue - (3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(3) Will the Attorney General admit that he should have done other than that which he has done? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
(1)-(3) Smack! As the Premier has already made clear, this supposed 1994 code does not exist. Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: It should and we know that it did. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not interject. Let us have the answer. I have a member still waiting to ask a question. Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: Before we talk about the accountability of ministers, we should talk about the accountability of members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition is fabricating; he is referring to a 1994 code that does not exist. Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Kim Chance: You got rid of it so you could do deals. You watered down the standards. Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: We did not get rid of anything. In 1990, the Labor Premier somewhat belatedly decided that there should be some appropriate guidelines because members of the then Cabinet had been looking after their mates who had been donating money to the Labor Party. Members opposite keep telling me that is history. However, the Leader of the Opposition in this place was a member of that Government, as was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mr “Muddy” McGinty. That decision was superseded by the parliamentary interests requirement. I have scrupulously observed the requirements of that - Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: You ignored the code. Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: The leader is talking about a code that the Labor Government belatedly introduced after its members had slashed away every propriety. The leader should not interrupt me. He has tried to give me my spank, so he should listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The Leader of the Opposition tries to make speeches rather than ask questions. He has misled the House by referring to a code that does not apply or exist. I have complied with the requirements. Everyone knows about my directorships - the details have been filed in this House regularly. There was no requirement for me to declare those directorships because there was no conflict. As I have made clear, one of the companies has farming interests, and I have no interest in it. Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: But you are a director! Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: That is an interest, is it? I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s believing - Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon Tom Stephens: You should have an interest in it as a director. I would not appoint you as a director of a company if you had no interest in it. The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We achieve nothing by interjections because I am unsure which interjection is being answered, and that leads to confusion. Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Hon PETER FOSS: I can understand the Leader of the Opposition’s remark that being a director of a company is to have an interest in the company’s property. While Labor Party members were in government they seemed to believe that being a minister gave them free slather with the property of the State. Surely by now they have learnt that a directorship does not give a person free rein. While in government, members opposite treated the taxpayers’ money as their own. I had hoped that the royal commission investigating their activities might have caused members opposite to understand the situation. Obviously they do not. The old problems of their not being able to tell the difference between what is thine and what is mine still exist.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.