❓ Opposition questions Minister for Mines and Petroleum about potential conflict of interest due to his wife's superannuation shares in mining companies. Minister explains steps taken to address concerns, including seeking legal advice and removing himself from the joint superannuation fund.
AnsweredQoN 8Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM — SHAREHOLDING
I remind the minister of his comments on ABC radio in October 2005 about former minister Bob Kucera’s share portfolio, when he demanded answers about when the then Premier first knew of the minister’s conflict. (1) When did the minister notify the Premier of his own conflict of interest? (2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I remind the minister of his comments on ABC radio in October 2005 about former minister Bob Kucera’s share portfolio, when he demanded answers about when the then Premier first knew of the minister’s conflict. (1) When did the minister notify the Premier of his own conflict of interest? (2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(1) When did the minister notify the Premier of his own conflict of interest? (2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(1) When did the minister notify the Premier of his own conflict of interest? (2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(2) Has the minister been involved in any cabinet discussions or ministerial decisions that involve BHP Billiton and Woodside Petroleum and their competitors? (3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(3) Can the minister provide details of any briefings from the uranium industry or government agencies that will directly or indirectly impact on his knowledge of the market prospects of uranium tenements held by BHP Billiton? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I will endeavour to remember all the questions and hopefully my answer will cover the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. (1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
(1)-(3) I do not remember what I said on ABC radio in 2005, which I suspect the member would probably regard as being a satisfactory response to that question. Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Ken Travers : The leader’s first “I cannot recall”! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : You should remember everything! The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Would Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich restrain herself. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Leader of the House. It is the first question on a non-ceremonial day, and I think the member should pay her leader the courtesy of allowing her the opportunity of listening to the answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : In respect of my own conflict of interest, I have to make this very clear: I tried to explain to the house the other day that the only mining shares in which I have any involvement are mining shares held in my wife’s superannuation scheme, which is in our joint names because I intend to resign from Parliament some time in the future and will therefore be retired. Rather than setting up a new fund when I do retire, for administrative purposes and for convenience the superannuation fund was set up in both our names. Fundamentally, all the money in it is my wife’s money. I hope the Leader of the Opposition might respect the fact that my wife has had a long and successful career and indeed has a superannuation fund that she earned in her own right. Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon Sue Ellery : Absolutely! I take no issue with any of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Perhaps she should listen to what some of her colleagues are saying about this. Nobody over there should start giving me lectures about gender equity because what is being said is that my wife is not entitled to have an asset of this nature or that I should resign from my ministerial portfolio. When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
When I was offered the job of Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I informed the Premier that my wife had a superannuation fund and that technically I was half-owner of it. I might add that that information is public knowledge. It is in my parliamentary pecuniary interest return, which has been sitting in this house since some time in September. There is no secret by anybody whom I know of in this matter; indeed, I revealed it. I might add that members opposite who have wives, husbands or other relatives do not need to disclose anything in the parliamentary return about what they own; it is not required. I put this in there because I technically am a part-owner in my wife’s superannuation fund. It has been revealed, as I am required to do. There is no secret about that. I informed the Premier about this particular matter and I then sought from the State Solicitor’s Office advice about what I should do. His advice to me was that I should remove myself from the joint superannuation fund, which is what I did. I am no longer part of that superannuation fund. His advice to me was that that would satisfy any requirement relating to conflict of interest, and I have accepted his advice. I have also accepted the advice that, in the event I am required to make a decision about the affairs of BHP Billiton, Wesfarmers or Woodside in my portfolio, I would reveal that information at the time and take advice about what I should do. If I should not be part of the decision-making process and have another minister handle that, that is what I will do on every occasion. I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I have had a number of briefings from the uranium industry about the government’s policy. The government’s policy on uranium is not my policy on uranium. The government’s policy on uranium is the government’s policy, and it has been Liberal Party policy for a very, very long time. Anything that I might or might not do about uranium is not something that has been generated by me with any prospect of giving the value of my wife’s BHP Billiton shares a boost. It would be totally ludicrous to suggest that might be the case. I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
I have been briefed by the Australian Uranium Association, who came from over east to find out what the government’s policy was, and I said simply that the government’s policy would be to allow mining leases to be granted for uranium. Whether that leads to a uranium mine, I do not know; it is a simple reversal of the policy of the previous government. The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
The thing that offends me is the assumption some people make that if my wife has some shares in a company, I am likely to make improper, illegal or inappropriate decisions about those matters. I take great offence at that. I was a minister for eight years, I have been reappointed as a minister, I take my job very seriously, and I have no intention of doing anything that is improper or untoward in the decisions that I make. That is the commitment we make when we are sworn in as ministers.
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.