—and why not?
Just to explain why I didn't go beyond what.... First of all, I had recommended that the amendment be made in 2013, so then how could I start interpreting it in a different way? That's one thing. Also, in making my decision on how to interpret that, I looked at masses of other legislation, parallel legislation, either in other jurisdictions or in financial-type legislation federally, and almost to an act it says “direct or indirect”. In my act, it just said nothing, so you have to interpret that by looking at all the other uses in the legislation. That was the rationale behind that interpretation.
There are masses of things I could say about that area. There's much controversy amongst certain circles as to whether conflict of interest screens are appropriate. Conflict of interest screens are an additional mechanism to cover situations that aren't covered well by divestment.
I have recommendations relating to divestment that go to.... I think it's overly broad for some people. It matters if you have controlled assets. In many situations, it matters. You should get rid of them—put them in a trust—but in some cases, if somebody holds a public office that has nothing whatsoever to do with that and would never have a power that they could use with respect to the particular holding they have, sometimes that's a bit draconian. Some people like to manage their financial affairs, and I think there should be a conflict test in there for certain levels of people. There are a lot of interesting things in that area that could be fixed.
