The debate and discussion that has followed my last blog has reinforced the two key points I was seeking to make - 1) That Senator Lundy had not adequately disclosed her relationship with her husband David Forman when engaging in debates relating to his business interests, and, 2) More discussion is needed on the adequacy of a planned guidelines around how lobbyists interact with parliamentarians.

Senator Lundy has now made a statement in Parliament (www.aph.gov.au - refer to Page 85) responding to my earlier blog. She also provided us with a statement via her lawyers last Friday. (Despite numerous requests they refused to provide the statement in a text so we could publish it online.)

In her defence, Senator Lundy has detailed numerous instances where she has in fact disclosed her relationship with Mr Forman in the context of Senate Committee debates. I acknowledge these and apologise for my earlier oversight, but it is worth noting that the last such disclosure on the record was in 2005. A week is a long time in politics. Three years is an eternity.

One prominent telco journalist who reported on Mr Forman's recent PR attack on Telstra based on Senator Lundy's questioning of ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel has admitted he had no knowledge of their relationship prior to my blog. This person is a knowledgeable insider, so what's the public to know?

Questions around the adequacy of the proposed guidelines for lobbyists have been highlighted in the defence put forward by Senator Lundy and Mr Forman.

Firstly we were told the organisation Mr Forman represents is not a lobby group but an "industry association" and so therefore he would be exempt from any restrictions. How convenient. I expect lobbyists and lobby groups will become a dying breed in Canberra once the new reforms take effect.

Secondly, we were told Senator Lundy, as a backbencher, would not be covered either as the rules will only apply to ministers.

Senator Lundy's numerous attacks on Telstra over many years and on me personally in the Senate this week (www.aph.gov.au - refer to Page 85) serve to highlight that even backbenchers are armed with special privileges that in my view should be accompanied with responsibilities.

What we do know is that the Prime Minister himself has set the highest possible standards so as to avoid accusations around potential conflicts of interest between partners.

Even before the election, Mr Rudd’s wife Therese Rein signalled the divestiture of her business interests so as to avoid the possibility of such claims.

Recent media reports (www.theaustralian.news.com.au) show similar high standards apply in the PM’s office, with witnesses being called in to oversee conversations involving a firm that employs the partner of one of Mr Rudd’s senior advisors.

Exactly how the Prime Minister could insist on witnesses being present to oversee every telecommunications-related conversation between a parliamentarian who is married to an "industry association leader" presents a real and rather delicate challenge.

Perhaps a more rational approach would be for Ms Lundy to follow the standards set by the Prime Minister and excuse herself from any debates in which there could be a perception of a conflict of interest.