Page 1521 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course, ACT Labor continues to benefit from its ongoing, rather complex arrangement known as the 1973 Foundation. It is no wonder that, in a recent policy document from the Attorney-General in the gaming space regarding a central monitoring system, there was a focus on money laundering. At the end of the day, this government knows much more about money laundering through poker machines than any other government in Australia. If there is any political party in the country that fully understands the intricacies of funnelling gambling money through other entities so that it then becomes okay to access that money, it is ACT Labor.
We are not the ones making this claim. It is not the Canberra Liberals that are making this claim; it is the ABC. It is your ABC. They are the ones who are making it. I find it remarkable that Dr Paterson can submit a motion to this chamber that is all about the woes of gambling harm—
Ms Cheyne: Mr Assistant Speaker, on a point of order.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Davis): Mr Parton, take your seat. Minister Cheyne, a point of order?
Ms Cheyne: Mr Assistant Speaker, I appreciate that you and the Acting Clerk were deep in conversation before, but Mr Parton has continued to make imputations about ACT Labor, making inferences perhaps about the government and money laundering. He referred to a washing machine, to get around it before, but the imputation stands. He has continued to talk about laundering in the last few paragraphs of his speech. Earlier today you asked—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Cheyne. I have heard what you had to say and I did hear Mr Parton’s comments.
Mr Hanson: Mr Assistant Speaker—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, just a minute. I will rule on the point of order.
Mr Hanson: Just on the point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, if I could.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Yes?
Mr Hanson: I do not think Mr Parton is in any way inferring any criminal activity at all. All he is trying to do is make the point that the money has been moved from gambling assets into non-gambling assets so that they can be used for political donations and so on. As a turn of phrase, I do not think there is any imputation about criminal activity. No-one is suggesting that. Certainly, the suggestion is that that money has been essentially moved so that it is no longer seen to be coming from gambling; it is seen to be coming from an associated entity. I think that is the point that is being made. I do not think that there is a point of order.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video