Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 760 ..

MR WHITECROSS: I have not noticed Mr Humphries or Mrs Carnell coming forward and saying, "We will not be voting on this issue because we have an interest in commercial property and we recognise that any decisions we make about commercial property developments in Canberra or the operation of commercial properties affect the financial viability of our buildings and therefore of our property investments. Therefore, we are going to preclude ourselves from the debate". I do not think so.

I have never heard Mr Humphries talk about it, and there is a good reason - he does not want to. The only reason he is raising it now is that Mrs Carnell has shot from the lip, as usual, and not thought through the consequences. Now Mr Humphries, Mr Kaine, Mr Stefaniak and you, Mr Speaker, find yourselves in the situation of establishing a principle which is going to preclude the Liberal Party from all debates about matters affecting commercial property in Canberra. More than $200,000 is substantial and they cannot walk away from that. But, Mr Speaker, it goes on. They have also received $12,000 from the Licensed Clubs Association. I did not hear - - -

Mr Humphries: So have you.

MR WHITECROSS: Indeed, but we are talking about you now, Mr Humphries. The Liberal Party received $12,000 from the Licensed Clubs Association. I have not heard Mr Humphries say, and I did not hear Mrs Carnell say in her speech, "We had better not vote on matters affecting licensed clubs because we got $12,000 from the licensed clubs". Here she is saying that we should not vote on matters concerned with licensed clubs because we have received contributions from licensed clubs, but she has received them too. She is trying to weasel some line through the sand here that $12,000 is a little donation and that what we get is a big donation; that therefore she is allowed to pocket her money without a conflict of interest, but we are not allowed to receive donations.

Mr Humphries: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, let us look at other contributors to the Liberal Party. He does not like it.

Mr Humphries: I do not like it when Mr Whitecross completely distorts what is being put forward. No-one suggested that the Labor Party should not receive money. They should not be - - -

MR WHITECROSS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Humphries is just debating the matter.

Mr Humphries: This must be a very painful sort of point of order for Mr Whitecross. Mr Speaker, we are not suggesting that there should not be the receipt of moneys. There simply should not be the receipt of moneys and voting on issues in this Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .