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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 763 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Speaker, we have set down a strategy which will provide the information necessary to make an informed judgment about whether poker machines should be extended to hotels or not. At the end of the day, that is a matter which we will judge once we have seen what the social and economic impact study says. Let me be clear; we will not be intimidated into voting for it just because Mr Moore tries to turn up the political pressure on us with a smear campaign about our political contributions. We will not be doing it. We will not be intimidated. We will be doing our job as the Labor Party. As the party concerned with social justice and the fabric of society, we are going to be looking at the social and economic impacts of gaming. We are going to be making informed decisions on it. If that means an extension is possible, we will support an extension. If that means pulling back, we will pull back. We are going to make those decisions based on an informed debate, not based on intimidation and a smear campaign from Mrs Carnell or from Mr Moore.

Mr Speaker, our position on this is clear. We have never disguised the sources of our funds. They are all out in the open. It is the Labor Party that supported and introduced the public disclosure rules. It is the Labor Party that has abided by the principles of them. It is the Liberal Party that tries to disguise its donations. It is the Liberal Party that wants to have one rule for the Labor Party and another rule for the Liberal Party.

If Mrs Carnell is serious about her principle that anyone who has received a donation from any political party should be precluded from making decisions, if Mrs Carnell wants to establish a principle that anyone who has received a donation to their political party should be precluded from any debate and from any decision in this Assembly, or in their role as a Minister, then let her come into this place with a standing order which says so, not with a weaselly motion which urges us to do one thing while she continues to hide behind her rock. If members in this place are going to have a rule, it is going to have to be a consistent rule. I urge members not to engage in what is a political campaign by the Liberal Party to attack one of their opponents.

Mrs Carnell: We are not attacking you. We are just asking you not to vote on this issue.

MR WHITECROSS: It is not a campaign based on any measurable element of principle coming from Mrs Carnell. Mrs Carnell has no principles. Her approach today has nothing to do with principles. Mr Speaker, we are not going to be intimidated by her.

Mrs Carnell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mrs Carnell has objected to the term that she has no principles.

Mr Berry: I do not know why she would.

Mrs Carnell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Sit down, Mr Berry. Would you please withdraw.

Mr Berry: You cannot order him to withdraw that. Calm down. It is an expression of view.

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