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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 809 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

But where donations are put to two political parties who are opposing each other, it is quite clear that the money is put there with the belief that some kind of influence goes with that money; otherwise, why would it be done? It clearly illustrates that some kind of influence goes with the money or that some kind of more reasonable access to members goes with the money. To have members stand up here and say, "Yes, we declare openly what money goes to our party" - and, indeed, that is much clearer with the Labor Party return than it is with the Liberal Party return; they say, "We declare openly what it is; therefore, it has no effect" - is simply not good enough. Nobody is suggesting that there is any illegality about it. But I have to say to you, Mr Speaker, that when the British Parliament considered the cash for questions issue they had to face the fact that there was nothing illegal about the notion of cash for questions. That campaign in the United Kingdom has resulted in the word "sleaze" appearing daily on the front page of almost every European paper that is published in English. It has enveloped the United Kingdom.

We are at a point where we have to say, "What is acceptable and what is not acceptable? What is the role that money plays in influencing members? At what point do we draw the line between what is an appropriate amount of money and what is not an appropriate amount of money? Should we draw a line?". Indeed, I think that was a question put by way of interjection by one member earlier. We do, of course, draw lines about this. We do it in our Electoral Act, where we say that certain donations do not require a declaration, up to a certain level for an individual member; and to a higher level for a party - and, I think, for quite good reasons. We have already made a judgment about a certain amount of money being a reasonable amount of money to be seen as not to have a significant influence. But, Mr Speaker, there is nobody in the Canberra community that I know who would believe that $300,000 a year would not have some influence.

The notion that passing legislation or even debating issues that might have an impact on whether that $300,000 could or could not continue, as is the case with gaming machines, is an issue that we simply cannot and should not ignore. This motion, Mr Speaker, calls on the Labor members to recognise this issue. It is a motion that calls on; it is not a motion that demands, or that says. If it did do that, Mr Speaker - - -

Mr Berry: It coerces.

MR MOORE: It certainly has about it an element of coercion; it is certainly designed specifically to try to encourage. I think "encourage" is a better word than "coerce".

Mr Berry: Bludgeon.

MR MOORE: Mr Berry is using the words "bludgeon" and "coerce", trying to take it further and further. No; if that were the case, it would be simply a motion that would instruct members to do it. I would oppose such a motion.

Mr Berry: Why do you not have the guts to do it?

MR MOORE: Mr Berry, members of this Assembly are attempting to draw to your attention that there is a conflict of interest that is quite clear here.

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