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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 815 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Moore sees a difference in how much money is received. We heard this morning that, apparently, the Liberal Party receives $200,000 from one particular source. Is that okay; but, if it is $600,000, it is not? Where is the line? I need to hear a discussion where there is a real distinction made between what is acceptable and what is not. I am happy to get into it with Mr Moore or other people in another forum, but I repeat that this is not the forum to make a decision on that sort of issue. Mr Osborne has said that he is happy to debate our gambling motion. He sees it quite differently and as legitimate for him to enter into this debate, even though he will not debate the more specific legislation regarding poker machines because of his relationship with a club. He understands that the question of an inquiry into the overall management and conduct of the gambling industry is a different matter to Mr Moore's legislation or our legislation, which will be debated later.

I believe that Labor could demonstrate that they are able to have an impartial position on these very important issues by supporting our inquiry, and I will talk more about that later. But, really, it is a very big step to disenfranchise six members of this place on an issue as important as this. You are not only disenfranchising six members; you are - - -

Mr Moore: We are not disenfranchising them; we are asking them to disenfranchise themselves.

MS TUCKER: Okay; you are asking them to disenfranchise themselves. But it is a very big step if they choose to do that, and your having asked them to do it is a big step, because you are also, basically, disenfranchising all the people who voted for them. I do not believe this motion defines clearly enough the boundaries where conflict of interest begins and ends and, as I said before, the issue is too complex to be dealt with in this way. I believe the community will be watching very closely how Labor votes on gambling, and it will be on their heads if they appear to be compromised. I think if it were me, and I knew that I was receiving that amount of money, whether I was Labor or Liberal, I would always want to be seen to be very squeaky clean on any of these sorts of issues. I am hoping that Labor will actually show their impartiality by supporting our inquiry.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.14): I wish to make a brief contribution, Mr Speaker. I think the important point that perhaps Ms Tucker has overlooked is that it is, of course, difficult to draw the line, in some instances, between cases where a very minor conflict of interest situation may be said to arise and cases where a major one is said to arise. In that continuum, there are lots of shades of grey. I do not pretend that this motion comprehensively explains to the Assembly or the community exactly where that line should be drawn in all cases. But to acknowledge that there are shades of grey is one thing; to pretend, on the basis of that, that you therefore do not have to worry about outrageously obvious cases where there is a perception at least of a conflict of interest is another matter altogether.

There is no doubt, Mr Speaker, that a party which receives $600,000 over two years from a couple of large licensed clubs and then goes ahead to make a decision about those clubs which directly affects the interests of those clubs is in a very different situation from, for example, an organisation which owns a building and receives rent from that building.

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