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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 821 ..

Mr Whitecross: You do not think there is anything wrong with operating a commercial property for profit and using that money for political campaigning? Do you think that is not a conflict of interest?

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Whitecross! You have spoken already.

MRS CARNELL: We have a situation now where we know that the Labor Party has got significant dollars from the clubs. We know from the document I have tabled that the Labor Club has said that the only way they can guarantee that money is if they have exclusive rights to poker machines and if the ACT Government does not change its legislation. That is all on the public record. Okay, we have got that far. The clubs cannot provide the money without exclusivity, according to them. The Labor Party has the money. The Labor Party is using the money to elect its members and, I am sure, to send them to conferences and to do all sorts of other things that parties tend to do; so there is an absolute direct benefit.

The reality of this situation is very clear. This is not a general conflict of interest; this is a specific issue about exclusivity to poker machine licences by clubs, very simply. We are saying to the Labor Party and to Mr Osborne that, if we are going to debate anything in this place that could affect the exclusive access of clubs to poker machines, then it will, by the very nature of the outline - the very quick, very short outline - that I have just given, produce a conflict of interest in those opposite.

I come back to where I started this speech. Mr Speaker, if the Labor Party acts in any way that would serve to retain or maybe delay any deregulation of poker machines in clubs, then they are directly acting in a conflict of interest situation. It is actually quite simple; it is not a difficult argument. We are saying to the Labor Party - - -

Mr Whitecross: It is a standard that you do not apply to yourself. You are a hypocrite.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, Mr Whitecross said that it is an approach we do not adopt ourselves.

Mr Berry: No; you do not apply it to yourself.

MRS CARNELL: We do.

Mr Berry: You do not.

Mr Whitecross: No, you do not.

Mr Berry: You take the money and put it straight in your pocket.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I can guarantee that if there were a situation where somebody who was a significant contributor to the Liberal Party - and I would say "significant contributor" would be a contribution of anything over about $10,000; I would say that would be about right, but I would be happy to debate that - - -

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