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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1812 ..

MR MOORE: Thank you, Mr Humphries. I intend to be brief. It is interesting that Ms McRae is so upset about the way I raised corruption. I felt that I was particularly careful to talk about systems and about systems being conducive to corruption. I certainly want it put on the record that I have never made any public statement about somebody being corrupt - - -

Ms McRae: I will read you an article from the Chronicle.

MR MOORE: Ms McRae seems to think I have. I will be very interested in that. If in some way it is there somewhere, then I will correct that statement. It is also interesting that they were the same arguments that Labor and Liberal put in the New South Wales Parliament for years when the Independent member, John Hatton, raised the issue of corruption in the police force. They had examinations into the police force again and again, until the Wood royal commission finally conducted its inquiry.

Mr Berry: He came up with the goods.

MR MOORE: It is not a question of coming up with the goods. It is a question of ensuring that we have systems in place. We can learn lessons from Queensland. We can learn lessons from New South Wales. It is a question of putting systems in place to ensure that we have situations that are not conducive to corruption. That is what I am talking about - putting systems in place that are not conducive to corruption, whether we have corruption or not.

Mr Berry: Here you go again.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I find it particularly frustrating when I hear Mr Berry saying things like "Here we go again", because he just does not seem to be able to wrap his mind around the difference between systems and so forth.

Be that as it may, what I am talking about is systems that are in place to ensure that we have actions taken that are not conducive to corruption. Interestingly enough, in the particular situation that I am talking about, the ministerial discretion - whether the Minister "may" or "shall" - it appears to me from the way both Ms McRae and Mr Humphries spoke that they are quite open-minded about the issue that I have dealt with, although they suggest that I went about it in the wrong way and that I should have gone about it in the principal Act rather than in the regulations. I accept that, Mr Speaker, and will seek to modify the legislation. I will certainly discuss with the Minister what is the best way to get that legislation modified to remove that discretion.

The issue that we are talking about, as far as I am concerned, is certainty in taxation. As far as I am concerned, people who are being taxed and the community who are responsible for taxing should provide a certainty about taxation, and wherever possible we should avoid the discretion being allowed on taxation issues. That is the most critical thing, as far as I am concerned, and that is the greatest import of this motion.

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