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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4521 ..

MR MOORE (9.13), in reply: Mr Speaker, I will begin by addressing my own Bill. I thank members for their comments and for taking the trouble to look through the Bill. I am very disappointed with their failure to justify their actions, I must say, because my Bill represents a very minor change to the law under which gaming machines are allowed in hotels and taverns. It merely removes technology discrimination. It merely changes the type of gaming machine that is allowed in those areas. It does not change the numbers, just the types.

The Bill moves towards a fair trading position, required by competition policy. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that those who oppose this legislation are clearly opposing competition policy. So, one has to ask: Why would that be the case? Quite clearly, the Liberals are great advocates of competition policy. We hear them in here again and again talking about how important it is to ensure that we have appropriate competition. Labor members also have been advocates of competition policy. In fact, it was Rosemary Follett who signed our agreements on competition policy - as, indeed, did the current Chief Minister. So, I believe that both parties are committed to competition policy, and I see huge benefits in competition policy.

Mr Whitecross: What does the competition policy agreement say about this, Michael?

MR MOORE: There is no question that there is a public interest exemption in terms of competition policy. But it has not been demonstrated.

Mr Whitecross: It says that we have to have a review.

MR MOORE: Mr Whitecross interjects about a review, and I will get to that in due course.

Mr Whitecross: By 1999.

MR MOORE: Not by 1999. Before I deal with that, I would just like to talk about the conflicts of interest of members voting on this Bill. They are now clearly apparent. Mr Osborne revealed a personal interest in an income related to the regulatory arrangement which my Bill would alter, and he has therefore determined that he will not participate in the debate or vote on the Bill. Labor members also derive party funds, which aid their re-election - indeed, Mr Speaker, I have spoken on this issue in this chamber quite a number of times already - through a source which benefits from the current regulatory regime. It quite clearly does, Mr Speaker. As raised in question time, as revealed by the political funding disclosures under the Electoral Act, the Liberal Party members must also be asking questions about the influences which shape their policy of protecting the current unfair regulatory arrangements.

Mr Speaker, that brings me to the Licensed Clubs Association's donations to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, which I think are important when dealing with questions of principle. When a business, a person or a group donates to a party because it believes that that party in government will suit where it stands, I can understand that.

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