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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4523 ..

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, maybe I will just attempt to clarify it. There is clearly a difference between Mr Osborne on the one hand and Ms McRae or other individual members of the Labor Party on the other hand. There is no doubt in my mind that these members do not, personally, receive money from poker machines; nor do I intend to imply that they do. I hope that that clarifies what Ms McRae is concerned about.

However, I would like to go further - and this may cause some anguish for Ms McRae - and say that what does happen is that the money that goes to the party is used for the re-election of members and as such, as I see it, has an influence on the way members think. I believe that there is a public perception that it has an influence on the way members think on these issues. The party of which they are members receives not quite $1m, but in the order of $1m over the three-year period. As far as I am concerned, there is clearly a relationship between the way people think on this particular issue and this particular source of income.

I do not want to make an individual imputation. Mr Speaker, I withdraw any imputation against any individual member in terms of personally taking money or a bribe. I certainly did not mean it in that way. What I do mean to say, though, is that the intention of the Licensed Clubs Association in giving a donation to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party has to be questioned. I, for the life of me, cannot see any other way to interpret it. I would say that the people of Canberra should look at it and ask: Why would an association of any kind donate to both major parties?

That is the thing that concerns me, as well as the question that members of the Labor Party generally - not just elected members - should be asking themselves: Does the money they are receiving from this source of poker machines, which is close enough to $1m over a three-year period, influence the way they vote? If, indeed, there is an attempt to change the regulations or to change the process by which the gaming is done, then the public perception would be that there would be a tendency for them to attempt to protect their nest egg.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the passage of my Bill would, indeed, provide some small comfort, and only small comfort, to some struggling small businesses - some taverns - in town. The major parties, especially the Liberal Party, profess to be supporters of small business and jobs in Canberra. Earlier this week, the Chief Minister stood in front of the television cameras and said, "I could not turn my back on 200 jobs". Chief Minister, how many jobs are there in taverns in this town, and how many of those jobs are at risk? Indeed, if the failure to pass my Bill this evening leads to the closure of even one business with the loss of half-a-dozen jobs, or to the ruin of just one family's financial wellbeing, then those who opposed this Bill really ought to question why they opposed this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, we heard arguments about an increase in the number of poker machines. I must say, to be fair to Mr Whitecross, that later, in an interjection, he talked about the increase in venues. But let us have a look at what has happened to poker machines since Labor came to government. In the year 1992-93 there were about 3,000 poker machines in clubs in Canberra. In 1993-94, that had increased to 3,250, roughly. By 1994-95 there were about 3,600; by 1995-96, about 3,860; and by 1996-97, over 4,000. In other words,

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