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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4897 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

have raised it then, that there is one landlord in Canberra who probably would be at a huge disadvantage if that legislation had been passed. That landlord, over the next 10 years or so, would be looking at something in the order of a $12m interest. It is a $12m issue, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, and that conflict of interest, I guess, applies to the Labor Party. It applies to Centenary House where the Australian National Audit Office has a contract with the Labor Party which probably benefits the Labor Party. The figure I have heard is in the order of $12m. Had I been aware of that earlier I would have called on the Labor Party not to have voted on this issue. However, I was not aware of it. I presume that some members of the Labor Party probably were not conscious of it as well. Certainly, I have known about that situation for some time, but, quite clearly, the legislation would have an impact on that.

I think this is an issue that we need to deal with. It concerns me, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that the Labor Party did vote on an issue which could be of benefit to the party. Obviously it is not of benefit to any individual member, but it could be of benefit to the party. In that context, I today asked Mr Berry whether he would distinguish between money that goes into individual pockets as opposed to money that is spent on the Territory. The issue here is that there is some $12m at stake. It is a huge sum of money and it is over a long period. We have seen, yet again, a vote of the Labor Party which does protect the interests of the Labor Party, and I think that is an appalling situation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (6.48): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I promised yesterday to table a response to comments by Mr Mossop of the Environmental Defender's Office on the planning legislation. I do so now.

MR WOOD (6.48): I must respond, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, to Mr Moore's comment about conflict of interest. I have to say it surprises me because in the debate we have had internally on this matter it has never been raised; it has never been mentioned. I can see the point he makes, but it has never been referred to at any time. I do not believe it has ever been part of any consideration. I am not even sure - I will go back and look at the relevant legislation - that if those amendments were made the Commonwealth would, in any event, be able to seek a change of rent, or that the Commonwealth is not able to do it at the moment anyway. I refute any suggestion that there has been any conflict in this way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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