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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3598 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

You will find that the ALP and the Liberal Party incurred expenditures of about the same order during the last election. Of course, according to Liberal Party standards, such an outcome is absolutely unfair and unbalanced - "Fancy the opposition having as much money to spend on promotion in an election campaign as we have. Better stop that." This is the Liberal Party that got $9,500 from FAI, the company that built the Waldorf Apartments so - called - in fact, the Waldorf hotel across the road from this building - and got concessions of half a million dollars funded by the taxpayer. Half a million dollars from the taxpayer, 91/2 grand to the Liberal Party - what a good deal. And we might later in the day refer to the 250 Club and the Free Enterprise Foundation - those people whose vested interests appear to be best served by the Liberal Party and who throw money at them.

So when we hear the term "conflict of interest" later this morning, please remember that the application of the bill that we are now considering will not impact on the ALP because the clubs that support the ALP actually support the community far more than most of the others.

I have to say that the government's public statements on the subject of the distribution of poker machine revenue are up there with its worst forays into propaganda. In a skewed report, the government isolated the contributions to charity. It then made a series of public statements demonising the club industry for non - contribution to the community. I have to say that in this place I have a grudging admiration for the debating skills of one Gary Humphries. Despite that, I was the one who introduced into this place the term "I've been Gary - ed" because of his continued propensity to twist the truth and to use facts selectively to the point -

Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the imputation is very clear here: what Mr Quinlan has just said will prevent him from ever using the term "Gary - ed" again because he has now explained that he uses it to call somebody a liar.

Mr Stanhope: We all know what a "Gary" is. Nobody has ever been under any misapprehension. I think we have all been "Gary - ed".

Mr Moore: Mr Stanhope will now need to withdraw that as well.

MR SPEAKER: It has been recognised; it has been accepted.

MR QUINLAN: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I think at last week's sitting you quite happily accepted, although misinformed from the government side of the house, an imputation in relation to Mr Corbell. I do not think there can be any worse imputation than the one that was accepted last week in this place.

Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: the point that I was taking was that Mr Quinlan was talking about twisting the truth. I think that is where he has gone too far. That is how he now defines "Gary - ed", and both are unacceptable according to our standing orders.

MR SPEAKER: Did you make any reflection in terms of the truth, Mr Quinlan?

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