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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3615 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

privileged position, their own nest egg. They should either support the legislation or, better still, step outside and not vote on it.

MR BERRY (11.49): One thing that is most striking about this debate is the amount of dishonesty that has found its way into the debate from the government benches. I will try to touch on all instances of it, and people can make up their own minds about it.

The Liberals - Mr Stefaniak and Ms Carnell - promised at the election before last that they would do nothing to upset the position of the licensed clubs in the ACT. But as soon as they were elected they moved to disadvantage the licensed clubs. That is the first level of dishonesty that has entered this debate. I have a circular. If you want it, Bill, I will make sure you get a copy, and you can sit in a corner somewhere red faced and embarrassed about it. You made the promise and so did the disgraced former Chief Minister. That is a promise you can put alongside the Belconnen pool promise.

The other dishonesty is about who is part of the community. The government benches set out to create the impression that the 160,000 people who are members of clubs are not part of the community and that they should be excised from any consideration of where the money from clubs goes. Any money that goes to the interests of 160,000 members is to be excised.

There is another level of dishonesty. The government has seized upon a figure of 15 per cent for the costs and expenses for clubs, when it is around 30 to 35 per cent. They have arbitrarily seized upon that figure to unfairly inflate the requirements of this legislation. There are about 300,000 club memberships in the ACT. These are shared amongst about 160,000 people.

There is another level of dishonesty that I point to. All of a sudden the $37 million which the government collects from the licensed clubs does not count anymore. Last year they collected $37 million, and that does not count. This is another level of dishonesty the government has introduced into the debate. That community contribution has been ignored in this debate. Mr Humphries and Mr Moore say the clubs' contributions to the ACT is appalling. What a dishonest and misleading thing to say when they know full well that last year $37 million came into government coffers and was distributed for ACT budgetary matters on an as - needs basis. How can you deny that that is a contribution from the clubs? How can you come into this place, barefaced and blush free and ignore those realities?

This goes back to the ideological and philosophical position of the Liberals, who see collectivism as a bit of a threat and a good thing to undermine. Most importantly, it is about shifting responsibility for dealing with welfare to other areas in the community. That is something John Howard has had high on his agenda. So it is not surprising to me that with a government that consists of somebody trained by Peter Reith this sort of ideology would find its way into the lexicon.

This is an attack on the licensed club industry for philosophical and ideological reasons.

Mr Moore: No, it is not.

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