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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3653 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

sense of political antecedents, and they do not relate to my side of politics. Moreover, Mr Broome had a period of service as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, such as to give him an eminence and integrity in such matters which I would be a brave politician indeed to impugn here or anywhere else. I do not think anybody could logically argue that John Broome is not his own man, Mr Speaker, so I think those attacks on the chairman of the commission are unfortunate.

Let me return, however, to the report by the commission into the contributions made by clubs. The argument has been put by those opposite that what the government is trying to do is to cause the donations made by clubs to political parties to dry up. I draw attention to the donations made to community organisations by some of the prominent clubs associated with the Australian Labor Party. For example, Mr Speaker, the Canberra Labor Club had a net gaming machine revenue of $8.1 million and made donations to community causes, as defined by the commission, of 6.66 per cent. Bear in mind that the government has set a target of 5 per cent. The Labor Club is already exceeding that target. The Labor Club does not have anything whatever to fear from the legislation which is about to be passed, I assume.

The Canberra Tradesmen's Union Club had a net game machine revenue - that is profit, if you like - of $11.8 million. Its contribution to community organisations and causes amounted to $2.8 million, and was in fact 23.64 per cent of that club's profit. It paid 23 per cent to community organisations, Mr Speaker - a very good effort. I publicly commend the Canberra Tradesmen's Union Club for its effort. Similarly, the Woden Tradesmen's Union Club had $4.3 million in profit and it expended over $320,000, or 7.68 per cent.

Mr Speaker, if clubs of the kind we are talking about are already expending in excess of the government's requirements on community activities, how could this possibly be said to be a threat to their capacity to donate to the Labor Party? They are already exceeding the government's targets, in the case of some of them, by a very long way. The Canberra Tradesmen's Union Club exceeded the government's target by about six - fold or five - fold. That rather puts the lie to the argument that we are about trying to stop these donations being made to the Labor Party. Clearly, on these figures, there will be no difficulty whatsoever for all of those organisations I quoted to be able to continue to donate to the Labor Party in future years. Clearly, Mr Speaker, that is the case. This claptrap about how we are trying to stop the Labor Party receiving donations is exactly that. It is nonsense.

I also want to address this argument that the Liberal Party's receipt of donations from business somehow places it in the same boat as the Labor Party's receipt of donations from clubs who have poker machines. Mr Speaker, as others have said in this debate, the essential issue in this argument is the source of the funds. I do not begrudge individuals in the community donating to political parties, because presumably those individuals earn their money in a decent way from their businesses or their private income and they make their donations without any embedded privilege assisting them to make those donations.

Similarly, Mr Speaker, businesses in the ACT who donate variously to the Liberal and the Labor parties, looking at the most recent figures, have not had any particular embedded privilege which assists them to provide that kind of funding. In the case, for

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