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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3661 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

of people has taken over a club and another group doesn't like it. Well, if that group of people over there, sitting in opposition, take over these benches after the next election, there are going to be plenty of people here who do not like it.

Mr Osborne: Let's fix it up now then. Let's change the rules so you can only elect 49 per cent.

MR MOORE: I think we should look at the democratic process. Mr Osborne interjects. That's an interesting thing. We could learn from the way the clubs are set up at the moment and set up the Assembly the same way and make sure that the only people who can vote are those who happen to be on side with the ones you choose to be on side, and that way you can stay in power the whole time.

Mr Speaker, the reason why we are having this debate is because poker machines are recognised by the legislation as being a very special advantage to those who have them.

Mr Quinlan: To the community. To the sporting fabric of the place.

MR MOORE: Mr Quinlan says, "Yes, to the community." He is the very same person who is now arguing that that community should not get a vote in an equitable way. He says it's an advantage to the community, provided we restrict who that community is; that we do not let them have control of the board of directors and we restrict what can happen. I don't think so, Mr Quinlan.

MR BERRY (4.48): Mr Speaker, I listened to Mr Moore's speech and I wondered why he spoke. It must have been because he likes the sound of his own voice. It could not have been because he wanted to give the substance of the argument, because it had no substance. Mr Moore is trying to create the impression that the clubs are some sort of compulsory outfit that everybody has to belong to. A lot of people do belong to them, and it is entirely voluntary. Clubs do not have the same rules as the community at large who get a vote because they have to be able to share in the democratic processes of the state.

Clubs are not the state. They are merely social outlets for people, and people can belong to them for whatever reason they like. If they choose not to belong to the Labor Club, regrettably they cannot belong to a Liberal club because there are not enough people who would want to form a club and call it the Liberal club, but they may wish to belong another club. The same applies in relation to a particular ethnic club. So Mr Moore is suggesting that a club that has been established for particular ethnic purposes should be able to be taken over and renamed by a group of people of another particular calling. It might be people who support fast motor cars, or something like that.

Mr Moore has been disingenuous again. It is more of the dishonesty that has been peppered on us about this debate about clubs. If you don't want to belong to a club, you don't have to be a member. You can always choose a club of your own liking, amongst all of those clubs that are out there. You have to be part of society; that is why the rules of democracy are quite different. There is no obligation, say, amongst Protestants, for example, to belong to a club that is formed for Catholics and their friends. There is no obligation, but there are a lot of Protestants that do, and they love it.

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