Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3671 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
suspect from some of what we have seen, at least an advantage to them of having a particular party with a particular philosophy in power.
We can see from the papers that I distributed informally in this place today that the expenditures between the major parties and on behalf of major parties at the last election were about even. That does not appear to satisfy the Liberal Party, which in particular would want to hamstring the Labor Party. That point has been made and argued, and those who will not hear it will never hear it. I will close by repeating that to define political activity as not being part of a democratic community is to define yourself and what you do here outside the community. I came here for the community. Did you?
MS CARNELL (Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts) (5.34): There is nothing to stop the Labor Club or, for that matter, any other club contributing to a political campaign; nothing whatsoever. There is 95 per cent of the net poker machine revenue left to do that. All we are saying with the 5 per cent or the 7 per cent is that it should go to a broader community base. Not all of it, not 100 per cent of it, but 5 per cent going up to 7 per cent should go to broad community purposes. That is not a lot, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I could fully accept Mr Quinlan's argument if we were talking about the lot, 75 per cent or 80 per cent, but that is not the case. Surely, taking into account the very special responsibility that clubs have as a result of having a monopoly on poker machines, 5 per cent to 7 per cent should go to a broader community base. We are not talking just about charities, but I would say that that much should go to charities, people doing worse than us, people doing it tough in our community. I think that amount of money should go to them.
But we have compromised and the 5 per cent to 7 per cent can now go to a wide range of things, not just to political parties or to paying entertainers or other expenditure that is directly related to the club itself. Surely, that is not a lot to ask. Surely, it is not appropriate basically to take money from charities, and that is what we are talking about here if that is what the Labor Party has a problem with, and give it to a political party. Use the other 95 per cent, not the 5 per cent.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.35): The minister completely misconstrues the circumstances or the situation. What we have, and it simply cannot be gainsaid, is a political grouping in this place seeking to redefine the notion of community contribution or community for its base political advantage. We have a new definition of what is community -
Mr Humphries: What was the old one?
MR STANHOPE
: The old definition is one that was inclusive enough to encompass business associations, political parties and trade unions, and Mr Quinlan has made the point that political parties go to the heart of the community. The Labor Party is one of the great, enduring Australian institutions. It is a fundamental part of the Australian community and has been for over 100 years. To suggest that the Labor Party is not a fundamental and significant part of the community is simply to misunderstand and misconstrue the entire nature of the community, and in particular of the Australian community. We all know that this is an attack on the Labor Party. This is not an attack
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .