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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3673 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

the licensed club industry that you have run ceaselessly for years are the two clubs that perform the best, so you have to find some other device.

You did not make your cuts as you were embarrassed, so you resort to this bill and you resort to the Michael Moore amendment and all of a sudden the real agenda is disclosed for all to see. It is disclosed for all to see that this really is about politics. It is really about the Liberals seeking to gain some advantage over their major adversaries in this place, the Labor Party. That is what it is about, and it is extremely grubby, exceedingly grubby, that in the guise of seeking to advantage the community sector and charities you simply wish to undermine your political opponents in this place.

The amendment which Mr Moore will move later shows clearly and starkly that this is all about the imposition of a double burden on the Labor Club, a double whammy on just the Labor Club. The Labor Club has been singled out.

Mr Berry: We have exposed Michael Moore.

MR STANHOPE: He exposed himself 10 years; the exposure has been maintained for that long. But that is what this is about. In this provision which Mr Quinlan seeks to amend we see that this government is imposing on the Assembly and on the community its self - interested definition of what can be a community contribution and what cannot be a community contribution. This bill is just driven by self - interest. All these other things contribute to the community, but the political parties do not contribute to the community and the trade unions do not contribute to the community in the view of the Liberals. It is their view that neither trade unions nor political parties should be seen to contribute in any way to the community; therefore, they should be struck out of any definition of community contribution or any valid action or activity of the licensed clubs.

MS CARNELL (Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts) (5.42): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would urge all members to read what Mr Stanhope just said, which was that the Labor Party has a conflict of interest, a very serious conflict of interest, when it comes to poker machine legislation.

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said no such thing. That is not true. We say euphemistically that it is not true, but it is actually a lie. I said no such thing.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That may be part of the debate.

MS CARNELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask everybody to read what Mr Stanhope said. Mr Stanhope said that this legislation, this amendment, was striking at the absolute core of the Labor Party. In his words, our suggestion that community contributions from poker machines should not go to the Labor Party is striking at the core of the party. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask members to read what he just said, because he argued the case that others in this Assembly have argued often, that is, that it is a conflict of interest for those opposite to vote on any issue relating to poker machines and the revenue that comes from poker machines. Mr Stanhope, in his speech then, made the case better than I could ever, I suspect, or anybody else could ever. I suggest that when members look at this issue from now on, they just read that speech.

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