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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3692 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

What this is clearly designed to do is tip the scales, and tip the scales against the ALP. It is clearly a discriminatory action. If it is passed, quite obviously the ALP would feel justified in bringing forward provisions under the electoral legislation to make it a law that all political donors are identified, and that all political donors are required to make a similar dollar - for - dollar contribution. Otherwise those people who vote for this amendment to the legislation in this place are voting for discriminatory laws in this town.

Now, no doubt because it is so blatantly discriminatory, it is highly likely that there will be legal action in relation to this particular exercise. Having looked at this legislation, at what it is designed to do, at the clear motivation behind it and at what has motivated its author to bring it forward, I would like to record - not that anybody will care much - that I believe this is the lowest day in this Assembly since I have been here.

This is pure political bastardry, and purely biased from the former Residents Rally/Independent/Liberal/would - be Democrat/Liberal, Mr Moore. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I do not feel disposed to support Mr Moore's amendment.

MS TUCKER (8.30): I will speak to this group of amendments. I am not speaking to the amendment that will require the clubs to make a contribution equal to that to the political entity, but to the group of amendments that require that there be more information in this legislation about actually how much is given. These amendments are about just listing the amount of money given to registered parties. That is the main aspect of these particular amendments, and I will be supporting them. I will not be supporting the final amendment, Mr Moore, for reasons that I will explain later.

I am comfortable in supporting these because I do not have a problem with that disclosure requirement. The amount of money that was spent is already in the commission's report. I am not quite sure, though, that that is required. It might be just what they are choosing to do at this moment. I am not sure on that. Nevertheless, I do not have a problem with it being required in the legislation.

It is just more information, and I think that as much disclosure as possible is desirable, as I already said, because I have concerns about the influence that these sorts of donations can have on a democratic system in the long run, particularly for emerging new parties and Independents. I think we have to be very aware of the dangers of this increasing reliance on corporate sponsorship of different kinds to political parties to run their campaigns.

MR OSBORNE (8.32):I am just speaking to Mr Moore's amendment and I will speak to the contentious issue later. This is just about, I think, better disclosure, Mr Speaker.

The one point I want to make, though, is that it is becoming even clearer to me that there is a potential conflict of interest in the stance that the Labor Party has taken in relation to poker machines because, from what I have heard today, I can hardly distinguish between the two entities. Anyway, I think that they really need to reconsider their position. You cannot stand up here in this place and argue passionately about the large amounts of money that you are receiving from an organisation, while really your vote is crucial in maintaining that monopoly.

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