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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3697 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

What do you think the Labor Party is ever going to get out of the squatters' paper? Not much. We are used to it. We have been here since 1989. Our party is used to living in adversity. We have had it ever since we first began. So there is nothing new in this. The trade union movement is the same.

There is nothing new in the attack on the Labor Party. The self - denial is quite interesting. We will cope. We will prosper as we always have, and we will do it on the basis of principle, not the work of despots trying to undermine the political standing of their colleagues.

I am a little disappointed in this amendment that is being put forward by Mr Moore, because it only adds the requirement to record a total value of contributions to registered parties and associated entities. Mr Moore, of course, fails to address other issues of disclosure that would be very interesting to the people of the ACT.

I am surprised and disappointed that Mr Osborne - and, I suspect, Mr Rugendyke, though he has not spoken on the matter - has formed a view about this and is so attached to the Liberals' attack on the Labor Party on the issue of principle, that is the principle of disclosure. I accept his attachment to the Liberal Party in government: we will work our way around that. However, when it comes to the issue of disclosure, I am a little disappointed in his lack of even - handedness.

It would be interesting if there was a provision there that dealt with some of the problems that the Liberals have. I recall that two elections ago - and I have mentioned it before today - the Liberals' position was that they were not going to change anything for the licensed clubs. The next election came around and there was a metamorphosis, something changed. The Liberals had a new policy, that is, to support poker machines in the casino. That is now very clear, unambiguous and nobody questions it. The Liberal Party has a policy of supporting poker machines in the casino.

Well, what has changed in the meantime? I know that the Labor Party made it clear publicly that we had no interest in spreading poker machines anywhere else. We made it very clear, so what did the casino do in respect to the Labor Party? They gave us nothing, not a dollar, because they expected nothing from the Labor Party.

But the Liberal Party got $15,000 from Casino Canberra. What I would like to see disclosed is what the Liberals agreed to to get the $15,000 or what Casino Canberra required to give them the $15,000. That is what I would like to see. I would like to see full disclosure in relation to the issue. It did not just happen for the fun of it. One party gets nothing, not a red cent. The party with which Mr Moore and the Independents are so enraptured gets $15,000, and the only thing that has changed, it appears, is that the Liberals now agree to poker machines going into the casino.

Talk about conflict of interest; that is a pretty clear one to me. The Liberals were clearly supportive of a move to put the poker machines in the casino. The only thing that I can see has changed is that Casino Canberra gave them $15,000. We are yet to hear an explanation of what the Liberals agreed to, or what the casino required, to ensure that generous donation to the Liberal Party.

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