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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3704 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

This provision is based on a spurious argument. It is certainly discriminatory. Any observer would conclude that it is specifically pitched at the Canberra Labor Club. It is specifically pitched, therefore, at the ALP. It is specifically designed to break the balance in financial support that has hitherto existed between the major parties in this town, clearly in favour of the Liberal Party. That will be its effect. In terms of principle and principle abused, this is the lowest proposition that has been brought before this place, at least in my time.

MR BERRY (9.16): Earlier on, when referring to this issue, I made the fairly confident prediction that in future there was going to be a piece of legislation that the Liberals and the Independents who support this particular move would have the opportunity to peruse in relation to the declaration of political donations. In other words, everybody else in this place will be required to be covered by the same rules. If Canberra Casino wants to make a donation to the Liberals next year, they will have to double it to have the same effect. If that is the game the Liberals want to play, I think it is outrageous, whichever way you look at it. It is outrageous to apply the same rules to other people as well. But at least it would level the playing field, so to speak.

What I find disappointing is the rusted - on support for this move by people in this place without a balancing provision to cover the traditional supporters of the Liberal Party.

Mr Osborne: You have to do it under a different act.

MR BERRY: I know that. If people want to support this sort of stuff, it will have apply to them as well.

I am not so sure that the warmth for this proposal will be so evident when the Liberals consider this next time. They might wish that they had never had this visited upon them. The $574,900 they received last year will, in effect, be reduced to $280,000 or thereabouts or the contributors will have to come up with twice the amount of money to get the same bang for their buck.

This is just nonsense. You would end up being forced into the same area to level the playing field. What is being attempted here in a crass political move is something intended to undermine the support of the Labor Party, pretty much as Peter Reith has done with the trade union movement. But they would not apply the same rules to themselves. Therein lies the gross hypocrisy and the lie to the claims they have made in this place tonight that this is not an attack on the Labor Party. Pull the other leg. It yodels. It is extraordinary that this Assembly and the supporters of the Liberals should support this attack on the Labor Party. We are used to it. We will fight back, and we will prevail. The hypocrisy of people who support this move is breathtaking.

MR OSBORNE (9.20): I move the following amendment to Mr Moore's circulated amendment:

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