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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1686 ..

MR MOORE: At $1,500, we will raise the bar. It will change again, because of a neat little amendment to clause 29, to $5,000 without a declaration having to be made. I have not explored whether the loophole stays at $5,000 or only remains with consecutive $1,500 donations. I just think that it is an absolute scandal that members would support that.

If Mr Stanhope is correct in saying that this does not happen within the Labor Party, why would he allow it to happen within the Liberal Party? The large donations to the Labor Party, as we know from its declarations, are from the Tradies Club, the Labor Club and a few others, as I recall. They are out in the front. They are going to be bigger than that, anyway. The donations are going to be in one lump sum and will be declared; I am not debating that. But why would the Labor Party support the proposed approach? It is because their administrations have done a deal. That is not what they want. Actually, they are not that interested in that at the moment, although the chances are very high that, once it is there, they will use it. What happens now is that they have a quid pro quo-not necessarily the members sitting here, but their party machines have a quid pro quo. What does Labor want? Labor wants to shaft, as best they can, anybody who is running from other than the major parties, because they want to do a one-for-one with the Liberal Party.

You cannot really touch the Greens, which are already meeting all the party requirements, so how do you do it? You go for a series of things, as Mr Kaine aptly put, to make it harder and harder for ordinary people to run. What kind of democratic approach is that? Why is it that the major parties are on the nose? The people of Canberra, even if they vote Labor and Liberal, quite like having a minority government. Most people would say that that is quite a reasonable system.

Mr Rugendyke: About 30 per cent of the people.

MR MOORE: A very high percentage of the people. Is this going to improve their attitude towards politicians and to parties? I am sure that it will do exactly the same. The great irony is that it was only a few weeks ago that Mr Stanhope launched his code of good government, which says very early in the piece that Labor's agenda is to promote a new emphasis on open, democratic and responsive government. We can really see that today; that is really terrific! What hypocrisy! It goes on to say:

The first time that it is in the interests of the Labor Party to do something in secret, what does it do? It does so in secret. What are they going to be like in government as the pressure is always on keeping things under cover? There are very clear indications here that Labor would have anything but an open government if it wins office. The code goes on to say:

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