Page 4040 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Smyth knows that he is being selective in limiting his motion to gambling issues, and this is clearly a political motive, Mr Deputy Speaker. If he were genuine in his desire to clarify the standing order, he would have made it broader. If the scope of the motion is to preclude the members of a party that has received donations from a particular company or industry from participating in debates on issues pertaining to that sector, then why stop at gambling?
For example, does this mean that colleagues in the Liberal Party should abstain from debate on the housing market or on regulation of the housing market because they receive donations from a number of prominent building companies? Should the Liberal Party members abstain from debate about hospitals and, indeed, the regulation of private hospitals because of a donation from the Australian Private Hospitals Association? Does it mean that a donation from a company that deals with groundwater industries should result in the Liberal Party not participating in debate on the regulation of groundwater in the ACT? Should the Liberal Party have abstained from a debate on smoking bans because they received a donation from a tobacco company?
All these examples that I have given are on the public record. I am not saying that these donations would have influenced the position of opposition members, but, if you were to use Mr Smyth’s logic, he would have us believe that they did and that they were not appropriate. I am also not suggesting that those donating these funds were trying to seek financial benefit. But, again, Mr Smyth’s logic would have us believe just that.
Indeed, why should Mr Smyth stop at financial benefits for the donor? Should the Liberal Party members have declared a conflict of interest and abstained from debates that included complex issues such as abortion? The opposition received a sizeable donation from the Right to Life Association in 2004-05. Using Mr Smyth’s logic, this would have influenced the thinking of opposition members on that issue.
Mr Smyth seems to be implying that receiving a donation places an obligation on a political party and its members to provide something in return. This is a surprising position if one considers the groups that provide donations to political parties. In a democracy, individuals and organisations have a right to donate to political parties. It is important that there is information available on these donations, which need to be made in an open and transparent way, but it is a right open to people to donate, and it should not be interfered with.
Commonsense should prevail here. We all know that standing order 156 only covers members who have an interest in a contract made by the territory, which is significantly different from the proposition that Mr Smyth is seeking to put forward. Mr Smyth’s motion, if passed, could lead to members being precluded from participating in debates on issues before the Assembly because they relate to the interests of organisations that have funded political parties of members of the Assembly. This is hardly feasible or practical given the size of this Assembly and the need for members to participate in debates on a broad range of issues. If we adopted Mr Smyth’s approach, every member in this Assembly would have to abstain from participating in a debate at some stage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .