Page 4041 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, all public representatives are required to deal with a wide range of issues, and what may be perceived as conflicts of interest arise from time to time. One needs to draw a distinction between personal conflict of interest and political conflict of interest. If an individual member stands to gain financially or materially from an action taken as a result of an Assembly debate, of course they should publicly disclose their interest and not participate in such debate.
Standing order 156 and section 15 of the self-government act deal with this, and they are clear and unambiguous. Political parties, especially when in government, deal with conflict of interest of a political nature all the time. We are expected to adopt positions on the basis of public benefit and of public interest. It is doubtful that any political party would profess to do otherwise.
It may well be that public benefit is sometimes in conflict with political interests. These can be difficult choices and they require considered judgements, but they cannot be codified. The government’s actions and decisions actually testify that it places public benefit over and above its political interest, particularly in the area of gambling. Why else would we introduce legislation that actually reduces clubs’ revenue? Mr Smyth’s logic, again, would have us do nothing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, one can only assume that Mr Smyth has deliberately limited the motion to gambling knowing that the Labor Party receives a sizeable donation from the Labor Club group. As I and my colleagues have said in this place many times, the Labor Party is not ashamed of its connection with the Labor Club. The establishment of a Labor Club was a well considered and legitimate move to create a financial support base for the party’s work. The Labor Party makes no secret of the fact that it receives a donation from the Labor Club. It is only a donation and is not linked directly to poker machine revenue.
The Labor Club provides a range of other services for Canberra families, and this donation is drawn from the club’s overall earnings. The donation is public knowledge and freely available from the Electoral Commission. Indeed, all donations received by political parties are detailed on the commission’s website in annual returns. In fact, if Labor Assembly members were obligated to promote favourable conditions for the Labor Club, they would not have supported the introduction of stringent smoking bans. These have resulted in a drop in the organisation’s gaming revenue of over $7 million in 2006-07 compared with the previous year. This equates to an average decline of almost 10 per cent. Neither would my Labor colleagues or I have supported a 17 per cent increase in gaming tax from July 2007.
It is obvious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Mr Smyth’s motion is targeted at the Labor Party members of the Assembly because of the support the party receives from the Labor Club group. It is a blatantly political endeavour. It delivers no public benefit and it impedes governing. Ultimately, if extended to its logical conclusion, it could impact on all members and impede the effective operation of the Assembly. For these reasons the government does not support the motion.
It is worth highlighting, in conclusion, that, at the end of the day, what purpose would this inquiry serve? Aside from the obvious weaknesses of Mr Smyth’s arguments, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .