Page 3328 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As Mr Seselja said so well, you do not resolve a conflict of interest by starting another conflict of interest. The problem for the commission is that never in their wildest dreams would the authors of the gambling legislation have thought that the commission would end up investigating the government, and that is what this will be. This will be an investigation of the government, because we have got a Chief Minister who sits on the executive saying that they have got a role to play here. Indeed, they own it, thereby they are a “person of influence”. He is not authorised under the act to be a person of influence. Therefore you have got outside control occurring, and that is the problem with this.
I note the Greens’ amendment. It is interesting that the Greens leave in paragraph (1) of Mr Seselja’s motion. So at least we are going to all agree that the broad understanding is that the profits should stay in the community. That is what the intention of the legislation was—that the profits go to the community. The legislation actually rules out any individual or corporation taking a windfall gain from the sale of the poker machines, and yet that is what is being proposed. The Labor Party will get a windfall gain on the sale of poker machine licences. Have no doubt about it; that is what they are selling. If you look at the net value of the buildings and the fit-out et cetera, that would be $8 million to $10 million, at a guess. What they are selling is the cash flow, and that cash low is predicated on having poker machine licences. If those licences are not there, then you do not have that cash flow. That fundamentally affects the value of the sale.
I make it abundantly clear that we are making no judgement here on the breach of the law. The allegations have been raised by the president of the Labor club. They have been raised because he feels he is being influenced by people who should not be exerting that influence on him, in direct breach of several laws. It is not just our gaming legislation; taxation legislation, a federal law, is also quoted, as is the corporations law. So this is an enormous problem for the way that we look at gaming in the territory. Others better than I, I am sure, will judge whether there is a breach of the law or not.
What we need is answers from those opposite. Perhaps the minister, in her open and forthright manner, would table the letter that she sent to the commission for the interest of all members of this place so that we can make an informed judgement here. Minister, would you like to able that letter? We would certainly give you leave to table that letter.
Ms Gallagher: I do not have it on me.
MR SMYTH: But could you get it and table the letter?
Ms Gallagher: I will have a look.
MR SMYTH: You will have a look? The minister will have a look. This is openness and accountability, “We’ll have a look. We’ve sent the letter to the commission.” I could actually FOI the letter, I guess. I could write to the commission and FOI any correspondence I could get in that way. But if the minister was truly interested in openness to show that this was all above board, the minister—indeed, all the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .