Page 3329 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ministers—would table the copy of the letter. Perhaps the other two ministers who have not spoken—Mr Corbell and Mr Hargreaves—could tell us whether or not they got letters or whether only three ministers were singled out. Then you ask, “Why were only three ministers singled out?”
Mr Hanson: Left, right and centre!
MR SMYTH: Left, right and the guy with influence, the guy on the national executive. At the heart of this is the left-right conflict that is tearing the Labor Party apart. The left want to sell this and secure the booty; the right do not want that to occur, because it gives the left inordinate power. The people of the ACT are the victims, as they always are.
Mrs Dunne: Vicious and stupid didn’t get a look in.
MR SMYTH: Vicious and stupid; it may well be vicious and stupid. It is interesting that the Greens have moved to amend out paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Mr Seselja’s motion. In a way they agree with paragraph (2), that the issue raises concerns about the proposed sale of the Labor Club Group which will see a potential massive windfall from what is, in effect, the sale of poker machines. I think that we all agree on that; I think it is a statement of fact. Why you would get rid of that, I am not sure. Paragraph (3)(a) says that the Assembly notes:
the potential for the proposed transaction to undermine the public acceptance and original intent of the community based gaming model …
I think that is a statement of fact. Paragraph (3)(b) states that the Assembly notes:
the sections of the Gaming Machine Act 2004 that identify influential persons and prohibits clubs that operate poker machines from being under the influence of outside parties …
Well, that is also a statement of fact. I do not know why you would want to rule that out. Paragraph (4) of Mr Seselja’s motion says the Assembly:
raises concerns about the report that the Labor Party representatives, and members of the current Government, may have been involved in influencing the decision of the board of the Labor Club group …
Well, we had denials yesterday from Minister Gallagher and Minister Barr, but we did not have one from the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister refused to answer these questions yesterday, even though the Speaker gave him the opportunity. He could have put this to bed yesterday, but he chose not to. So I do not see why we should take out paragraph (4). Paragraph (5) states:
calls on all ministers of the ACT Government to make full and frank disclosure of any involvement they, their staff or their representatives may have had in influencing the decision making process of the Labor Club board.
That would end any conflict of interest questions. If the ministers would simply stand up in this debate and make that disclosure, then it would be over. If the Greens wish to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .