Page 3357 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that the proposed sale could be, in effect, the sale of poker machines. I believe this is against the intent of the legislation and I hope the ALP will closely analyse the laws and ethics of such a sale. The Canberra Times of 15 August ran a story on the front page, starting with:
The Australian Labor Party is embroiled in allegations it might have breached company, tax and gaming laws by seeking to unlawfully influence the sale of a $50 million gaming empire.
What will be the government’s response to these concerns? How will the government and the ministers distance themselves from these concerns? How can the community have confidence in the government, given concerns about conflict of interest? What will the ALP do to get a review process underway, with integrity and independence?
Part 3 of section A of the ALP constitution states, as an objective of the ALP:
To achieve the political and social values of equality, democracy, liberty and social co-operation.
Where do the operation of poker machines and the sale of Labor clubs fit in with that objective? There are lots of questions in this sorry tale. The effects of problem gambling are real, and we as a society must confront that.
I wholeheartedly support Mr Seselja’s motion and urge all in this place to act in the community’s best interest and vote in favour of the motion.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3:08): I applaud Mrs Dunne for taking the time over the lunch break to actually put the amendment into such a neat form so we can quite clearly see what is trying to be achieved here. What the amendment does is leave Mr Seselja’s clause (1) in place, which would appear has broad agreement from everyone in this place.
So clause (1) as a starting point would be a very interesting base of any debate about poker machines into the future. But let us follow through the sequence. If you take what Mrs Dunne has attempted to do here, particularly in conjunction with some of the answers we got and did not get during question time, it is very important for these clauses to remain as they are.
To actually have clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5)—as Mr Seselja had written—linked with clause (6), as proposed by Ms Hunter, is not inconsistent. In some cases you would say they actually complement each other. There is a sequence there that leads to the final request in clause (6). There is, indeed, Madam Assistant Speaker, room for both. All of these can stay on the paper because, as I have said, they are not inconsistent and there is a logical approach. Particularly when you look now at what would be clauses (4) and (5) in light of the answers and the non-answers of question time, it is an opportunity, I hope, for the Greens to reconsider their position. Clause (4) would now state:
raises concerns about reports that Labor Party representatives, and members of the current Government, may have been involved in influencing the decision of the Labor Club group;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .