Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 25 March 2010) . . Page.. 1490 ..
Mr Barr: Yes, a member of my staff is currently a member of the administrative committee but was not a member of the administrative committee at the time that this matter was—
Mr Seselja: So is that the key then? Is that the key?
Mr Barr: Sorry?
Mr Seselja: Is that the key—whether he was on at the time or not?
Mr Barr: No. I am simply saying that in terms of what we are debating today, the Gambling and Racing Commission’s report in relation to matters that took place last year, no member of my staff was either on the Labor club board or on the administrative committee of the Australian Labor Party at that time.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, can I just seek some procedural guidance on this as well? Mr Smyth, as I understand, has taken a point of order or a view asking you to rule on an issue of conflict of interest.
Mrs Dunne: I did.
Mr Corbell: I beg your pardon; Mrs Dunne did. As I read the standing orders, Mr Speaker, there is no role for you in this matter.
MR SPEAKER: I agree.
Mr Corbell: This is a matter for the Assembly to decide—by substantive motion, I assume. So, unless Mrs Dunne is going to move a substantive motion, there is really no question for you to decide on this, and the Liberal Party need to get their procedure right.
Mrs Dunne: On a point of clarification: I am considering whether I should move a substantive motion or not, and that is why I was seeking your guidance, Mr Speaker.
Mr Seselja: On the point of order and on the issue at hand, in relation to the last time this occurred, it was actually the Clerk who gave advice, through the Speaker, I understand, to the Assembly, and so we would seek that advice.
In relation to Mr Barr’s point, there are a couple of things. First, he started with, “They are not on the Labor club board and they are on the administrative committee.” The question that was looked at by the Gambling and Racing Commission was whether the Labor club board was in any way influenced, particularly, and it makes reference to the Labor Party and indeed the committee of the Labor Party; so that is directly relevant.
Mr Barr is now drawing a distinction as to whether his staffer was on the committee at that time. I am not sure about other members, but if that is what it comes down to it may well be that there are other members, possibly Ms Gallagher, who did have staff