Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 816 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It is like arguing that, because you are a householder and have a house and you pay rates on your house, you are excluded from voting on matters affecting rates in the Territory. It is such a silly argument.

Ms Tucker: Two hundred thousand dollars is a lot.

MR HUMPHRIES: But it is a commercial building. It is only rent from a commercial building.

Mr Whitecross: It is money in your pockets.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed it is; but it is only one building and it is only one set of rent from that building. If we had to vote on a Bill directly affecting that property, of course we would have to abstain, as the Chief Minister has indicated. But this is a matter on a vastly different scale, and I am sorry you cannot see that. Does Ms Tucker not think that the perception is created that when a party getting $600,000 over two years votes on legislation affecting its income stream via poker machine revenues - - -

Ms Tucker: That is why they need to be very careful about what they do; but there could also be a perception that you are compromised.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker has said that the Labor Party needs to be very careful. That is what this motion says. The motion says that the parties concerned - Mr Osborne and the Labor Party - ought to be very careful. That is all the motion says. That is exactly what the motion says. It notes that there are these substantial benefits from these sources and it "urges these Members to abstain from voting or participating in any debate, motion or legislation relating to the gambling industry which incorporates the operation of gaming machines". That is what the motion says.

Turning to Mr Berry's comments, because of the distortions he engaged in during this debate, it is pretty clear that he either does not understand what the motion says or deliberately distorts what it says in order to make some sort of point. He mentioned the $1m, so called, the Liberal Party receives. How much of that $1m relates to public funding, Mr Whitecross?

Mr Whitecross: You know.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, I know, and you probably know; but you did not tell the Assembly that when you said that the Liberal Party gets $1m in donations.

Mr Whitecross: We are talking about political donations, political contributions.

MR HUMPHRIES: You cannot describe public funding as a donation, Mr Whitecross.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .