Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3676 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
The same goes in relation to political parties. The legislation is targeted at a particular political party. It is targeted at the Labor Party; there is no question of that. If the Liberal Party felt advantaged by this process, they would not have been interested in changing it. Also of interest to me is the issue about business associations. What they want to do is to rule out the business association for the family of clubs as a contributor to the political debate. My experience has been that the clubs' association has always acted in the interests of the clubs and therefore its members. How on earth can you rule it out of the debate as well?
It is always very interesting to look at the contributions that come from various sources all over the city. I wonder why the Liberals have not decided that Casino Canberra should be penalised in some way when it is making a contribution to a particular political party. Casino Canberra made a massive contribution to the Liberal Party - $15,000.
Ms Carnell: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Casino Canberra have said publicly that they are more than happy to comply with the legislation in force.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
MR BERRY: It was $15,000; I can see it here. Casino Canberra came to me before the last election insisting that the Labor Party agree to install poker machines in the casino. I said no. They gave us nothing. They gave you $15,000. What did you say?
A few years ago I was on a Commonwealth parliamentary matter and I learned of the actions of despots in other parts of the world. One of the first things that they seek to do is undermine their political opponents by one way or another. The worst example of that I had heard of was in Uganda, where political parties were banned, and political parties were defined as more than one person. Taking that to a logical extension, if your political opponents are causing you trouble, you will do anything at all to stop them. This is just one step in that direction. I think that it is an issue of principle that is deserving of opposition.
The same applies in relation to the trade union movement. I cannot recall the last time the trade union movement chorused applause for the Liberal Party for what it has done for the community throughout this country. Therefore, I expect that the trade union movement would not be surprised by attacks on it by the conservatives opposite. Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill is merely a political move. It is just another example of how this issue is tied to ideology and has nothing to do with substance.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (5:55): It is just a political manoeuvre tied to ideology! There was nothing there from the man who just crawled out of the pigsty, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Berry began his words by making an attack on conflict of interest on the part of the former Chief Minister. Of course, your tactic whenever you feel vulnerable is to come out with what you perceive in some way to be dirt.
Mr Berry has just started on Mrs Carnell. He started on me earlier today when he suggested that I had a conflict of interest with regard to the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. Indeed, the media asked me for comments about
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .