Page 3490 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.47): I was moved to come down to the chamber and ask Mr Stefaniak if I could make a few comments on this because, once again, we see the pious, high moral ground adopted by the Greens on this issue—and those in the Labor Party, who seem to have had a fundamental falling out this afternoon over the issue of donations. I will come to that in a minute.
Let me look at the history of the Greens in this place when it comes to the matter of the community contributions about which they speak with such enthusiasm. I do not know whether it was related to Ms Tucker’s employment history in Wrest Point casino, but I notice that, going back to June 2004, when responding to a proposed amendment by Mr Stefaniak to increase contributions to ensure that amounts given to political parties required matching outlays above and beyond the seven per cent contribution, Ms Tucker took the view that she should vote against it. Guess who voted against it: Ms Tucker—the one whose successor is here today pointing to and lecturing political parties here about how to conduct themselves. Let me read Mr Stefaniak’s proposed amendment just so that the record shows it. It says:
(1) For a licensee that is a club, the required community contribution for a financial year is the total of—
(a) the required percentage of the club’s net revenue for the year; and
(b) an amount equal to the total of the contributions made by the licensee during the financial year to registered parties, associated entities, members of the Legislative Assembly and candidates.
How did the voting go against that? Those who voted against it were Mr Berry, Mr Corbell, Ms Gallagher, Mr Hargreaves, Ms MacDonald, Mr Quinlan, Mr Wood and—wait for it—Ms Tucker. Here we have the Greens wasting the time of the Assembly today. We are hearing about the poor performance of others in this area, and yet, when it comes to their historical performance on these issues, they are lacking.
I was fascinated to hear Mr Stanhope speak. I turned up the volume of the sound in my office because I was just flabbergasted to hear his very frank, but I must say very honest, analysis of the Greens candidate for the Senate, whose principal funding source is poker machine revenue in this town, coming through the CFMEU. Of course, the way in which the Labor Party benefits is a matter of public record. What was it in 2004-05? We heard Mr Barr wax lyrical about how much they are giving to the community. What did they give to the Labor Party? It was $336,397.28. That was the 2004-05 contribution.
Mr Barr: I know you hate to hear it, Richard, but the Labor Party is part of the community as well.
MR MULCAHY: These are the sorts of contributions that you can rake out of the poker machines. Don’t get too worried about those problem gamblers, Mr Barr. Don’t get too worried about them. It is funding the lavish election campaign that the Labor Party has and the desperately expensive campaign that they will need next year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .