Page 4039 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe, fall within the terms of standing order 156. What I seek for the inquiry to do is to examine the general matter of conflict of interest and the specific matter of conflict relating to dealing with gaming machine contracts.
The standing order has the interesting twist in the tail in that it says:
Any question concerning the application of this standing order shall be decided by the Assembly.
Those who may have a conflict may actually then end up deciding whether or not they have got a conflict. I do not think that is clear at all, and I do not think it is acceptable. I believe it leaves a cloud hanging over the Assembly in the way that we make decisions. We have seen that entire issue being raised not just locally but nationally in this country in the context of the debate on the influence of gaming machines on problem gamblers and over the revenues that governments receive from them.
It is quite specific here in the case of the ACT where the Labor Party actually has licences through the Labor Club and where the Labor Party is in government. There are significant decisions to be made—the cap of 5,200 machines has been reached. The Gambling and Racing Commission is currently looking at these issues, and I do not want the cloud left hanging over the Assembly that there be any inference of inappropriate behaviour by anyone. This issue has been before the Assembly many, many times over the last decade, and before that as well. (Time expired.)
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.38): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no logic in what Mr Smyth is proposing in this motion today. His only motive appears to be political. In fact, the motion, if passed, has the potential to impact negatively on all members of this Assembly. The purpose and the meaning of standing order 156 are clear. It states that a member who has an interest in a contract made by the territory shall not take part in a debate on a question that relates to that contract. These provisions deal with personal conflict of interest. The standing order is about preventing a member from gaining a personal benefit.
Mr Smyth is proposing that the administration and procedure committee determine whether members who receive benefits from poker machine revenue should be able to take part in a debate on matters relating to gambling. Mr Smyth knows very well that there is no contract between any member here and the clubs for financial support within the scope of standing order 156. It seems that the intent of Mr Smyth’s motion goes well beyond the meaning of this standing order.
There may be some unintended consequences here that Mr Smyth may not have thought about. The Labor Party receives donations from clubs, which are, of course, disclosed and on the public record. But the Liberal Party also receives donations from clubs. It is well known that, in the past, the Liberal Party received donations from the Southern Cross Club, which derives a proportion of its revenue from poker machines. Like the Labor Club, this is a club that is involved in many very worthy causes. Should that donation preclude all the Liberal members of the Assembly from debate on matters relating to gambling?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .