Page 4046 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of course, the Labor Party uses those contributions from the club to fund campaigns for its candidates. Some of its candidates are elected to the Assembly and receive a taxpayer funded salary, as do all here. Indeed, the 2005-06 financial disclosure return submitted by the ACT branch of the Labor Party stated that it received $385,923.30 from the Labor Club. Were it not for those funds, the Labor Party would have, on that occasion, received contributions totalling $61,475.69 from other sources.
It is clear that the contributions from the Labor Club to the Labor Party make a very significant difference to its ability to fund its election campaigns. It logically follows that the Labor members in this place have a very direct interest in ensuring that the club can maximise its contributions. It is very much in their direct interest that the club holds a licence and can generate this income. Even if you say that that is not a direct interest but an indirect interest, it is certainly an indirect interest; thus you could say that it is caught by the standing order.
As I said, it has been said on many occasions that Labor members here do have this clear conflict of interest, and it has been said before that they should excuse themselves from debates.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
MR SPEAKER: Yes. Withdraw that, Mr Stefaniak.
Mr Corbell: I do not think that Mr Stefaniak can assert that Labor members have a conflict of interest. He cannot assert that.
MR SPEAKER: I have just ordered him to withdraw that. It is a fair point.
MR STEFANIAK: Certainly it has been said in the past and it could be argued, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Well, just withdraw it unconditionally.
MR STEFANIAK: I withdraw that. But at the end of the day, this is an important matter. It is a matter, I think, that does need clarification. Interestingly, there are some other issues which the Attorney raises which I think are quite valid and which are worthy of clarification as well. After 18 years and a series of debates in this place—I have indicated some precedents where Mr Osborne stood aside from debates—I think it is about time we had a proper look at the standing order and arrived at something definitive. After 18 years, this is an issue that needs to be looked at and put to bed, and I think that it is in everyone’s interests to do that.
I am pleased to hear what I gather to be some support from Dr Foskey in relation to this. It is an important issue. It has been around a long time. It is very sensible, I think, for Mr Smyth to bring forward a motion such as this. I commend him for it. I commend the motion to the Assembly. Certainly I would hope that the standing committee on admin and procedures can seriously look at this issue and related issues and come back to the Assembly with some definitive recommendations. I think that will take us forward, and it is about time after 18 years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .