Page 4047 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE (12.05): Mr Speaker, the attorney himself actually put forward the case for why this motion should succeed and why there should be a reference of standing order 156 to admin and procedure. His exposition here and what he thought was a speech against the motion was, in fact, a speech in favour of the motion. He pointed to a whole range of ambiguities that might arise in relation to the relationships which we as individual members and as members of parties might have with organisations in this community and the wider community.
Mr Corbell is sensitive about this issue because there is particular reference to poker machines. But this motion will be a complete review of the operation of standing order 156, and the general tenor of discussion in here today says that there is considerable ambiguity. I have been a member of administration and procedure, as have Mr Smyth and Dr Foskey. These issues were not raised in the forthcoming review of standing orders, but that does not mean that we should not consider them as they arise. The most important part of doing our job here is that what we do is above reproach and open and accountable. This is why we moved amendments to the Freedom of Information Act yesterday—to open up what we do to public scrutiny.
There is a perception—Dr Foskey touched upon that—of a conflict of interest for the Labor Party because of their association with the Labor clubs and gaming machines. Dr Foskey dwelt on whether or not there was a contractual or administrative arrangement between the government and licensed clubs that hold poker machines. But that is not the only area where we have to consider whether or not there is a contract. As a member of the Liberal Party, I have a contract with the Liberal Party that requires me to do particular things and, in the same way, members of the Labor Party have a contract with the Labor Party that requires them to do particular things because we carry the brand name—the Liberal brand or the Labor brand.
One of the things that Mr Corbell talked about was the fact that people obtain funding through election donations from a variety of sources, and he touched on some of them. I presume he had me in mind, amongst others, when he talked about the ACT Right to Life Association. Yes, I received a donation from the ACT Right to Life Association. First of all, the ACT Right to Life Association does not receive any cabinet funding, nor do I have a contract with the ACT Right to Life Association. When I speak on matters I make no secret of the fact of my affiliation with the ACT Right to Life Association, but I have no contract with them; no contract exists. The same can be said for a whole range of people who, as individuals or as groups, might donate to me or to any other person in this place. If there is a contract between us to do particular things, then that should be upfront.
For members of the Labor Party there is a conflict. There are contracts between the government and licensed clubs, one of which is the Labor Club. The Labor Party receives a benefit from the Labor Club. At the same time, individual members of the Labor Party, to be endorsed in this place, enter into a contract with the ACT ALP, or whatever the organisation is. It is not for me to table that contract. It is for the members of this place to do so. I am quite happy to table the candidate contract that I signed the last time I was endorsed as a candidate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .