Page 3327 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Apparently, the club is not owned by the members of the Labor Club; apparently it is owned by the Labor Party. That in itself, if it were true, would be a breach of the act. That is what we talk about when we talk about conflict of interest here:
It would be bizarre in the extreme if the Labor Party, as the owner of an asset …
That is what we are talking about here. It is bizarre in the extreme that we are having this debate at all. I would have thought everyone here would be very much interested in making sure that this was done in the clear light of day and that this was done according to the ministerial code of conduct. It is interesting that section 2 of the government’s own ministerial code of conduct headed, “Respect for the law and system of government”, says:
Ministers will uphold the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and Australia, and will not be a party to their breach, evasion, or subversion.
What is it that the head of the Labor club is saying? He is saying that, because of the influence of external bodies, perhaps there has been a breach, evasion or subversion. So it is an important matter, but it is also relevant that those opposite have an interest in this.
It is interesting that Ms Hunter mentioned that the minister had referred the letter to the Gambling and Racing Commission. That is not quite true. The exact words yesterday were:
I received a copy of that letter yesterday and I forwarded it to the Gambling and Racing Commission for their information.
It was an FYI letter. It was not, “Here, have a look at this.” If the minister knows her act and if people look at the act, there are at least two sections of the act where the commission can conduct an inquiry. The commission of its own volition can conduct an inquiry and the minister can also trigger an inquiry. There is another section of the act where, if a complaint is received, the commission can have an investigation. None of that has been started yet. The letter was sent FYI. It is the appearance of keeping people informed and that the government is above board. It is not actually, “We have sent this off.” If the minister had genuine concerns, the minister would have sent that immediately to the commission and demanded an investigation, authorised an investigation, under the power that she has. She has a power to instigate an investigation, but the minister chose not to, and you have to ask the question why.
She has dropped the Chief Minister in it, because the Chief Minister got the same letter. She dropped Mr Barr in it, because Mr Barr got the same letter. And neither of those gentlemen sent their copies of the letter to the commission. Neither of those gentlemen, as ministers of the ACT government who will have respect for the law and the system of government, wrote to the commission under the act saying, “Here’s something that we’re worried about. Would you please investigate.” No. In fact, nobody from the government wrote to the commission seeking an investigation. The letter was simply forwarded for their information, and that is the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .