Page 1311 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in direct violation of that clause. There was a very simple question to the Chief Minister: do you still support the community club gaming model? “I support the MOU.” Clause 8. “We support the community gaming model.” Why could he not just say that? What was so hard? I suspect what is hard is that he does not want to be on the record saying, “I support the community club model” or “I support the community club gaming model,” because that might not accord with something he would like to do. But you have signed up to it.
At the end of the questioning today, there was the dire warning. The flag was run right up the flagpole today. “Oh, yes, but it’s got a termination date.” Yes; on 11 September this year the existing MOU lapses. It will be interesting to see.
Unlike the unions MOU, which is ongoing and which both parties have to agree to terminate, it will be really interesting to see whether the government led by Andrew Barr will sign another MOU with ClubsACT to give the clubs some certainty. I suspect, given what was said this afternoon, that the answer to that would simply be: no. Perhaps the minister, when he gets up to speak, would like to say, “Yes, it’s my full intention and I’ll personally recommence negotiation of the next MOU with ClubsACT to ensure that the community club gaming model continues in the ACT.”
We are very different from other jurisdictions. You can say that all jurisdictions have poker machines, but that is like saying that all football is the same, whether it is soccer, Aussie rules, rugby union or rugby league. Yes, it is all football, but they are decidedly different. The WA model is different from the ACT model is different from the Victorian model.
What we do not get is a definite answer from the minister. You can think it is smart; you can think you are being good at what you are doing. But in the end, you go back to the principles: transparency, honesty, accountability, fairness; ethical principles for ministers. What is wrong with simply saying, “Well, no, we don’t support the community club gaming model anymore because of A, B or C” or simply saying, “Yes, we do. I have got the MOU; I have dug it out and looked through it. I knew what the clauses were. That is okay.” I do not think it is what people expect, and I think it is part of the disenchantment with politics these days that we sometimes get too tricky.
When you add it all up, there is a litany there, with the evasive answers, the issue of the MOU, the issue of the leaking of information from the office of a minister, the conflict of interest over poker machines, the sale of the poker machines, the contribution from the poker machines, the data tampering, the bullying. The list just goes on and on, Madam Deputy Speaker. If there is a litany here, the litany grows. We have a secretive government that would be seemingly doing many deals behind the scenes, almost nod and wink stuff, just a quick process or poor process, all in violation of the ethical principles for ministers outlined in the government’s own code of conduct for ministers.
To close, I will read what these principles are. If you accept the definition of ethical as the accepted principles of right or wrong that govern our profession, and then you say, “What are those principles of right and wrong,” and you just accept the government’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video