Page 4884 - Week 13 - Thursday, 2 November 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

first to point out that poker machines are addictive, manipulative and cause harm for some members of our community, and we have campaigned to reduce the number of poker machines in the territory. But this is not what Mr Coe is complaining about. Even though we do not think it is ethical, we cannot see any inherent corruption issue with the ownership of poker machines by a political party. Again, we invite Mr Coe to present any evidence of a specific corruption issue rather than a general notion that he does not like the arrangement that is in place.

We are also very happy to have a conversation with the Liberal Party about further measures to control poker machines in this territory, but until now they have been the champions of the poker machines remaining in place and unfettered. I also note that the government has committed to a program of harm minimisation across all venues in Canberra. I welcome that. All the changes to date—whether it be the poker machine trading scheme, the introduction of ATM and EFTPOS limits, or the increases in the problem gambling assistance fund levy—have been applied equally across all clubs, regardless of their relationship with ACT Labor.

The ACT Labor Club’s headquarters in Braddon is not a corruption issue as far as the Greens are aware. Mr Coe has made claims that it was a dodgy deal on land tax but has provided no specific evidence to that effect. I encourage him to provide us with any solid evidence that he has on this. Even better, as I have already said in regard to the Dickson Tradies, that information should be provided to the Auditor-General, the police or other investigation agencies.

The Liberal Party consistently raises the issue of the government’s MOU with Unions ACT. We have looked closely at the MOU and we consider it a benign document. There is nothing sinister about it; it actually probably improves the procurement process. It is plain from reading the MOU that its intent is to ensure that government procurement appropriately emphasises workers’ rights and workers’ safety. Probably about 90 per cent of the MOU reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements that already operate in the ACT.

I have met with the officials in government who work in procurement. The MOU does not require them to do anything they should not. They follow the laws of the territory and all the correct processes and procedures. All the MOU requires is that the government consult with Unions ACT. The same information is available to other stakeholders as well. Unions ACT provides any useful information they have. The decisions are still made properly through the procurement framework according to the law. There is no union veto. That is simply a construct of the Liberal Party that I think besmirches the professional and law abiding officials who work in ACT procurement.

The Woden Tradies car park is item 6, the last dot point on Mr Coe’s list. We have spent some time trying to work out what that issue is about. The details have been scant. I have listened to what Mr Coe had to say today. That is more information than we had previously. We will look at that, but that certainly does not seem like a corruption case at this point in time.

Opposition members interjecting—

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video