Page 3906 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It appears that the Minister, unless he is going to rise shortly and make those commitments, is not able, for a variety of technical reasons, to start to buy out the exemptions we gave in the tobacco legislation passed by the Assembly in December last year. What I am saying is that Dr Kinloch is not going back on any vote he cast. It was a clear understanding when we passed that legislation in the house that there would be a forward program - it was a commitment from Mr Humphries on our behalf - to buy out these sponsored events. We all saw the exemption in the Bill as a necessary evil, if you like, until such time as we could tackle the very big issues of Benson and Hedges, Winfield and the rest.
With Dr Kinloch, I say that we mean no ill towards the bodies that are accepting this sponsorship at the moment. What we do say is that the Minister has not yet brought forward a program of staged buying out or withdrawal. We accept the difficulties with an interstate fixture such as the Winfield Cup.
I want to record my admiration for Mr David Hill and the way he has given the league executive one kick after another from his perch in North Sydney. It is a maverick club on the Ginger Meggs lines. I very much like the way David Hill is running North Sydney and objecting to the backroom faceless power games that are going on in the league judiciary in Phillip Street. I include in that my continuing criticism of the new High Court of Australia that sits in Phillip Street every week after the Winfield round, that is, the rugby league judiciary. It is symptomatic of the problem.
We have to tackle Winfield for its sponsorship; we have to tackle Benson and Hedges for its sponsorship. If we concede the tobacco argument in this house, as we all did - I do not think there were any dissenters - then it is only logical that we should have a staged program of buying it out. It is not hypocritical of Dr Kinloch to take the stand he has. With respect to my colleague, he could have phrased a couple of his remarks a little better. But the fact is that we in the Rally are not being hypocritical on the issue.
If Mr Berry can say, as the Government has on Aidex, the arms bazaar, that we are contractually bound to the current sponsorship, and my colleague Mr Duby accepted that as well, then we have to live with it. But we have plenty of people queuing to rent that space in the future. No harm is going to come to it. What have we done to see who else wants the billboards at Manuka Oval? What are the alternatives for the league? How can we negotiate this without blood on the floor here? There are some logical inconsistencies about the contrary stands that we may take on this debate. The fact is that we all accept the deleterious nature of the substance. It is an argument about procedure more than symbolism.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .