Page 6034 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991

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


I always made it clear that the casino was just one tile in the mosaic of tourism. I always said that it was not going to save us from financial disaster; of course, it cannot, but it may generate - - -

Mr Collaery: Stop sitting on the fence, Trevor.

MR KAINE: I am not sitting on any fence. My position on the casino has always been clear. You are the one who sits on a fence. You are the one who tried to prevent any suggestion of doing anything at all about the casino anywhere in Canberra. You did not want it on section 19. You did not want it within sight of Parliament House. You did not want it anywhere near the Parliamentary Triangle. You did not want it anywhere. You were happy to have a casino, as long as it was out at Bungendore. That was your position, Mr Collaery. Do not come in here today and talk about your support for the casino. You have never supported it.

My position and that of the Liberal Party have been clear: We have always supported the casino, on the basis that it would generate revenue and some employment and that, in connection with it, there would be some form of construction project to help fill the construction hiatus in Canberra. That has been our position; it has been unchanged since December 1988 when the last election campaign started. I can go into this election with a clear conscience, knowing that I have been honest with the community on that matter. I ask the question: Can Dr Kinloch do the same? I doubt it.

Dr Kinloch: I am not in the least worried about that.

MR KAINE: No? It is very interesting. You will sit on the fence again. The Rally starts kicking heads or thinking it is kicking heads - it has a pretty weak foot - in terms of long-term economic policy, but where is its long-term economic policy articulated? Give us a look at the page in the pink book where you have articulated a long-term economic policy. I have been through it pretty thoroughly, but I do not see one. If you are serious about long-term economic planning, you have to have a solution yourself. It is simply not good enough to criticise others, even if it were true that the others did not have a long-term economic plan. In this case, that accusation is totally baseless.

Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I think I have spoken for long enough. I finish as I started: I still do not know whether to take this seriously or whether I should go away and have a good laugh about it. I will be interested to hear other people speak and see what is their attitude to this "Matter of Public Importance" - capital M, capital P, capital I.


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