Page 6209 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: These reports are still smoking, so I guess that they will be something for the Public Accounts Committee next year to get their teeth into. I would look forward to being involved with the committee one way or the other in the future. I believe that I am the only member of the Assembly who has served on the Public Accounts Committee for the whole period of this Assembly. I think it is appropriate that I say a word of thanks to those hardworking staff who have supported the committee throughout that period, particularly Ms Karin Malmberg who has been a tower of strength and has provided the sort of support that any public accounts - - -
Mr Kaine: You are not in the adjournment debate yet, Norm.
MR JENSEN: I know; but I am just making that comment. She has been a tower of strength to the committee and assisted us in our role. I think it is also appropriate, as we refer to the Auditor-General's reports, to note the fearless approach taken by the Auditor-General. It will be interesting to see whether Mr O'Neill is still the Auditor-General next year. If he is, we will have some interesting reading in this Assembly in the future.
CASINO CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Debate resumed from 12 December 1991, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
DR KINLOCH (4.03): Naturally, as you would expect us to do, the Residents Rally opposes this Bill. In each case I will cut the arguments to the bone. We well recognise that the numbers of the Labor/Liberal/Hare-Clark casino coalition are against us. Here are eight statements setting out why we oppose this Bill, eight statements which try to sum up the case for opposing the Bill.
We oppose it in general as a Bill which, if passed, would allow a public gambling facility into the Territory, a facility which is inappropriate for the national capital, the seat of justice and government for the whole of Australia.
Secondly, we oppose it in general because we do not believe in the supposed economic benefits, especially at present and in view of what is happening elsewhere in Australia, including Adelaide. Such a facility is likely to cause economic hardship to several existing ACT businesses, including the licensed clubs and the racing industry. We recognise that any building construction of any kind will create temporary jobs and a temporary spurt in economic activity, but that disappears with the completion of an unneeded project. Any building project would have that effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .