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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2441 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Mr Rugendyke makes the point that we did not support the budget. The extent of that logic is that Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne wanted the ALP to vote for all of the budget, every element of it, so that they could vote against it with impunity, so that they could grandstand with impunity. We never had this debate last year about whether the ALP supported the budget. We have just had it this year because it did not suit those people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of bill, as recommitted, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 27 June 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:

MR QUINLAN (4.58): This report arose out of a motion put forward by Ms Tucker and quite considerably amended by the ALP. Effectively, we wanted the Gambling and Racing Commission to bring forward a report. At the same time, we did not wish to inhibit the granting of licences, given that some were in progress and that this field is progressing literally at the speed of light and the territory may well have been the loser in terms of the establishment of businesses in the ACT with no gain whatsoever in the way of any sort of control over or mitigation of access. It did not seem to us that we should inhibit the granting of licences.

That being said, the report was received at the last sitting of this Assembly. I have to say that it is less than I would have expected from the commission in terms of assuring us that the framework is there. We have sufficient within this report to be able to accept what boils down to a blank and bland assurance by the commission that the framework is sufficient for it to work within in order to vet applicants for licences and to grant licences, but I do want to go on record as saying that I am less than impressed with the report itself.

I know that Ms Tucker intends to move an amendment to the motion which we are debating and I have a copy of it; but I have had it, I have to say, only for a very short space of time and have only been able to have a cursory look at it. The amendment does include a return to an inhibition on the granting of licences, which we really cannot accept. I give notice that we will be supporting the first part of the amendment to be put forward by Ms Tucker, but not the second.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34; the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

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