Page 2150 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Hanson: No; I was short of it.
MADAM SPEAKER: You are now warned.
Amendment negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.36), by leave: I move amendments Nos 11 to 14 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 2168]. I am not sure how much to continue after Minister Ramsay’s comments. One of the objectives of the Labor Club is to support the Australian Labor Party. According to last financial year’s financial returns, the Labor Club made a net profit from the pokies of around $13 million. Given the Speaker’s possible rulings, I leave it to others to draw the conclusions from that.
In terms of Mr Ramsay’s comments about whether we actually want to stop gambling or not, we did not use the New South Wales definition because of how the pokies are structured in the ACT. Virtually every pokie is owned by a not-for-profit entity, the community clubs. We are not against community clubs; we would just like to have less problem gambling in the ACT. We are not against the community clubs.
Members interjecting—
I am not meant to respond to interjections, but I cannot resist responding to some of the attorney’s comments. I think that the situation of the Labor clubs is clearly a conflict of interest when the gross amount taken by pokies in the Labor clubs last year was $24 million. That is something which would make most political parties take notice.
Amendments negatived.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is that clause 11 be agreed. I think we are on to your amendment 15, Ms Le Couteur.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.38): I will not bother with that.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is that clause 11 be agreed to. Ms Le Couteur, you are choosing not to speak to amendment No 15?
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.38): I am not moving it. I seek leave to move amendments 16 to 19 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MS LE COUTEUR: I move amendments Nos 16 to 19 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 2169]. We are moving along, here, from the gambling entities, where I appreciate that we have lost the argument, to trying to get a better definition of property developers. This is something which I and my colleagues have spent some time thinking about. I am sure that the Labor Party has as well, both
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video