Page 160 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
support entirely the attitude taken by Mr Moore in saying that when the matter does come up before the Assembly it should be voted on, not on a party basis but on an individual basis. I welcome that.
We will be supporting the motion put by Mr Moore. We originally had problems with the six-month proposal because we felt that it was just beyond the pale. It is a matter of vital importance to the community that the whole concept of the casino be finalised in a reasonable amount of time. As protagonists on both sides of the argument have said, a lot of jobs and a lot of development work for the city will be relying on what this Assembly decides.
I will support it in the concept of the Government's commitment to open government. Not only do decisions have to be made, but the public have to see that consultation occurs and that full inquiries go ahead. Accordingly, I shall not lengthen the debate, but simply say I shall be supporting the motion.
MS FOLLETT (11.35): I also would like to speak briefly on this matter. I oppose the motion. There are a number of reasons why I do, but the main reason is that the motion which appears to be quite rational, quite reasonable, quite able to be debated in a good fashion by this Assembly, does not really represent the Rally's view.
I think that, as Mr Whalan has pointed out earlier, the Rally must be regarded as an anti-casino group, as an anti-development group, and that fact was evident throughout the negotiations that we had with the Residents Rally in the lead-up to the formation of a government. It is undoubtedly the case that the Rally's official policy as read out by Mr Jensen is not its real policy. Rally members, either they or their party machine, have a hidden agenda which is, in effect, that there will be no casino development in the ACT.
I have in mind the kinds of discussions that have already been alluded to where in debate on where a casino might be located the suggestions that Mr Whalan has referred to were in fact made. There was a suggestion from the Rally that the casino might appropriately be located next to the sex shop in Fyshwick, or alternatively on the border near Queanbeyan. So it is good enough for Queanbeyan but it is not good enough for Canberra.
In further debate on that matter it became clear that the Rally's view of the concept "adjacent to City Hill" in fact meant visible from City Hill, and that virtually goes for the entire ACT. We debated particular sites, we debated what you could see from City Hill and what you could not, and I have to conclude, and I do so in all honesty, that the Rally is totally opposed to a casino development.
I would like to add to that point that I can really see no justification whatsoever, in a democratic society such as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .