Page 161 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we have in Canberra, for a group of residents to be opposed to a gambling establishment. It is a fact that in the ACT, if you are an adult, you can quite legally gamble in any number of locations in any of the licensed clubs that are in the ACT. I cannot see what difference one casino will make to the society in the ACT given the number of gambling outlets that already exist.
Mr Kaine: The number of casinos that already exist.
MS FOLLETT: I have to take your word for that, Mr Kaine. I really cannot see, in my view, the wowserish objection to a casino and I do not believe it is widely supported in the community. I think that we are all adults, we can all gamble now if we wish, we are free to do so and a casino will not add in any way to that situation.
It has, as already has been said, implications for our tourism industry, enormous implications for employment prospects in the ACT, not just in the construction industry but in an ongoing way. The particular development at section 19, of course, has very important spin-offs for the community in terms of the development of additional community facilities and resources which are needed by ACT people. I do not think the Rally should forget that.
The Rally has also raised a matter which is not really relevant to the casino at all but which it is very fond of raising, and that is the issue of the Museum of Australia. It really does not take any great brains to see that the Museum of Australia is a Federal Government program which will be paid for by taxpayers' money. The casino is not. The casino is a private development which will bring in money. These are two very different propositions and even political beginners like the Rally should be able to see the difference. The Museum of Australia is, of course, something which the Labor Party in the ACT has strenuously supported for many years. We believe that it is a very important development for tourism, a very important acknowledgement of the national nature of Canberra, an appropriate new institution to be built in the ACT, and it will have spin-offs. But it is not an ACT project. It is a Federal Government project that will cost taxpayers money. We will continue to support that vigorously.
If there is anything at all that we can do as an ACT Government to promote and facilitate the development of the Museum of Australia, you can understand that we will most certainly be taking that sort of action. But the museum must not be considered an alternative to the casino. It is naive and misleading to treat it in that way. They are both projects worth proceeding with; they are both projects that will add to the ACT's status, to the employment prospects and to our future tourism industry.
MR MOORE (11.44): I am disappointed with the Government's approach in this debate. When I moved the motion, I stated that I have never publicly spoken on the casino one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .