Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2020 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 23 July 2020) . . Page.. 1668 ..


complimentary thing I have said about Mr Ramsay in this place! It is only when they find themselves in a headlock from the Greens that it gets a little crazy.

That is why Labor’s gaming policies are almost irrelevant. We all know that if there is to be a continuation of Labor government here in the ACT, it will be with the assistance of the Greens. The only way that Labor can govern will be to enter into a power-sharing agreement with the Greens. When that agreement is drawn up, what do you reckon, Madam Deputy Speaker? Do you think Mr Rattenbury is going to slow down here in this particular space that he is carping about today? I do not.

One of the virtue-signalling policy areas that the Greens will be hammering will be gaming. We all know that this is a policy area that the government will horse-trade on. If they are going to compromise anywhere, it will be on gaming. Standalone Labor gaming policy is irrelevant. It will always become a victim of power-sharing agreements. Mr Ramsay can go back to the clubs and say, “We’re really sorry, guys; this is what we wanted to do, but the Greens made us do this instead.”

We will not be opposing the amendment from Mr Ramsay. We are well and truly aware that, particularly at this time of the electoral cycle, Mr Ramsay is doing his level best to appear reasonable and sensible in this space, but there is a very serious chance that the mirage will quickly disappear, if indeed another Labor-Greens government is cobbled together.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I could not possibly say anything about that being a Crackerjack speech, could I? Sorry!

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (4.39): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am still trying to work out that analogy—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I just made the link for you.

MR RATTENBURY: Yes. However, I am still trying to work out whether it is a positive or negative for the attorney, and I have not quite decided yet—with no disrespect to Mr Molloy, because he is a very funny man.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am taking it as a positive; otherwise it would have to be withdrawn.

MR RATTENBURY: This has been an interesting discussion. I always find it very enlightening to follow this through. For me, one of the really sad parts of the discussion about clubs in the ACT is that it has become synonymous with poker machines. I think that is the true tragedy of this discussion, because the clubs have a very proud history in the ACT of being tremendous places for ethnic communities, sporting communities and the like but, over time, the two issues have become so entwined, in the most unhealthy way, that it is really disappointing.

What flows from that, and what was utterly implicit in today’s conversation, is that the clubs are reliant on the revenue of problem gamblers. That is the only conclusion you can draw from the way the debate took place today. What my motion seeks to do


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video