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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4434 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

My understanding is that the LCA has put the proposal to all parties and Independents in the Assembly. The Government agreed to consider the proposal, given that it came from the industry, but made it clear that we would be prepared to put the proposal forward in legislation only if there was broad support from members in this place, particularly as it was so close to the end of this Government. Based upon my discussions with members and a press statement from the Leader of the Opposition headlined "No extension of Gaming without Social & Economic Impact Study", it was clear to me that there was no broad support for the LCA's proposal.

However, it has now been drawn to my attention that, while the Government's position on poker machines is very clear, there seems to be a major split in the Labor Party on this issue. Can you believe that, Mr Speaker?

Mr Berry: No split.

MRS CARNELL: Absolutely no split. Indeed, within 24 hours of Mr Berry releasing the statement - - -

Mr Corbell: I notice that Gary Humphries and Bill Stefaniak have no noise regulations. See what sort of a split you get there.

MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mr Corbell.

Mr Wood: Are you going to warn me, too?

MR SPEAKER: I warn you, too, Mr Wood.

MRS CARNELL: Within 24 hours of Mr Berry releasing the statement I referred to earlier - a statement that made it clear that the Labor Party "remains unmoved by suggestions that gaming should be extended in the ACT"; those are Mr Berry's words - a Labor candidate expressed a markedly different view. Labor candidate Mr Ted Quinlan, who is clearly making a big effort for elevation from the B team to the A team, had this to say on radio 2CC:

... I do know that the Licensed Clubs Association, of which we're a member and in which we are integrally involved, has negotiated with Government and in fact negotiated with I think a number of parties within the Legislative Assembly, on what is considered to be a reasonable compromise package.

That is an interesting description - "a reasonable compromise package". He went on to say:

And if that includes - and I think it does - poker machines in the Casino, to a limited degree, so be it. We're happy to go with that, yes, because we're sensible, reasonable people ...

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