Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 394 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
impacting on the ACT appear to be quite different from those in the States. To start with, we have had poker machines and gaming machines in the ACT for a lot longer than most States have. It appears, from all of the information that we have, that the usage of those machines is not tracking up exponentially. The position with problem gambling in the ACT is that it has not been tracking up exponentially, as is the case in the States. The level of gambling per capita in the ACT is not tracking up, as is the case in the States. So, I have to say that information put together, based upon predominantly the bigger States, may not be all that relevant to the ACT, taking into account that there will not be recommendations. I think that is something that we all have to accept.
MR CORBELL: My question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, why did the Government ignore its own guidelines, which indicate that new joint ventures be progressed by public tender, when it entered into an exclusive contract with Mr Derek Whitcombe in relation to rural residential development at Kinlyside and Hillview near Hall?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I answered this question yesterday.
Mr Corbell: No, you did not.
MS CARNELL: I actually did. Mr Speaker, I am happy to answer it again. Mind you, I wonder, under standing orders, how often you have to answer the same question again.
Mr Moore: Standing order 117(h) says you cannot.
MS CARNELL: Standing order 117(h) says you cannot.
Mr Corbell: It is not the same question.
MS CARNELL: It is the same question, Mr Speaker. As I said yesterday, the ACT Government does not, in policy, rule out joint ventures - not at all. That is the point I made yesterday. What we say is that it is not our preferred approach for these sorts of things. Yesterday, when I answered this question, I made the point about Harcourt Hill and about the abysmal approach of the previous Government. Mr Corbell, that was the question you asked yesterday. Those opposite continue to talk about public tender. Did they go to public tender? No, Mr Speaker. Our position is that joint ventures are not the preferred approach because those opposite stuffed them up so often. To restate exactly what I said yesterday: Our position on this is that we look at each and every proposal on its merits. So, I say exactly what I said yesterday, again.
MR SPEAKER: I confirm that the question was asked yesterday.
MS CARNELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker.