ACT Labor backs away from its own proposed reform to reduce pokies numbers to 1000

There’s nothing private about it. Public funded.

Jack,
Your comment clearly says that a CMS was never advocated by the Greens in “negotiating” for the governing agreements.

The papers aren’t privy to the exact items that are negotiated if they don’t make the final agreement, only the parties and those involved do.

Unless you have a link to an article where omission of a CMS was discussed in negotiations?

The governing agreements themselves also don’t contain items that didn’t make the cut either.

So you’re either more heavily involved in the political parties involved than you admit or your comment contains an inaccuracy.

LOL
You said they hadn’t even advocated a CMS in negotiations, Jack. The only way you could know that, is if you had been party to the discussion. You’ve finally slipped up and dibbed yourself in, and it’s hilarious.

Think what you like!

What we’ve come to expect.

Particularly funny when Jack could have just admitted that his words were a simple mistake to excuse the slip up.

Would you have believed him? 🤣

I was clear and stand by my words. The ACT Greens have never advocated for a CMS, never ever nor have they taken the proposal the an election in their 12 years in government.

It has only become an election issue over these past weeks with the party joining with the Liberals to wedge Labor on the issue because Gaming Minister, Shane Rattenbury and his party have contributed nothing to gaming reform during their entire time in government!

Again, “Jack D”, how do you know that unless you were party to the discussions?

Jack,
Yes you were clear.

You said the Greens never advocated for a CMS in negotiating the governing agreement.

You can’t possibly have known that without inside knowledge of the negotiations.

Twisting words again chewy to suit your narrative?

That is not what I said as you well know!

Jack D,
It’s literally exactly what you wrote. You do realise the words don’t disappear because you now realise you’ve slipped up.

Jack D, quote:

“Despite the Greens rhetoric, they have never advocated for a CMS when negotiating governing agreements with Labor.”

My sides. 🤣

The Greens have never raised or negotiated a CMS before, during or after an election. As you will note from my links below, there is not one mention of the CMS despite the ACT Greens being in government over 12 years and them joining with the Liberals in the last week of assembly sittings before the election to wedge Labor on the issue:

https://greens.org.au/act/clubs-for-the-community

Leader Shane Rattenbury sought and was handed the Gaming portfolio last election but has achieved very little during this or other terms of government. The party’s commitments for this year’s election are set out in the following media reporting but does not mention a CMS or gaming reform:

media https://canberradaily.com.au/shane-rattenbury-budget-reply-speech/

Mr Rattenbury, as is usual with the Greens, was out in the media after the 2016 election whingeing about Labor and gaming reforms, complaining about the parliamentary agreement and wanting more but no mention of CMS.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/greens-will-continue-to-push-for-action-on-gambling-reform-20161104-gshwxn.html

I have never worked for a political party during my working life!

Jack,
None of those links prove your claim, which is very specific around events occurring as part of a negotiation.

The fact that a CMS wasn’t mentioned in other arenas is proof of nothing when it comes to what happened during the negotiations for the governing agreement.

As above, it would be far simpler for you to admit your comment contains an inaccuracy.

The alternative being that you know more than you’re admitting.

Your continued bluster is not a good look.

Did you read the article? Do you even know the work that has been put into reducing gambling harm in this city and the reforms the Labor government has implemented over the past 10 years aimed at tackling gaming addiction and reducing the number of poker machines in our pubs and clubs? The ACT is the only government bold enough to take on the industry and tackle the scourge of gambling addiction. This work is complex and continuing despite the Canberra Liberals, clubs and the gaming industry using all of their might to undermine and hinder any proposal put forward to reform the Industry.

The Greens, with their leader currently holding the gaming portfolio during this term of government, has done nothing and now, just under two months out from an election, he and the party are attempting to wedge the government on gaming reform, proposing a $180 million taxpayer funded solution to it!

After all of the government’s hard work on gambling reform it is embarrassing to watch the current shenanigans in our parliament with the Greens and Liberals joining forces to conspire and undermine the government’s efforts, after years of doing nothing!

@Jack D.
While everyone on RiotACT has become accustomed to your sycophantic pro-ACT Labor diatribes, Jack D., your straw grasping defence of your party’s “hard work on on gambling reform” is disingenuous while it continues to be the beneficiary of gambling money. And don’t go back to the Greens and Libs in a “they are worse than us, sir” defence. The fact is that ACT Labor takes donations, funded directly by gambling proceeds, from clubs in the ACT.

While I agree the tax payer funded CMS is a long stretch, I am more concerned about Dr Paterson’s about face on her motion to further limit the number of machines – supposedly on the grounds that the Greens support for the amendment was too late. Yet we are advised that this support was given in discussions over the previous day and subsequently confirmed by Rattenbury via email.

Are you saying that Rattenbury and, by association , Region press (having viewed the email), are lying Jack D.?

Where in my comment did I question the Green’s support for this proposal or suggest the author is lying?

As the article points out, a re-elected Labor government will introduce mandatory account-based cashless gaming as well as reforms to gradually reduce the number of poker machines in our city further.

I expect the Liberals will continue to oppose any reforms revealing their hypocrisy, with the party receiving gifts and significant financial support from the gaming industry and some of our city’s largest and most financial clubs. This includes the Southern Cross Club, the city’s largest club network set up by the Catholic church in the 1970’s operating hundreds of pokies throughout Canberra!

I look forward to seeing a re-elected Labor government continuing its efforts in gaming reform and reducing the number of pokies in our clubs and pubs without any interference and hindrances from the Greens and Liberals!

@Jack D.
Firstly Jack D., forget the Liberals and Greens. Unless, of course, the plan of attack from you and your confreres at ACT Labor HQ is to argue that “we are the best of a bad bunch”? Which would beg the question, if the state of ACT politics is so parlous – is it worth giving the other mob a run, to see if they really are that bad?

So you agree that the Greens supported Dr Paterson’s motion.

If Labor is so intent on gambling reform why does it have to wait until its re-elected to “continue” such reform? After all Dr Paterson’s motion was ready to go now, and would have passed with support from the Greens.

Also, you still haven’t answered the question posed by myself and many others on here. If ACT Labor is the ‘shining light’ when it comes to gambling reform, why does it take political donations, funded directly by gambling proceeds, from clubs in the ACT?

I made clear in my previous comment that I did not support any claim nor do I care who said what!

Labor declares all donations and financial support in accordance with strict electoral laws which is published on the ElectionsACT website. The Labor affiliated Clubs have not supported Labor financially for over 10 years. ElectionsACT also undertakes regular audits of political parties disclosures which are also published.

If re-elected, the Labor government has stated that they will introduce further reforms to gradually reduce the number of poker machines in our city. The Greens from their actions have shown that they have no interest in pursuing reform and have made little contributions to the government’s efforts, despite their rhetoric and the party holding the portfolio. They also can’t be trusted to work collaboratively with the government. The most recent debate in which the party joined with the Liberals to wedge Labor was a stunt, delivered by the bumbling Andrew Braddock because the party’s leader, who holds the portfolio, was too spineless to do it himself. Mr Braddock has made little contribution to policy since being elected, nor has he ever lifted a finger for gaming reform!

You have made your allegiances clear JS and can vote for the Liberals in this coming election in just over a month’s time. The Liberals have revealed that they have no interest in gaming reform and will undo any efforts to reform the industry should they be elected!

@Jack D.
“If re-elected, the Labor government has stated that they will introduce further reforms …”
So, my question still stands. Given Dr Paterson’s motion was ready to go now, and would have passed with support from the Greens, why withdraw the motion and wait until after the election? Sounds to me like a ‘core/non-core’ promise that will be broken, after the election, ‘in the light of new information that has become available’.

“You have made your allegiances clear JS and can vote for the Liberals …”
Really, Jack D.? And where did I declare my allegiance to the Liberals?
The reality is that I’m hoping that next month’s poll will lead to a minority government (the flavour is irrelevant to me as both major players are equally lacking in trustworthiness), where the ‘balance of power’ is held by independent candidates who will hold the government of the day to account. It’s certainly achievable but a long way from anything other than a wish.

Alas, in my electorate of Kurrajong, where I suspect there is only one seat up for grabs (Barr, Lee and Rattenbury having enough following to get re-elected, with Stevens-Smith probably getting in on Barr’s boot laces), the independents may defeat themselves. This proposition, has Vassarotti and (arguably) the two strongest independents, Emerson and Strong, vying for the last seat; unfortunately, the latter two candidates may rob each other of sufficient votes to allow Vassarotti to narrowly fall over the line. Let’s hope IFC and the Strong Party care enough about Canberra to mutually “swap preferences” and their respective supporters use their preferences to get one of them over the line.

How were you privy to what was discussed in giverning agreements, “Jack D”? 🤣

Telling on yourself there.

Oh it’s Ken M again, advocating for all of those grubby juvenile issues that only the Young Liberals could generate and ventilated constantly on their YL Facebook page!

The Greens have been in government for 12 years and never have they advocated for or taken a CMS to an election. I know this because I have a strong interest in gaming reform. Such a system has only just been raised by the Greens in tackling gambling addiction in the last week of sittings before an election, just over a month away. Now they have joined with the Canberra Liberals, to the Liberals great delight, in a stunt to wedge the government on the issue in a cringeworthy debate in the assembly, undermining the party and its leader!

All governing agreements (and there are three) are publicly available on the government website with not one mention of a CMS despite the Greens pretense at caring for those with gambling addictions and the party’s leader holding the Gaming portfolio!

“These actions hopefully ensure Labor never forms another alliance with the Greens in the future!”

Jack promoting a Liberal government, well I never.

Promoting a Liberal government?

Never!

Oh no no no, “Jack D”. 🤣

Your comment clearly says “Despite the Greens rhetoric, they have never advocated for a CMS when negotiating governing agreements with Labor”. Now, I’d like to know how you know that without having been party to those discussions.

As if it wasn’t obvious enough already…