Page 156 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the run-up to this matter we have seen a long lead time that included as its centre point the conduct of a social impact study by a team of experts gathered from around Australia. That process involved extensive public consultation, and indeed Dr Kinloch and his anti-casino group participated in that process of consultation.
That consultation included a number of meetings with government officials, members of parliament and government Ministers. Dr Kinloch participated in many of those meetings. My colleague Mr Berry referred in detail to the numbers of organisations and individuals that we consulted, but just to reiterate - this has been tabled and is now on record; it is incorporated in the social impact study - there were 44 organisations and 124 individuals consulted and there were public consultations. It was possible for the whole community to witness that - and there were 90 written and six oral submissions.
The impact study team was Dr Caldwell, who has been applauded by Dr Kinloch; Ms Susan Young, a director of MSJ Keys Young Planners, a consultant in social planning and environmental impact; Dr Mark Dickerson, a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the ANU, who is an expert on gambling; and Miss Jan McMillen, a senior teaching fellow in the Division of Humanities, Griffith University, who has been a close observer and analyst of Australian and overseas casinos over an extended period.
The credibility of the social impact study was even attested to by Mr Moore's colleague and long term casino critic, Dr Kinloch, when he said in a "Canberra Times" article on 21 May 1988 that Dr Caldwell and his team were the obvious and the ablest people to study the likely social effects of a gambling casino.
He had no doubt that the inquiry was setting about its task in a careful manner. In areas on which the social impact study team did not concentrate - and a couple of areas have been highlighted - the Government has felt the need for further study, and experts have been commissioned to examine the issues and provide advice. Two of those areas related to the economic viability, including the ACT revenue projections and the assessment of environmental impacts of an ACT casino. Those studies have been undertaken and are now completed.
The Jebb report which was referred to has been updated. There has been a further report from Jebb and Associates, and anybody who, to use the expression used by Mr Collaery recently, questioned the effectiveness of Jebb and Associates working in consultation with Price Waterhouse would do so at his peril.
I would make the following comments in relation to Mr Moore's proposed terms of reference. Term of reference (1)(a) is that the committee report on "the extent to which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .