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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1479 ..

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I did actually say "Mr Berry". I shall withdraw "Mr Berry" and replace it with "all members of the Labor Party who have been elected to this Assembly". Mr Speaker, I can understand why they would resist an investigation under the national competition policy guidelines. It would expose a clear conflict of interest for them in dealing with, I would say, almost any piece of gaming legislation. Mr Speaker, it may not be a conflict of interest in the sense of the self-government Act. That is a technical matter. Everybody in this community knows that, when somebody is getting in the order of $1m, they are not going to be able to just ignore that when it comes to any range of issues that affect them and affect their vote. I will raise this issue again when we deal with the smoking legislation, probably this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, that having been said, with this specific piece of legislation, the protection from licences being given to people who have committed offences in the way that this legislation sets out is very important. It is also important that the legislation recognises that some people make mistakes, get caught out and then go back into the industry and work in an open and honest way. Hence, the five-year gap. I have some reservations as to whether that should be five years or 10 years. However, this is certainly an appropriate way to start, and that is why I will be supporting the legislation.

MS TUCKER (12.28): Mr Speaker, there is growing concern in the community about gambling. I am glad to see that the Liberal Party is taking up this issue and that Labor is attempting in some way to address the issues as well, although how well is questionable. Strengthening the accountability of clubs is very important. Obviously, the legislation before us will assist with regulation of the gaming industry in the ACT. But, in a sense, what we are doing is fiddling around the edges. We all know that a lot of politics surrounds gaming in this town, and this debate has been just another example of that. It is an enormous industry. Canberrans spend, on average, $800 per year on gambling. Even if governments do come to terms with the need for additional funds for counselling and welfare services for problem gamblers and their families, this is a very cynical move if, on the other hand, we keep allowing massive increases in the availability of gaming.

Mr Whitecross is very concerned about extending licences to hotels. He should be equally concerned about the expansion in the availability of gaming machines in clubs. That is why there needs to be a thorough inquiry into the gambling industry in the ACT which includes an examination of the current legislative framework. Our legislation, as this Bill demonstrates, is simply not up to the task of regulating an industry that is growing at a very rapid rate and is becoming more and more complex.

I am pleased that Mr Whitecross is demonstrating concern about the social impact of gambling in the ACT. However, he also says that he does not like the blunt instrument of legislation, and he also does not support our calls for an inquiry. While I am glad that he has picked up on our calls for more adequate research - - -

Mr Berry: I take a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. Relevance, Ms Tucker.

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