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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4110 ..

Gambling - Voluntary Code of Practice

MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, under standing order 116, I have a question for Mr Moore. Mr Moore, why have you not withdrawn order of the day No. 1 on the notice paper, that is, your legislation on gambling, now that the Chief Minister has announced a voluntary code of practice on gambling?

MR MOORE: Thank you for that question, Ms Tucker. Order of the day No. 1 is about gaming machines; it is about gambling. Indeed, there are some quite important distinctions between that legislation and the legislation to which you referred earlier. The legislation on gaming machines that I introduced would extend the ability of groups other than clubs to have the range of gaming machines that clubs currently have. At the moment hotels, in particular, are limited to a particular class of gaming machines, the technology of which is out of date by some 25 years. They are not allowed to have gaming machines that are equivalent to the gaming machines that clubs have. The legislation does not in any way attempt to increase the number of gaming machines that they are entitled to; just the types of gaming machines. You may well be aware that on this issue Mr Osborne has indicated that he has - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! Standing order 117(f) states:

Questions may be asked to elicit information ... but discussion must not be anticipated.

MR MOORE: Indeed. I would hate to have a discussion.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Osborne's views are not necessarily relevant.

MR MOORE: One of the reasons that I have not withdrawn my legislation from the notice paper is that, when it is considered by this Assembly, I have to be very careful in weighing up the numbers. In determining what the numbers are going to be, I have taken into account the fact that Mr Osborne has stood aside from voting on such issues, to make sure that there is no perception of a conflict of interest.

I have also taken into account that there is a party in this Assembly who has received in the order of a million dollars - not quite a million, a bit less - over the last three years.

Mr Humphries: Name them.

MR MOORE: It is the Labor Party, in fact. The vast majority of that money has originated from gaming machines. But they do not have the same attitude as Mr Osborne in terms of conflict of interest; they seem to think that $1m does not generate a conflict of interest. To be specific in answer to your question: The reason I have not removed the legislation from the notice paper is that I am still hoping that the numbers will be there in a series of possible ways. One is that the Labor Party recognises what an ordinary member of the community recognises, and that is that $1m does create some form of conflict of interest when legislation would interfere with that income coming to the party. So, we have to deal with that issue.

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