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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4518 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Speaker, you have only to look at the growing discussion from other parts of Australia about the impact of the reckless expansion of gambling opportunities to know that this is an issue which we ought to consider with care. In Victoria, where you can play the poker machines at a shopfront at your local shopping centre, there are very strong complaints about the social and economic impacts of gaming, the impacts on other businesses and the very pervasive social problems associated with the rapid expansion of gaming in Victoria. While, clearly, there are people who have problems with gambling in the ACT, through both gaming machines and other forms of gambling, we certainly have not experienced in the ACT the kinds of problems that have been reported from Victoria.

If we are to continue to have a record in the ACT of not having significant social and economic problems associated with gambling, we need to make sure that we move with caution and in an informed manner. That is why we proposed the course we did. For that reason, Mr Speaker, we will be opposing Mr Moore's Bill. We believe that Mr Moore's Bill, which effectively means that every tavern in town can have two poker machines, is the wrong way to go, and in particular it is the wrong way to go in advance of this kind of study to consider the implications of that decision. So, the Labor Party will be opposing Mr Moore's Bill.

The Labor Party will not be opposing Ms Tucker's legislation. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that in many respects Ms Tucker's legislation is redundant. Most of the things contained in Ms Tucker's legislation have since been taken up in the voluntary code of conduct which the licensed clubs have adopted. Therefore, it adds little to what has already been done. For that reason, we will not be opposing it; but rather I question the need for it. It is ironic that the Government is happy to legislate to add extra laws to the statute book in relation to this matter, when only the other day the Chief Minister was claiming some glory as being the scourge of red tape and for reducing red tape.

Here we are, introducing statutory provisions to regulate activities which, on the face of it, seem to be being handled quite well without regulation, Mr Speaker. But, having said that, we certainly will not be opposing them. However, I am not taking anything away from Ms Tucker in introducing this legislation in the first place. Certainly, when Ms Tucker introduced the legislation, the voluntary code was not in place, and some people were certainly growing a bit impatient about the pace at which the voluntary code was being developed. Perhaps Ms Tucker's introducing this Bill contributed in some small way to encouraging the finalisation of a voluntary code. That objective having been achieved, perhaps it did not need to be brought forward today. But, as I said, if it does little good, it certainly also does little harm.

Mr Speaker, as I have indicated, the Labor Party does not support a board of inquiry as a process for reviewing gaming and, in particular, reviewing the social and economic impacts of gaming. We think it is an excessive way of doing things. However, we do believe that a study is required. That is why we proposed the motion which is on the notice paper and on the daily program in my name. Mr Speaker, the Labor Party thinks that these issues are important. It is important that, before the end of this Assembly, we try to bring to finality some of the matters which have been on the notice paper for the last six or 12 months. But we believe that there is a lot more work to be done, and perhaps we would be much more advanced in that work if some of the issues that were raised back in April had been addressed in the intervening eight months.

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