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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 434 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the Greens developed was not developed on an airy-fairy, pull numbers out of the hat basis. It was based on information from the bureaucracy. There was a misunderstanding that I have just clarified. That is why I was prepared to support Mrs Carnell's second amendment. I am quite open to that because, obviously, we do not want to do the wrong thing here. That is why I was happy to support that.

However, I want to make it quite clear that this is not opening the floodgates once again to all interested parties who in six months' time might want to do something with poker machines. It is about applying the precautionary principle; it is about saying, "Let us not allow greater growth in this industry until we understand the implications". Mrs Carnell and, I think, Mr Moore said that there has been no consultation on this from the Greens. I have been consulting with the community on this for over two years. That is why we have moved this motion. That is why we put up legislation last year for mitigation measures related to gambling. It was through consultation and looking at the issues.

A point that has to be addressed as well in this debate is the fact that there are, obviously, vested interests in this place. Mr Moore's amendment to try to knock the Labor Party out of the debate is something that he always does on this issue. He thinks that he is highlighting a conflict of interest. I am quite sure that Mr Wood will come to this committee with an open mind. I have absolutely no doubt that he will work in this committee with integrity. I have no problem with a Labor member being on it. In fact, I would welcome a Labor member being on it. Mrs Carnell also said that this was policy-making on the run. As I have explained, we did work with the bureaucracy. Obviously, there has been a misunderstanding. That is why I have said, I repeat, that I am happy to look at this issue at a bit more length. The point is, though, that we have had no policy review for so long that we have had this unregulated growth of an industry that obviously has detrimental effects.

In conclusion, I thank members who have supported this motion. I look forward to the meeting that we will have. I want to say on the record as well that, while I supported Mrs Carnell's second amendment, a meeting to discuss what is a cap that more members are happy with has to occur in the next week, if possible, because I think it is really important that we do not see a rush of applications. I was assured this morning that that would not happen if we actually passed this motion today; but, once again, it has been explained that, in fact, there is a difficulty because the commissioner has to accept applications as they come in. Obviously, there is a problem with this; so we need to do it as quickly as possible, while making it reasonable and fair to those groups in society who have invested money already in facilities in which they had assumed they would have poker machines.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

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