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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1738 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: It might not be possible, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, to address a wide-ranging issue such as poker machines via an inquiry of the kind that Ms Tucker has raised. However, I can indicate that I have asked the commission to consider that issue and to give me advice on the subject.

Again, I say that the argument that we need time to look at these issue is nonsense. We have had the time. The Internet is not new; it has been with us for a long time. I think we have had more than adequate time. I support the idea of an examination of the issues raised in this motion and Mr Quinlan's amendments. But that should not be a long drawn out matter. I believe it ought to be possible to receive this back from the commission in such a way as to allow us to proceed to implement the legislation which this Assembly, with the support of people like Ms Tucker, has passed already.

MR KAINE ( 9.05): I listened carefully to what Ms Tucker said in support of her motion and also to what the minister said in response. I think the minister placed far too much emphasis in this debate on what the Commonwealth said or did not say, and wants to do or does not want to do. I have read Ms Tucker's motion carefully and what the Commonwealth said or did not say, or wants to do or does not want to do, is irrelevant. Ms Tucker is not asking the minister to do what the Commonwealth wants to do. In fact, paragraph (2) is the essence, the substance, of her motion in that it specifically addressed the question of the local scene.

Paragraph (2) firstly calls upon the Gambling and Racing Commission to investigate and report on issues of social and economic impact. I do not know why Mr Quinlan's amendment proposes to delete that because I think they are relevant issues. Secondly, the commission is called on to investigate the adequacy of ACT legislation, and this is a legitimate request; thirdly, to investigate the adequacy of the commission's powers and resources to undertake and complete certain things; and, fourthly, to evaluate the progress towards a code of practice for the gambling industry. Those are four issues that are of no concern to anybody but this community. What the Commonwealth might be thinking of doing or whether or not it is playing the game straight are of no relevance whatsoever to that request that Ms Tucker is making. She is not seeking a moratorium along the lines of what the Commonwealth is apparently seeking to impose.

So I do not have any difficulty at all with Ms Tucker's motion. I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask our gambling commission to look at these issues and tell us what the status is. The minister did not really address those issues at all. He was more concerned to talk about the ministerial council meeting that he went to. That is relevant, but not relevant to Ms Tucker's motion.

I suppose the closest you could come to reaching the conclusion that Ms Tucker is seeking some sort of moratorium is the wording of paragraph (3) of the motion, which provides that she does not want any further interactive gambling licences to be granted until the commission's report has been received.

Ms Tucker: And debated.

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