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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3500 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

When we read the Grants Commission reports on the revenue effort of the ACT we see that we are either penalised or not penalised, depending upon our fundraising in relation to gambling. But at the end of the day what Labor is saying is that we have to find a way to manage this problem. We know it is there, we know that every person in the ACT has access to line gambling and it is not limited by the ACT border. So it behoves us to separate the commonsense business approach from the very real problems that are associated with chronic problem gambling. We need to come to terms with the fact that prohibition or inhibition are not necessarily the solution. The bottom line is that, having learned some lessons during the course of 2000, we are prepared to leave the government and the executive, which have the resources, to set some of the parameters in respect of budget and revenue raising.

Mr Speaker, the opposition cannot at this stage support this disallowance motion. However, we believe that the general question of gambling, the impact of gambling and the influence of Internet gambling is one of concern for all of us in this place and I expect that the general issue will arise again in a number of manifestations.

MR OSBORNE (12.17): Mr Speaker, I have heard some pathetic arguments this morning in relation to the justification for not supporting Ms Tucker's disallowance motion. I have to say the argument used by many people today has been the issue of attracting business to the territory. I would argue that, if that is the rationale behind what we do in this place, we should consider looking at opening sweatshops because by doing that we could make a hell of a lot of money and attract some businesses. I would argue that the damage that sweatshops create in developing countries is no worse than the damage that gambling is causing to people here in Australia.

I do not accept that we should lower the tax rate for the big companies to five per cent. Like other members, I have been in negotiation with the government on the issue of profits made by clubs from the poker machine levy being put back into the community. The government wants the clubs to put back into the community an amount that is far greater than it wants to charge some of the big Internet gambling companies. But there are no safeguards in respect of these companies. At least clubs are accountable to their members.

I am scared about the new markets that will be accessed by Internet gambling. Over the years that I have been lucky enough to sit on the sideline I know that Ms Tucker has put forward legislation to make clubs more accountable in relation to poker machines. We have dealt with issues such as access to teller machines. We have required clubs to display labels. I think what we have done is working and we are making clubs think about it. But the reality is that there are no safeguards in respect of aniline gambling companies. We have no real idea what they are doing for the people who are in need.

I am disappointed with the way this whole debate has gone. I know that some members on the crossbenches are concerned about the ACT not attracting its slice of the pie. Even though we are a small Assembly we need to make a stand on this. I do not particularly care if businesses do go offshore.

We as a nation are currently embroiled in a debate on the issue of gambling and the real social damages that it causes to families. I have experienced within my family problems with gambling addiction and I have seen the amount of money that is spent and the pain

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