Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3193 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
But we also sometimes recognise that it is appropriate to make a decision at a time when there is minimal evidence but you feel that what you want to do may help. Many speakers have identified the problem. Mr Rugendyke has come up with a relatively minor solution. I suppose the question for me is: to what extent does it cause more problems than it creates; to what extent does it cause anxiety for clubs?
The reality is, of course, that very few clubs remain open during the hours that Mr Rugendyke is talking about. What he has done-and I have mentioned this to him-is put up a harm minimisation measure, and in some ways Ms Tucker elaborated, although I do not think she used that language particularly, on why that was the case. What we are talking about is not stopping people gambling. We are talking about a restriction at a particular time-a restriction that perhaps puts a brake on the behaviour of people who are gambling at a very late hour.
I think the consequences of supporting this legislation are reasonably minor. But I have to say that one of the things that have surprised me when I have come into this chamber to debate matters to do with poker machines-and it has happened on many occasions-is the energy that is shown by the Labor Party. You only have to hint at the tiniest little bit of a possible conflict of interest and they go completely over the top. Probably Mr Hargreaves did this the least, but even he talked about receiving a $300 donation at the last election. I agree, Mr Hargreaves, that a $300 donation is irrelevant in terms of influencing somebody's opinion. I think he also said that he has not received one cent so far for this election.
I have to say that I think that is a shallow way to look at it. When I argue that Labor ought not vote on these matters, I always refer to what goes into the Labor Party as a whole. Although this does not specifically help with regard to the number of votes that you get, we know that under Hare-Clark one member of a party will receive probably more than a quota. A good example of this at the last election was Kate Carnell, who received 21/2 quotas as a result of a campaign that focused very much personally on her. So the leader and the party do get a significant advantage. A lot of money goes into saying "Vote Labor", and if you decide to vote Labor you then choose which member you are going to vote for. So you get a huge benefit from the dollars that come into the party, which are effectively shared between the members and making sure that the party works.
Mr Hargreaves: It really worked last time.
MR MOORE: Mr Hargreaves interjects, "Well, it really worked last time." Considering that you did so badly even though you had that significant sum of money, you have to ask yourselves whether you are on the right wave length. I genuinely still believe-and there is no political mileage in this for me-that Labor should step aside from voting on poker machines issues.
Mr Hargreaves: Well then, perhaps some of the government members should.
MR MOORE
: I have always believed that. Mr Hargreaves suggested that other people also get donations and so on. Indeed, I have had donations. But there is a difference. Poker machines are given a statutory or a legislative protection. They get a specific advantage from laws that we pass here in this place. If we did not do that, pubs would be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .