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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1203 ..

Ms Tucker: It is fine if we do not reach the cap.

MR QUINLAN: Well, I will say it-we have not reached this cap yet.

Ms Tucker: We are not aiming for 5,200. We do not mind if it is less. I think you said that.

Ms Dundas: I said that we have not reached the cap.

Ms Tucker: Did you say "breached" or "reached"?

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR QUINLAN: For the record, the cap has not been reached, right? Reached.

Ms Tucker: Okay, Ms Dundas said that. I do not want it to be reached.

MR SPEAKER: And I said, "Order!"

MR QUINLAN: Let the record show that Ms Dundas said, "The cap has not been reached."

MR SPEAKER: Mr Quinlan has the floor and, if Mr Quinlan had not provoked other members, perhaps we would not have had the discussion across the chamber.

MR QUINLAN: My apologies, Mr Speaker. As I said, there will be pressure in the developing areas for the creation of clubs and for more poker machines. I can foresee that, in a reasonable period of time, there will be pressure for more machines to provide, if you like, equality between geographic areas in the territory. We may be able to rationalise numbers within the cap, and that will be considered. Larger clubs will be examined to see if they really need the full complement of machines that they have now been allocated.

Nevertheless, I think it is an arbitrary process that really, at the end of the day, is not going to achieve much in itself. I note that Ms Dundas talked about advancing technology. She has a point, but let me also remind members that problem gambling associated with poker machines emerged way back when poker machines were mechanical devices with a handle that you yanked, and they did spit out the coins and the coins did then have to be replaced in the machine individually. Nevertheless, that is when the great apocryphal stories of people going bankrupt because of poker machines really arose. I do not really think that that point carries much weight.

What we really have to ensure, in relation to problem gambling, is that we address that problem, and that the vast majority, the 99.9, or whatever, per cent of the population who do not have the problem are not subjected to prohibition because the only solutions we can think of are arbitrary solutions. Nevertheless, I thank members for their support and I predict that maybe in a year's time we might be having a slightly different debate.

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