Page 3874 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There has been a long-held view in the community that there is a trade-off with poker machines and clubs. That is why people support the community-based model. The trade-off is this: there is a recognition that there are negative impacts of gambling on certain members of our community. No-one here would dispute that. We all have a responsibility to try and limit that as much as we can; there is no doubt about that. The clubs recognise that; people in the community recognise that. People recognise that for some people, unfortunately, gambling comes with a significant cost to their lives and to the lives of their families.
But there has been a trade-off: “If we are going to have clubs with poker machines, if we are going to have poker machines, we will confine that to the not-for-profit sector; we will confine that to community-based clubs.” That is a different model from what is done in some other jurisdictions. With that trade-off, people did not consider that poker machines would be able to be used in massive windfall profits. That was not the idea behind the establishment of these clubs. That was not the idea behind allowing poker machines in these clubs. The idea was that the money would stay in the community, that they would be used to provide those community facilities and that there would be money flowing back into the community—the charity sector, the sport sector and the community sector. That has been the understanding of Canberrans; that has been at the heart of the broad community support for the model. It is a model that we support.
There have been a number of questions raised in relation to the sale and in relation to the implications of making profits from gaming machines in the ACT. We need to have a look at where some of this started. This was not initially raised by the Liberal Party. The concerns were not initially raised by the Liberal Party; they were raised by the president—
Mr Hargreaves: Absolutely codswallop.
MR SESELJA: What did Mr Hargreaves just say?
Mr Hargreaves: I said “codswallop”.
MR SESELJA: He said it was codswallop. It was not a Liberal who, as president of the Labor club, wrote a letter raising serious concerns. It was not a Liberal who did that. It was not a Liberal who did that and I do not think it was a Liberal who put him up to it. I think he did it off his own bat, raising concerns. As president of the Labor Club Group, Brian Hatch raised these concerns. He raised these very serious concerns.
There are a number of reasons why this inquiry is important. One of them goes to the issue around the chief executive officer of the Gambling and Racing Commission, who Mr Hargreaves has sought in some way to direct in the chamber today. There are a number of questions. I would be happy to give the minister leave to speak again to answer some of these questions about the extent of the investigation by the Gambling and Racing Commission. It is important that she does speak to this in this debate so that we can understand the extent of this investigation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .