Page 1059 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(c) details of any change to the funding of programs to tackle problem gambling that has occurred following implementation of the revised funding model.”.
I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (6:03): The amendment that the member has circulated, despite his claim that it will strengthen the motion, does nothing of the sort. I can only assume that the government will be supporting the amendment, and therefore the amendment will get up, but let me just look at one key word in the motion and the proposed amendment. What I ask is that the government negotiate with the racing industry; what Mr Rattenbury wants the government to do is to consult with the racing industry. They are two enormously different worlds.
To negotiate means that you sit down and talk—the minister and the industry—so that you come to, hopefully, an agreed position. We all know that negotiation is tough and we all know that you cannot always get everything that you want. But the problem for the industry is that the consultation to date has simply been one-directional, with very little input from the racing industry on the proposed model, because they cannot even get in to see the minister.
That is the problem with consultation with this government—the unbounded arrogance of this government and the unbounded arrogance of this minister, who, since April last year—almost 12 months—has not even met with the industry. To disingenuously say “but I met them at a cocktail function; I saw a race meet” is not negotiation. What is an hour out of this minister’s time to meet with an industry that brings the government revenue, creates jobs and adds to the vitality of Canberra and the diversity of the Canberra economic base? What is an hour of negotiation and what is an hour of meeting? As the industry itself said in its press release:
The ACT racing industry is prepared to work towards a sensible solution if given the opportunity and awaits Ministerial discussions.
The problem with the amendment circulated by the Greens is that the government will do exactly what they have done on every other occasion where consultation is involved. They will say, “What do you think?” They will get the answer, they will ignore the answer and they will press on. What the amendment does is allow the government to avoid negotiating with the industry. That is the big problem with this amendment.
The other thing is that the amendment overlooks the principle that racing is funded by revenue it creates through wagering—the requirement of the ACT government to fund the local industry through a longstanding gentlemen’s agreement and funding models which have not been decreased by other states and territories. We are the only jurisdiction that is now welshing on the gentlemen’s agreement. The ACT government is the only government that has proposed an alteration to the longstanding existing funding models, effectively by hiving off the new revenue from race fields legislation, legislation which the racing industry encouraged the government to introduce to correct the imbalance of being the lowest-funding racing industry in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video