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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (18 April) . . Page.. 1105 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We do not want to stand up and say, "Because this is already happening, we will let this happen as well". What we are saying is that there is huge concern about violence. The message you are giving is, "Yes, let us continue that". There is no debriefing. You are skilling people. When we have massacres in society, people say, "We should not have guns, because people sometimes lose it, and then they use that gun to kill their wife or their children, quite often". Sometimes they kill lots of people. The point is that you are teaching people, through this game, how to be quick with a gun; how to run around; how to avoid trees. You are giving people skills to be quick and - - -

Mr Humphries: Rubbish!

MS TUCKER: This is what was told to me. You can tell me if that is wrong. The question is: What do you think you are teaching people here? You are not only skilling people to run around with weapons that look like real weapons but also encouraging generally in the community a condoning of violence, of weapons and of fighting. What I say and what many people around this world say is that, if we do not stop saying that that is okay, if we do not start questioning why we want to play war games, we are not going to get very far. In fact, we could end up with the end of the world, because it extends to nuclear weapons.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (3.58), in reply: Mr Speaker, let me say, in closing the debate, that it is hard to top the argument that paintball could lead to the end of the world; but I will try. First of all, let me say that this is not the set-piece debate on paintball. I am merely presenting the regulation today. A member in this place has the right to move to disallow this regulation. Indeed, Ms Follett has indicated on the radio that she will go ahead and do that. I would simply ask that she do so reasonably soon, so that we all know where we stand on that issue, rather than let the issue dangle for a number of months before we decide upon it. Something tells me that we are not going to see a motion on this question moved very soon by the Labor Party, because I understand that they are actually divided on the question.

Nonetheless, Mr Speaker, I have to say that the lecturing from those opposite that we need a thoughtful and conciliatory approach on this subject and that we need to look at the issue on its merits, a la Ms Follett, is a bit rich coming from the person who was on the radio, moments after the decision was announced to proceed with these regulations a couple of weeks ago, slamming the Government for daring to introduce this militaristic sport in the ACT. There was no thoughtful and conciliatory approach on that score. There was no looking at the issue on its merits. The answer was no. It was an immediate and swift no. So, Mr Speaker, I do not know where Ms Follett gets this line that we need a thoughtful and conciliatory approach from the Government. We do not get it from the Opposition. I think it is a bit rich to ask for it, frankly.

We hear a philosophical argument at least from the Greens: Paintball is a form of a violent game; a violent game encourages a violent society; we should not, therefore, have violent games in a violent society - or, at least, this form of game goes too far. I want to try to understand why that is. Mr Moore, I think, has quite adequately demonstrated that the game of paintball is much less actually violent, in terms of injury and the spilling of blood, than, say - - -

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