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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 429 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

If Ms Tucker will not allow the debate to be adjourned at this moment and wait for two weeks, I and the Government will be supporting the Chief Minister's foreshadowed amendment that we remove all words after "resources" in paragraph (1)(c). That inquiry will have been done by that stage. It is more appropriate that the level of the cap be recommended back to this Assembly after consultation. Instead of being something that we work out with the flip of a coin and the roll of a dice, perhaps the level of the cap could be something that a select committee could reasonably consider. I note, again, that Trevor said that it would be his intention that the cap will allow for only new clubs. We could expect the select committee then to report back to us with an appropriate figure for a cap, if a cap is necessary, after it has received the advice of the Allen Group.

I think there is a valuable opportunity here. We should not lose this opportunity because we already have a report coming to this place. Assuming that the report will be done well and does address the social and economic impact of gambling in the ACT, we could then launch a select committee of this Assembly to do a far better job than I think is being proposed at this stage. I think that, simply for the sake of two weeks, we should not hasten at this stage. I think we could take it just a little bit slowly and we could look at it quite reasonably.

There is another area that does concern me. I stand here and congratulate Paul Osborne for standing aside in this debate. Here is a man who receives some remuneration from a club that has poker machines and he will not participate in this debate because he thinks it is inappropriate. He is willing to declare that he has a conflict of interest because one of the people who pay him some money owns poker machines. I think it is sad that in their haste the members of the Opposition will not also consider that option, Mr Speaker, because, as has been reported many times in the Canberra Times and in the Canberra press, the Labor Party does benefit - not individual members specifically - from the revenues that are generated through poker machines in their clubs dotted throughout the ACT.

Mr Stanhope, in his inaugural speech in this place, talked about a new Labor Party, honest and open, and I think this would be a very valid test, a very valid opportunity, for the Labor Party to come back and say that they will actually stand aside. Clearly, Mr Osborne has recognised that he has a conflict of interest and as an Independent he has stood aside and will take no further part in this. Perhaps the Labor Party could learn from the fine example that Mr Osborne has set here today and do exactly the same.

I would ask that Ms Tucker consider a two-week delay. All we need do at this stage is adjourn the debate. It would be appropriate that Kerrie come back and adjourn the debate and give us the two weeks to see the Allen Consulting Group report into the social and economic impact of gambling in the ACT, which is the heart of this recommendation that we have a select committee. In just two weeks' time we could have a fair and reasonable debate in this place and ensure that the people of the ACT get the best benefit out of a select committee set up by this Assembly. It is not unreasonable to ask Kerrie to come back, but I do not think she will.

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