Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1009 ..
MR KAINE: Thank you, Mr Speaker; and thank you, Mr Hargreaves. I submit that we have to be very careful about listening to the protestations of the Government. If any one of them had ever said, "We honestly support a cap", then you might be able to listen to what they say and give it some credibility. None of them ever has. They have opposed it from the outset. In other words, the Government is resisting implementing a resolution of this Assembly.
Well, the Government has to be told that a resolution of this Assembly means something. They are bound by it. They might not like it; but, once in a while, you have to chew on something that you do not particularly like. I think this is a case where the Government is going to have to do that. They can protest; they can argue; and Mr Moore can put up spurious reasons for not doing it. But at the end of the day this place is going to vote on it. I think the Government have given a clear indication that they are going to resist to the hilt implementing this legislation. The Chief Minister is going to keep arguing that it is inadequate; it will not work; we cannot make it work; it is going to have to be amended; the Revenue Office people do not like it. The Assembly is warned about the position that the Government is going to take. If the Executive is going to be accountable to this place, this is a good test case.
MR BERRY (12.59 am): I just want to draw attention to something. Mr Moore went on at great length, with some indignation, about the fact that this matter was being brought on and dealt with in one day. I just want to refer Mr Moore to an amendment which he moved on 30 November 1994.
Mr Moore: An amendment?
MR BERRY: An amendment, yes; but a significant amendment, nonetheless. It was the cannabis medicinal use amendment, and we all recall that. It was a significant amendment which was moved and rammed through in one day.
MR WOOD (1.00 am): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the proposal in front of us. I think most of the arguments have been well expressed by others supporting the Bill. It seems strange to me that when we respond to a requirement of the Assembly we are criticised for so doing. I do not understand that. I am aware of the reasons for the opposition that has been expressed tonight. I do not think the words that have been uttered cover the claim to passion behind those words. After this Bill has been enacted we can get down to the real work of the committee and start to assess the social and economic consequences of gambling. That is what the prime purpose of the committee is, and that is what we all need to get onto as quickly as possible. Once this is in place, we can do that. We can report to the Assembly later in the year. I hope we will be bringing forward further measures for your careful consideration.
MS TUCKER (1.01 am), in reply: There are a couple of important things I need to say at the moment. First of all, I respond to Mrs Carnell's passionate pleas for those people adversely affected in our community. I might need to remind members that the reason we had this committee set up and the reason we are setting a cap is that we actually think a lot of people in the community are being adversely affected. This is not just people who have a gambling problem. This is people who live with people who have a gambling problem; this is the community generally who pays an incredible amount of money in