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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5182 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to the Labor Party, claiming that this is the reason or could be the reason-Ms Dundas seemed to be saying this, too-that we are not seeing better regulation of harm minimisation related to gambling. But the point has to be made that if you are worried about the impact of revenue coming from gambling, you need to be a bit more worried about the $31 million than the $300,000. And that is a problem for not just Labor but for Liberal governments.

The other point that I have not heard Mrs Cross, Ms Dundas or the Liberals address is that there is no difference between the performance of Liberal governments and Labor governments on the question of reducing harm. So if the argument that is being put here is that in some way the Labor government is particularly compromised and therefore influenced by this few hundred thousand dollars, I should point out that the evidence does not support that that is the case.

Both major parties had to be dragged kicking and screaming-and I would say that, since we were elected in 1995, the Greens have been instrumental in this place in bringing about such a change-to set up a gambling and racing commission. It was the Greens that brought up the need for an inquiry by a select committee. It took quite a number of years to get to the point where we got a gambling and racing commission set up, and that came out of the work of the select committee that I asked for. We have not heard good arguments put by Mrs Cross or others as to why we should support this legislation.

The Labor Party and, indeed, all clubs will have to get used to declining revenue from poker machines if we become more successful in reducing problem gambling. The majority of gaming machine revenue comes from problem gamblers. We must reduce this revenue by helping people who have a problem with gambling. This will affect the Labor Party disproportionately-although, as Mr Quinlan has pointed out, it will affect most members here-but we have to reduce harm in the community.

I believe that a reduction in revenue will also have an effect on the whole community and our capacity to provide services. If we successfully reduce problem gambling, there is going to be a serious impact on tax that comes to governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal. We are going to have to address the general issue of finding alternative forms of revenue.

The potential for political corruption because of donations from particular businesses or companies is, of course, not limited to gambling. Developers and developers' companies were donors to such political organisations as the Labor Party and the 250 Club. Those donors do not show up in party returns-I will not go into that because I do not want to anticipate debate on a matter that we will soon be considering. But the effect of these corporate donations on our democracy is an important issue.

I understand some of the things that Mrs Cross has said, although I do not believe that she has really looked at the issue as comprehensively as she might have. We have had a number of conversations with her and I thought she understood our position. She is well aware that I am having a bill drafted that would ban all political donations from corporations. I understood that Mrs Cross was supportive of that.

This measure will address in a fair and even-handed way the whole question of what, in the United States, is called soft money. If you look at the impact that political donations

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