Page 2941 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are things about the scheme that need tightening up, but we do not need to take away from licensed clubs and their members autonomy as to how they spend their money—and remember that it is members’ money—and give it to Andrew Barr. Quite frankly, Madam Assistant Speaker, the average club-going member of the ACT does not quite trust Andrew Barr to give out money through his Chief Minister grandiose scheme in a way that ensures that it goes to the little organisations that get by on the smell of an oily rag and make such a contribution to this territory. Whether it is a sewing group, whether it is turning print into sound, whether it is providing a home for young women who have no home, whether it is encouraging young women to play rugby union football or whether it is a blues music group, they all make a contribution. And they make a contribution because the community clubs choose to help them.
As Mr Milligan has quite adequately said, this government is not going to step into the gap and fund the more than 1,500 organisations that are currently funded. It is not in their DNA to do it, and they will be picking winners all the time. I commend Mr Parton for his motion, I commend Mr Parton for his vigour and activity in this place, and I commend him for standing up for Canberra’s community clubs.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (11.53): This motion was never about harm minimisation. None of the references in the “notes” or “calls upon” sections of my motion had anything to do with harm minimisation. The discussion paper is not about harm minimisation. The discussion paper is not about machine reduction. If the government chooses to go with one of the three options in the discussion paper, that has no effect whatsoever on the level of gambling in the city or the level of gambling harm. This motion was never about the level of gambling or the level of gambling harm.
I will speak to Mr Ramsay’s amendment. I understand that when Mr Ramsay starts thinking about gambling, all he can think about is gambling harm: gambling is no good; no-one has ever enjoyed having a punt; this is not Australia, is it? But this motion has nothing to do with gambling harm. That is an important issue for another debate.
Mr Ramsay’s amendments refer to a 2017 report by Dr Charles Livingstone on community contributions. It is no surprise to me that Dr Livingstone is a hero of Mr Rattenbury. I gather that he has certainly been a member of the Greens in the past and probably still is. But I note that in the recent court case against Crown casino, Dr Livingstone gave evidence as a gambling expert. He has been quoted here as a gambling expert. His evidence was rejected as being inadmissible by the judge; the court would not accept it. Why? It was because, according to the court, Dr Livingstone is a known anti-gambling advocate. So his evidence as an academic could not be used, and it was not used. I wanted to draw members’ attention to that point.
As we consider this motion and the amendment, I would like us to consider for a moment a historical Labor figure. Does the name Ros Kelly ring a bell? When it comes to the Labor Party pooling money to distribute as they choose, we may remember the sports rorts affair of 1993. Of course, at the time this was all being done,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video