Marti Zucco: A need to clarify

In response to the mis-information by Alderman Burnets comment below.

“Greens alderman Helen Burnet, who initiated the gambling study, argued the council had the power to ‘‘lead the way’’ on pokies as it had done on another issue governed by state legislation –smoking”

There is a real need to clarify the difference between what is governed and controlled by the State government and how the Hobart City Council is able to “lead the way” as it has on smoking and the distinct difference in what the Green Party Alderman are seeking the Council to pursue and its powers to do so under the gambling legislation.

Yes the HCC has led the way on smoking, it was led by the late Alderman in Darlene Haigh and former Alderman in Dee Alty years before the official Greens were elected on Council. So it wasn’t a Greens issue that got that happening.

The fundamental difference between smoking and gambling is that the HCC developed a policy to ban smoking on “Council owned properties” and in recent times occupation licensees in which again the HCC owns the land. It has not in any way entered into the domain of what is the “control” of State legislation. This is the HCC as a landlord having a policy on how it wishes its land to be used. Any private landlord for that matter has a legal right to do so and does not cut across State or Federal legislation.

What is not being conveyed by the Greens is that the HCC is being asked to pursue reports that are irrelevant to what it can control, in particular those that relate to what is directly the control of the State, being how many poker machines are in place, to who pays the Gambling levy, and where the levy is distributed and also to the point how much one particular establishment pays or should pay as part of that levy program.

This is where the line must be drawn as this is the domain of the State Government not the HCC and hence why it was time to get back to what the HCC has the power to do or pursue and what is a direct State or Federal matter.

Alderman Burnett was not at the CDC meeting on September 12th where fellow Green Alderman Harvey sought to move a motion and then asked a question on notice in that was in relation to the levy that was being paid by Wrest Point” again this is not a HCC matter as this is government by the State Government.

Furthermore Alderman Harvey being an advisor to a Cabinet Minister would be able to source that information via his boss who could easily seek this information through Cabinet or through the floor of Parliament. His boss could ask that direct question and receive an answer. Why is it that a staffer of a State Cabinet Minister has to come to the HCC to ask these questions?? This clearly points to the fact that the Greens are using the HCC for the State and Federal platform and that is where the line must be drawn.

If in fact the Greens wanted the HCC to pursue a similar policy to the smoking ban in which the HCC has in place on HCC owned land then that I would support that and see no issue with that as I would suspect that the Gambling commission would never approve poker machines in Council owned parks or outdoor dining.

If in fact the Greens are seeking a similar policy as the smoking ban on HCC land I am prepared to move a motion in Council on that basis that the HCC will ban Pokies from all council owned and controlled properties. This will make it similar to the smoking bans that the HCC has in place.

But I suspect this is not what the Greens agenda is as thus far I believe they are being far from upfront and honest about the whole issue.