Page 4493 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These changes are a reaction to a belief that ACTTAB should be prepared for such an eventuality. The problem is that, when we are dealing with something as important as betting, we do not have a lot of the information that we ought to have to make a sensible decision. For example, we would all like to know the answer to these questions: How many race meetings will this apply to? What sort of cut will be made to the Territory, the RDF and the race clubs in prescribed payments? What increase in turnover will such competition offerings lead to? Will the increase in turnover be more than the cut in prescribed payments? What is the break even line? What will it cost the Territory, the clubs and the RDF? The answers to these essential questions are just not available. Why not find out the answers to those questions and then come into this place and present legislation based on information you have before you?
There are more questions. What else could these cuts apply to? Could the Government cut the payments to the clubs and the RDF without a trigger such as a Tabcorp competition situation? The answer to that is yes, because there is nothing in this legislation which says that competitive forces have to be the trigger to changing prescribed payments. There is nothing, for example, to stop the Government doubling its cut and reducing payments to the racing club and the RDF. This would be a great way to generate revenue. It would destroy the ACT racing industry and ACTTAB, but we have already gained much insight into this Government's respect for the commercial reputation of ACTTAB through the handling of the VITAB affair.
We requested further information from the Minister's department last Friday, when the Opposition was briefed. Nothing has come back from ACTTAB, by the way. I do stress that the Minister did write to Mrs Carnell, giving some of the information that was requested. We would like to have, for example, assurances like a formal undertaking to "maintain the relativities of the existing deduction split". Such assurances may not ease the concerns of the racing codes, who did not receive notice of the Minister's intention to change this legislation until the Opposition, in its routine consultation rounds, informed the clubs of the pending legislation. That is a great area of concern as well. The clubs at once sought a meeting with the Minister, and up until late last week had received no response to their inquiries.
I am not convinced, given the Minister's track record up to now in the consultation situation, that the clubs and the RDF will be given the Minister's greatest care and consideration. I am able to quote letters signed by Mr Manwaring, and representing Mr Huddy and Mr Platts - the three codes are represented - saying:
Dear Mr De Domenico,
We thank you for your initiative in circulating the Government proposed legislative changes to the Betting (Totalizator Administration) (Amendment) Bill 1994. Without your effort there would once again have been no industry consultation.
Attached for your information is a copy of letter forwarded to the Minister Mr Lamont as a joint submission from the racing industry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .