Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1169 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak a second time.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will be quite brief. I thank members for the indulgence. I want to touch on the last point that Mr Rugendyke raised. I think that there certainly is a case for reviewing the number of sports betting licences. The recent sale of two licences, one of which was to an Internet betting agency, namely, Canbet, and the price associated with those transfers do raise the question whether the fee is actually appropriate. The commission advises me that it has, in fact, taken that matter under review and will consider it. If the commission recommends a change, obviously the Government will be quite likely to bring that recommendation forward for decision.
MS TUCKER (4.19), in reply: It's good that I raised this matter, isn't it? We are now hearing Mr Humphries acknowledge that maybe $10,000 is not the right amount, so we are going to have an analysis of the situation. I look forward to answers to my questions about how they came up with that amount in the first place.
I would like to address some of the issues that Mr Rugendyke raised. I was very interested to see the Government's response to the Allen Consulting Group's national competition policy review of the legislation relating to ACTTAB and bookmakers. There are some quite interesting contradictions in the Government's position. One of the recommendations of the Allen Consulting Group reads:
The ACT Government should not open the market to interstate totalisators until it is satisfied that there are ongoing systems and procedures in place that will enable the racing turnover (and any other turnover-based taxes and licences) to be extracted from wagers that originated from within the ACT.
Obviously, that is another way of saying, "Do not open it up to more totalisators until we know that the ACT will keep the money". The concerns there are purely financial.
Mr Humphries: It is about protecting the revenue of the Territory.
MS TUCKER: That is right, it is about protecting the revenue of the Territory. You would also be aware that the concerns that were taken into account by Allen Consulting in coming to that recommendation included containing the social costs of gambling, which is also listed; ensuring product quality and consumer protection; securing a significant revenue base - yes, that has been dealt with; controlling monopolistic exploitation; supporting the ACT racing industry, which is obviously relevant to the recommendation; and minimising systemic risk and contagion. That recommendation was only partially supported by the Government. The reasons are interesting. The Government's response reads:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .