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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2456 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Basically, it is a short route to getting as much revenue as possible by having licences here. We have heard it all from the industry. This is the best place for people to come and set up. We will get revenue out of it and they we will be regulating their activities under our legislation; so, as far as it can be regulated and as far as we can address problem gambling, it will be good. But this report says that the commission cannot do that yet. We would like to see how they are going to do it. How are they going to monitor use? Are they properly resourced? Why is it such a problem to stop right now? Mr Humphries is saying that there is no need to rush because these people are not practising yet, so why can he not pull back?

The industry itself has questioned me on what would happen if the government opened its arms to these people to come in and then did the work and there was a much higher level of restriction on them or greater costs were imposed on the business side of the partnership to ensure best quality. The government could be exposed to some legal issues there with them saying, "We entered into this arrangement under the understanding that we would be doing A, B and C and you are now saying that we have to do D, E and F as well. Can you really force us to do that?"

That is a concern that the industry has expressed quite clearly. That is why the federal government said to the Senate inquiry and the report on Internet betting, "Why don't we take our time here and make sure that we know how to do it?" We are claiming that we know how to do it, but this report says that we do not. How do you monitor use? Who is going to do it? How much is it going to cost? A code of conduct has not been developed. The legislation has a bit on advertising. Advertising is a very big issue. Advertising is a major issue for anyone in the community who is concerned about gambling.

Our legislation is minimalist, absolutely minimalist, on advertising. Let us see how the commission is going to work that out and let the businesses know how it is going to look before we actually embrace them and bring them into our system in the ACT. I do not believe that this government is serious about addressing these issues. I think that this is another example of that. If the government actually supported this amendment, it would have greater credibility. Mr Rugendyke wanted to gain an understanding of the first part of the amendment. Mr Humphries has said he probably would not support it because there is nothing to table, which is a scandal.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

MR QUINLAN: I seek leave to speak briefly.

Leave granted.

MR QUINLAN: I want to endorse what Mr Kaine has said about Mr Rugendyke's remarks. To accuse Ms Tucker of conducting a vendetta and to say that what she was doing was a slur on commission members is to go way out of court. She is, as members have gathered, quite passionate about the harm that gambling can do in society, as part of her principles. We have heard a fair amount today about high principles. Apparently some of us are allowed to have them and others are not. Of all the people in this place today who should not have made that crack, Mr Rugendyke is the one. But therein hangs a tale.

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