Page 2954 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I now refer to the Bookmakers (Amendment) Bill (No. 2). Section 9 of the principal Act deals with the membership of the Bookmakers Licensing Committee, with members being nominated by various bodies. Clause 6 of the Bookmakers (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) amends this section by substituting "7 part-time members" for "5 part-time members". Whilst the Opposition is not going to die in a ditch over whether it is seven or five, I would be interested in the Minister's comments as to why he needs to increase that committee by two, from five to seven. I note, by the way, that four will be appointed from outside bodies and only three by the Minister. In fact, the Minister might care to explain that as well.
I mentioned before the Opposition's delight in the Minister's public announcement about the $100,000 security guarantee. As I said earlier, sports bookmaking can involve the accepting and holding of bets and, therefore, possible liabilities over a long period of time. Therefore, obviously, it is extremely important that the committee is assured of the sports betting agent's capacity to pay. Even though this aspect is covered to some extent by suggested amendments, I would be pleased to hear what the Minister has to say about the amount of money that he has in mind for the security guarantee. The betting auditorium is another one of the issues that people can agree to or cannot agree to. There may be differences of opinion as to where that betting auditorium should be. I know that some people in this place might find it appropriate for it to be at the casino. Others might want it to be at the greyhound racing track. Once again, it is the Minister who is going to make the decision, and the decision that is made by the Minister will become an instrument disallowable by this Assembly, so we will all have a perfect opportunity of making sure that we either accept or reject the Minister's decision.
I invite the Minister to respond to the Opposition's concern that local bookmakers have first bite of the cherry, so to speak, in obtaining these new sports betting licences. Another Opposition concern is about how - on a day when there is a greyhound racing meeting, a trotting meeting, a race meeting in Canberra and a race meeting at Queanbeyan Racecourse - we make sure that existing bookmakers are not placed at a disadvantage by the fact that other people may be able to bet on their turf. I ask the Minister to take that question on board as well. The final Opposition concern is to ensure that the interest earned on the moneys held by bookmakers is in fact returned to the bookmakers themselves and does not go somewhere else. We have said to the Government and we say to the Assembly that the Opposition supports these three pieces of legislation in principle, and I look forward to the Minister's responses to the questions asked by the Opposition.
MS SZUTY (5.30): I too support these Bills in principle. I believe that they establish an important initiative for the ACT. It is also important that the process work well. I would like to comment on two specific issues in relation to these Bills. The first is the issue of whether we need to be more aware of the need for increased counselling services for gamblers as a result of these initiatives. I appreciate the information that I have received on this matter from a couple of sources. I would like to quote from them very briefly. The first is a letter to me from Mark Owens, who is the general manager of the Bureau of Sport, Recreation and Racing. I quote three paragraphs from his letter:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .