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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1477 ..

Mrs Carnell: No; Rosemary Follett did.

MR MOORE: I take the interjection. All right, the previous Chief Minister did. There is a commitment under the national competition policy that, when an amendment to an Act is introduced, that Act be reviewed to assess whether or not gaming - in this case - is operating consistently with the national competition policy. It would seem to me on the surface, Mr Speaker, that it is not.

That is why there is a notice on the notice paper for a Bill to modify the gaming legislation. Its purpose is to clarify this and to ensure that appropriate competition, as agreed to by the previous Labor Government and as agreed to in principle by Mrs Carnell, is taken into account. There is, of course, the public interest test; but it still requires a review. So, I would like you to explain to us what action you have taken to begin the review of this.

Mr Whitecross: What does this have to do with the Bill before the house?

MR MOORE: What does this have to do with the legislation in front of us? I am saying that the legislation in front of us, having been introduced and having been debated, automatically requires a review, under our national competition policy guidelines and agreement. So, clearly, it is very relevant to any piece of legislation that comes before the house. It is one of the factors that are relevant.

I can understand why the Labor Party would resist it, of course. They are the very clear beneficiaries of this lack of competition policy. So, of course, you would get worried; because you are looking after yourselves. It is quite clear that you would get very nervy when there may be some impact on the Labor Club, which funds you. Of course, you are going to get a bit unsettled about it.

Mr Whitecross: I just want to understand what you are talking about.

MR MOORE: Mr Whitecross does not understand what I am talking about. Mr Speaker, I will take this opportunity in the in-principle stage of the consideration of this legislation to explain what I am talking about. What I am talking about, Mr Speaker, is the fact that, by the time the election comes around, the Labor Party will have been receiving a little bit less than $1m over three years in order to assist them in their work. That comes to them with a significant advantage, having no competition, because they get money from the Labor Club and other licensed clubs which provide them with funds. So, of course, it is a factor.

Mr Speaker, whenever we speak in the in-principle stage of an amending Bill, it puts the Bill as a whole into context. That is the context in which I am speaking on that issue. I can understand why the Labor Party would resist an investigation into competition policy, including an investigation into the public interest aspects. Under the public interest aspects of this issue, Mr Speaker, I am sure that, in a fair and open investigation, what would be revealed - - -

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