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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1054 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I move:

Mr Speaker, the response and the report relate to ACTTAB's compliance with national competition policy issues. In June of last year, the Government commissioned the Allen Consulting Group to undertake the review. They completed the review in November of last year. The bulk of the review's recommendations are to remove unnecessary costs or restrictions on gambling operators. The government response focuses mostly on those recommendations.

The review also recommends the conditional removal of restrictions on interstate TAB businesses operating in the ACT. The Government partially supports this recommendation. The Government supports the recommendation to the extent that interstate operators could be allowed to operate in the ACT only after systems had been put in place that identify all ACT-based gambling turnover.

Furthermore, the Government is concerned that there could be adverse revenue implications to all stakeholders including government, ACTTAB and the racing industry in relation to the potential loss of clients outside the ACT who currently bet with the ACTTAB. There was also some justification for limiting the proliferation of TAB outlets to minimise possible adverse social impacts of gambling caused by increased access to TABs.

MS TUCKER (3.50): I just want to make a quick comment about this. I am happy for Mr Corbell to adjourn it after that. I just want to say that I am pleased to see that this has been tabled, and I look forward to reading it. But I am really concerned that it is at this point we get a copy of this, considering the fact that the Minister moved some subordinate legislation in this place a few weeks ago using this report as justification for that. When I asked to see a copy of this report, I was told I could not because the Minister had not seen it himself. This is surprising in itself as he was using it as a justification for the subordinate legislation.

I just make the comment on the record here that it is not okay - in terms of good process - to see subordinate legislation justified by something like this, which is a review about competition policy looking at an issue about which clearly there is agreement. Gambling as an industry needs to be treated quite differently, and has particular issues around it when we apply competition policy.

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