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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1098 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Sports betting in the ACT includes interactive wagering but it also includes telephone betting and on-site betting. In the ACT at present there are four sports betting licences. Two of them conduct interactive wagering - Canbet and MegaSports. City Index and Capital Sports only do telephone betting. However, we understand Capital Sports is soon to be subsumed by Canbet.

The cap of four licences on sports betting is a de facto cap on interactive wagering. According to the Gambling Commission, there is no clamouring demand for more on-site or telephone betting licences. I understand that one sports betting licence application was received last month and started in December 1999.

Last week when I raised this publicly, instead of addressing the real issues behind the call for a moratorium, the Minister tried to discount these significant national concerns with arguments about definition of sports betting and interactive gambling. While technically our definition in the Interactive Gambling Act 1998 can be interpreted that way, I think Mr Humphries should think twice before he tries to use arguments of that nature in this discussion. He will lose all credibility if he does use them.

The clear reality is that sports betting using the Internet is a major growth area of gambling; that there are millions of dollars to be made; that problem gambling will increase as this greater access is provided to yet another form of gambling; that we have no idea of the broader economic impact of this industry; that consumer protection mechanisms are not adequately developed. That is why the Senate committee has made the recommendations it has made.

Mr Humphries also argued that all we are doing is creating a few lucky people who get rich if we have a cap of four or that we are supporting a monopoly. Obviously, that is the line that comes out of the Allen Consulting Group's report on competition policy and gambling. It is predictable and it is what they said before when they looked at other gaming laws in the ACT. In fact, that report was rejected by the select committee as not being the definitive statement on the public interest and gambling.

Mr Humphries, in his argument that all we are doing is making a few people rich, is ignoring the fact that the Senate committee has requested a short moratorium while there is a national approach to looking at how we can protect consumer interest and the public interest in this very fast-growing industry that is so attractive to people who will make many millions of dollars out of it.

I am not arguing that capping is the best form of market regulation. I am saying that the committee of the Senate has recommended a short moratorium until these other issues are looked at from a national perspective. The Senate committee wants a national ministerial council set up. Mr Howard said:

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