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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1168 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

like people who wish to run these operations to be exposed to the probity checks that we would expect the commission to let us know that it is happy with. As long as the commission comes back to this place and assures us that that it has reviewed the structure of probity checks and of public protection and is happy with the whole structure, we certainly will be happy to have this ceiling lifted; but we will be supporting the motion.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.12): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I will be brief in speaking to this motion. Throughout the debate we have been worrying about the Senate inquiry and we have been taking into account the gambling inquiry that this Assembly undertook. I see a fair difference between wagering and gaming. I see wagering as totally different from gaming in that wagering is a contract between a bookmaker or a body where there is a wager on an outcome that neither has control over. Gaming, to me, is mainly around poker machines - computer-generated, random number, complete chance products.

I do not think that increasing the cap of four licences would alter the capacity for people to pick up a phone or turn a computer on and gamble as much as they want or can. I am very conscious of the concern for problem gamblers and I see the main concern being through poker machines. I have been trying to get my head around the concept of online gambling, but I am afraid I cannot. I have tried to fathom out what is meant by the response of the Government to the Allen report on competition policy review of legislation relating to ACTTAB and bookmakers.

The first recommendation of the report appears to relate to the New South Wales TAB not being able to enter the ACT until certain things have been satisfied. The next couple relate specifically to TABs. There is one - recommendation 7.6 - that indicates that the ministerial limit of four sports betting licences should be removed and there should be no arbitrary restriction on the number of sports betting licences. I have not been convinced as to why that should not be the case, given that the access to these products is dependent solely on a telephone or a computer.

There are issues around what the Gambling and Racing Commission ought to do. It should look at things such as the value of a licence. Currently, there are four licences and two of those licences have sold for around $10m. That indicates that there is speculation on the value of these things. Removing the cap might remove the speculation to a degree. I would suggest strongly that $10,000 is far too generous for a licence fee, given that millions of dollars can be made out of these things.

Ms Tucker: Then support my motion.

MR RUGENDYKE: But I do not know that supporting the motion would achieve anything that Ms Tucker is trying to achieve. I have not been convinced that it would, put it that way. As hard as I have tried, I have not been able to come up with a valid reason to support the motion.

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