Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1170 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The recommendation is supported to the extent that the ACT market should not be opened to further competition until there are arrangements in place to ensure that all betting activity in the ACT is appropriately identified.
The Government is also concerned about the harmful social impacts of the introduction of new totalisator service operators. The Productivity Commission has identified "TABs as a significant source of problem gambling". The Government believes it is acting socially responsible by maintaining the status quo in the number of TAB operators permitted in the ACT.
An argument about social harm is being used there by the Government. Basically, there are issues about that type of betting, which Mr Rugendyke has argued is different. That is the point I am trying to make there, as well as how interesting it is that social harm is used by the Government when it suits. Another interesting recommendation is the one which reads:
The suitability requirements for sports bookmakers should mirror those for holders of interactive gambling licences under the Interactive Gambling Act 1998.
What is that saying? The Government is supporting that. Why? The Government's response reads:
The sports betting industry has grown rapidly over recent years aided by the development of Internet based platforms. Many new gambling service providers see the Internet as the principal means of providing sports betting products.
In addition, there are many service providers who propose to supply a suite -
a suite, Mr Rugendyke -
of Internet based gambling products, encompassing gaming and wagering options. It is therefore appropriate that the suitability requirements applying to applicants for a sports betting licence should be consistent with those applying to applicants for an interactive gaming licence.
That is exactly what the Senate committee is saying. The two are equally potentially damaging in terms of problem gambling and the two are equally potentially open to huge growth and huge profit. That is why this Government is agreeing that it needs to be controlled. I agree with Mr Rugendyke that there is also a recommendation regarding sport betting licences, but we are rejecting that. I believe that this report is contradictory in the line that it has taken.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .