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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1732 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The fee set by the ACT government for sports betting licences was only $10,000. I have asked a series of questions about this, including what has the ACT government estimated the cost of actually maintaining a regulated licence to be? There is an answer to those questions, which I will not read out but which I seek leave to table.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I present the following paper:

What is interesting, in summary, is that in the answer Mr Humphries acknowledged that the broader costs of research and education would not be taken into account. Interestingly, the answer also shows that the desire to be competitive with other jurisdictions is a consideration.

It is very important to understand what the impact is of competition between states and territories trying to attract the private providers because this competition impacts on the revenue received and on regulation and therefore on public policy. A representative of the Internet industry who spoke at the Press Club this week alluded to this problem of competition between states, and on this we definitely agree. We have seen diminishing revenue to government as a result of this pressure through lowering taxes, tax breaks for high rollers and so on. This diminishing revenue in turn leads to greater reason for government to encourage more gambling activity.

I did notice as well that this representative from the Internet industry said that if Australia bans the activity or presents excessive barriers to entry, operators will go offshore. One has to wonder where the line will be drawn between excessive barriers and not excessive barriers. Obviously this is highly relevant to the debate as consumer protection mechanisms, if effective, could certainly be seen as a barrier.

I think this is another reason why we should have a national approach. I have heard this government and Mr Humphries himself bemoan the fact that there is this competition between states and territories in other areas. It is industry that benefits and states and territories that lose because the revenue is obviously diminished. In this instance there is an opportunity to have a national approach-you could prevent that competition from occurring.

A moratorium is a statement that as a society we want time to consider the ramifications and develop a consistent approach across Australia to mitigate harm. A ban is a clear statement from governments that it is no longer acceptable to further legitimise gambling by giving the seal of approval to more and more gambling operators. But I believe a moratorium is a necessary first step to allow proper consideration of the issues.

It is not true that I am taking a position on a ban, as Mr Humphries' press release also said. What I am representing here and what I said in the Canberra Times article was what the two positions represented-a moratorium or a ban. I want to have the opportunity to

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