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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1737 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Twelve million pages, Ms Tucker assures me. I believe that that is probably true. As at the time of the ministerial council meeting a few weeks ago the Commonwealth had succeeded in getting Australian Internet service providers to take down 12 million pages, or about 100 of those three million sites. So there are still 2,999,900 sites left to go. I believe that that is a spectacular admission of failure on that question.

So I say to Ms Tucker that if she wants there to be some stalling of this process, and that is essentially what she is calling for in her motion, I think she owes it to the technology literate community in which she lives to explain how she is going to achieve the kind of ban which she refers to, by implication at least, in paragraph 1(d) of her motion. I do not believe that question has been answered, and in the absence of a clear answer I do not believe that we should put our mechanism on hold.

I have seen Mr Quinlan's amendment to have, in effect, issues referred to the Gambling and Racing Commission for report to the Assembly. I believe that his amendments are reasonable, and I indicate we will support them.

I want to make a couple of quick points. Ms Tucker says I did not seek the views of the commission before the council meeting. That is untrue. (Extension of time granted.) At the officers meeting the day before the ministerial council meeting the Commonwealth formally put to the states and territories that there was going to be a proposed ban on access to Internet gambling sites. On the night of that meeting of officers I met with the chief executive and the chairman of the Gambling and Racing Commission. I was fully briefed by them and sought their views. The next day, both of those of gentlemen came to the council meeting with me, sat either side of me, and advised me throughout the meeting on issues that were being raised. So it is quite untrue to say that there has been no consultation with the commission.

Ms Tucker says I have been suddenly supportive of her position on poker machines. I do not believe there is any evidence of any difference of view on my part about poker machines. I have long regarded poker machines as being a much more significant problem in this community with respect to gambling than any other aspect of gambling in our community.

Ms Tucker: Why did you not support my original inquiry request?

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): Order! Mr Humphries has the call. Ms Tucker, come to order.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker has raised the question of an inquiry by the commission. There are reasons why I think it may not be appropriate for the commission to conduct, or it will be extremely-

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries, address your remarks to the chair, sir.

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