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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1739 ..

MR KAINE: And debated. The minister noted that this need not necessarily be a long process and I would agree. The commission should be able to look at these questions and come back with a report to inform us of the status in a fairly short time. I do not think it is unreasonable, given the controversial nature of this issue, to ask the government not to issue any more licences until we are satisfied that the issues raised by Ms Tucker in paragraph (2) of her motion have been properly addressed. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that at all. I do not understand why the minister would speak against it and I cannot understand why any member of the government would vote against it. It is a perfectly legitimate and perfectly reasonable request.

I support what Ms Tucker is proposing and I do not see anything that impacts in any way on the government's ability to deal with the question in the relatively short term. I cannot see what their objection could possibly be. I would ask the minister to seriously consider supporting Ms Tucker's motion, leaving it at that, and getting on with the job.

MR QUINLAN (9.09): I wish I had access to Mr Humphries' little look-up system, and the resources to maintain and use it. Every now and then I would like to be able to go back a couple of years and access quotes.

I must say that I do savour the moment of Kerry Tucker concurring with John Howard on a particular issue, given that Mr Howard, who is in a 1950s time warp, is still probably coming to terms with electric office machines. I do recall that this issue was on the business paper at the last sitting of the Assembly. We had a quite unnecessary filibuster that day, as we have had today, that precluded us addressing it and, in the meantime, we saw the granting of two licences. I think the government, and Mr Humphries in particular, were a bit out of order granting licences in that intermediate period, given that there had been an obvious tactic to fill up private members' business day at the last sitting.

I do not know enough about Internet gambling to say precisely whether it can be controlled, contained or constrained. However, I have got a pretty good idea that it cannot. I have surfed the Net and I have found a couple of sites. I have even got an enthusiastic response sitting in my email in-tray, and all I did was answer the question: "Do you want a little free play?" All you have got to do is give them everything but your blood group and you receive some encouragement to play from time to time.

There has been a fair amount of negotiation between Ms Tucker and me and a lot of what is in her motion is a function of that negotiation. I appreciate the time and the goodwill that that has involved.

I cannot see that we can constrain Internet gambling. My knowledge, and I suspect the knowledge of most Assembly members, on this subject is limited. I expect that now our Gambling and Racing Commission has been in place for some time, they will have better idea. I want to see this place receive their opinion, firstly, as to the degree to which Internet gambling can be regulated and controlled; secondly, how promotions of Internet gambling can be regulated and controlled; and, thirdly, whether they are satisfied with the capacity and the access to information they have to conduct adequate probity checks. So, in fact, I would like to see this motion say, "We would like to know what the commission knows now."

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