Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1741 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
Racing Commission to look at those issues. I remember that being a matter of very strong focus in the debates of our select committee. I understand that that is going to be supported tonight but I just want to put on the record that I think that is a concern.
Mr Quinlan did not want it thoroughly investigated. I can live with that. I am assuming the Gambling and Racing Commission will do a thorough job, that they will not have to be told particularly to do that. So just to ask them to report is okay; I do not have a problem with that.
I find it very interesting, though, that Mr Quinlan wants to use the term "interactive gambling"; he does not want to include sports betting. I remind members again-and I informed Mr Humphries today that his name is on this; he thinks it might have been a misprint but it is not-of the government's response to the Allen Consulting Group policy review of the bookmakers legislation. It is interesting to read recommendation 7.2, which states:
The suitability requirements for sports bookmakers should mirror those for holders of interactive gambling licences under the Interactive Gambling Act.
The government's response was that it support this and its comments were:
The sports betting industry has grown rapidly over recent years aided by the development of the Internet-based platforms. Many new gambling service providers use the Internet as a principal means of providing sports betting products. In addition, there are many service providers who propose to supply a suite 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. This consistent approach will streamline the licensing processes within the Gambling and Racing Commission.
So that seems to me to be saying pretty clearly that there are very similar issues in both forms of Internet gambling. I think this is a strange amendment as well, but I understand that that is going to get up too. I just want to put on the record though that I think that is an inappropriate amendment.
MR RUGENDYKE (9.20): I will speak briefly to the motion and to Mr Quinlan's amendments. We were asked to note several things. Some of us had not noted some of the things that were raised in the last debate and perhaps some of us have not noted some of the things that have been put forward in this debate. Maybe Ms Tucker will send us a copy of, for example, Netbets: A review of on-line gambling in Australia. I will have a look at and note parts (c) and (d) of paragraph (1).
The motion also calls on the Gambling and Racing Commission to do certain things. Mr Quinlan's amendment No 2 seeks to omit paragraph (2)(a), which refers to "the issues of social and economic impact of online gambling". It strikes me that part (a) is a wise provision. The ACT inquiry studied the social and economic impact of gambling
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .