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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1742 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

in its various forms and if we failed to notice online gambling, we may have slipped up badly. Maybe, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we can finally unshackle ourselves from being locked into inquiring into that matter. I support the removal of part (a).

I note that we have very wise and eminently experienced and skilled members of the Gambling and Racing Commission and they will certainly be able to handle the tasks that have been outlined in the motion. I have complete faith in the Gambling and Racing Commission. I am sure that an admirable job will be done by those members.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: You would not be playing to the gallery, Mr Rugendyke, would you?

MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, as always, I address my comments to the chair. I recognise my dear friend and ex-colleague Mr Tony Curtis, who is in the gallery. The Gambling and Racing Commission will do a thoroughly good job in respect of parts (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph (2). I note that the Licensed Clubs Association have come out with a code of practice for the gambling industry. Part (d) will be a good walk-up start for them.

Paragraph (3) of the motion directs the minister not to grant any further interactive gambling licences until the commission's report has been received and debated by the Assembly. Two have got through the net. I think it would be wise to put on hold the granting any more until can see how successful the legislation that we passed, I think in 1998, to cover these sorts of things has been in handling these two licences. I think it is wise that we monitor these couple of licences until the commission's report has been received and debated by the Assembly, and the findings have been addressed. Mr Quinlan's amendments make sense of yet another full page complex motion that tries lock us into things we may not necessarily want to be locked into. However, I do support the motion.

Amendments (Mr Quinlan's ) agreed to.

MS TUCKER (9.26): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I wish to close the debate. I would like to respond to a few of the issues that were raised. I have already addressed Mr Humphries' allegations that I was being inconsistent on the issue of interactive gambling. Apparently he was not listening. In case he is listening now upstairs, I point out that he actually read it out himself. I did say in that initial speech on the legislation that the legislation will need ongoing monitoring and possibly amendments down the track because the industry is changing quickly.

That is exactly what this motion today reflects. As Mr Kaine pointed out, Mr Humphries also seemed to try to lump me squarely into the position of the federal government. I have already explained that I am not taking a position on a ban at this point. We may well do so. The Greens are still looking at the issue. They are interested in having more information before they take such a position, and this motion hopefully will assist to some degree in providing that information from the gambling commission. The Senate committee did not recommend a moratorium in order to have a ban. If you read the report you will find that the Senate committee recommended a moratorium so that there could

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