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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2444 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

When the Assembly considered the motion that requested production of this report we were looking at the arguments around how best to deal with the worst types of interactive gambling. The motion said that the Assembly had noted recommendation 28 of the Select Committee on Gambling which, I remind members, reads:

Under the act, that would also require that there be a very full consultative process with the community, but it does not appear as though that happened. That is one of the issues that I was going to raise again in the amendment but, because it would have come under the same question under the standing orders, I felt that it was better to withdraw it. In the original motion I asked for a thorough investigation of the social and economic impact of this form of gambling which, naturally, would have included community consultation if the commission was working in the way it should under the act.

Another particularly alarming aspect of this report is the four main objectives that the commission has listed. The commission has identified its major objectives as regulating gambling and racing activities in according with ACT laws, containing the social cost of gambling, ensuring product quality and consumer protection-they are all fairly good; they fit in reasonably well with the legislation-and securing a sustainable revenue base for the territory.

Whether it was from the select committee, the Productivity Commission or the Senate inquiry looking at this issue, what has been really clear in all the reports that have been produced is that there is a problem with governments not being able to be impartial enough in deciding on policy related to gambling because they are so dependent on the revenue that they get from that activity. We asked for an independent gambling authority so that those sorts of social issues could be dealt with and advice given to the minister in an environment that is not compromised by the issue of revenue. The Productivity Commission asked for an independent gambling control authority to be formed in each state and territory with the primary objective of furthering the public interest.

When we amended this legislation, we succeeded with an amendment that inserted the umbrella principles of consumer protection and the public interest in how this gambling commission does its work. Naturally, we are very concerned about and interested in the fourth objective of securing a sustainable revenue base for the territory, as would anyone who has been watching the development round this country of legislation on gambling.

That is why the first part of my amendment to Mr Humphries' motion directs the minister "to table any correspondence between himself and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission or members of the commission, and any minutes of the commission's meetings, relating to the identification of the commission's 'four major objectives' as listed on page 5 of this report".

I am sure that any independent gambling commission or public authority which has as its charter looking after the public interest would have made considerable efforts to support coming up with those objectives. I am very interested in seeing them, and I believe other

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