Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2448 ..
Ms Tucker: You could have supported me, not his amendment, if you wanted the social and economic impact looked at. You just have a forum instead and have the spin doctor at work.
MR HUMPHRIES: What you asked for was done. Apparently, you are not happy with the result and you want to go back and have a second bite of the cherry. The commission has done the work requested of it and has produced a report. Although it makes comments about resources, the need for further refinement of legislation and so on, it finds as follows in its conclusion:
The Commission has concluded that the current legislation governing Interactive Gambling is adequate in its current form. However, just as the legislation evolved with the development of the industry, so will there be a need for ongoing monitoring and review to ensure worlds-best practice in terms of compliance and monitoring. It is anticipated that the industry will undergo significant further change as it continues to evolve.
In other words, they can see some emerging issues and problems, but at this stage the legislation is adequate to deal with the situation. That is not surprising, given the fact that we have only issued two interactive gambling licences. They were issued in May of this year and neither of those licences has actually started to operate as yet, as I understand it. The situation is in its very early stage, its most incipient stage. It is hardly surprising that we have not got any information that allows for a more comprehensive view about what sorts of things need to be improved and refined in this legislation.
The point is that the work has been done, it has been put on the table, and Ms Tucker now says, "I am not satisfied with that. I am concerned about some of the issues raised in here. I want a moratorium on the granting of any further interactive gambling licences." The disturbing thing about this approach from Ms Tucker is that it seems to carry with it some degree of hostility to the direction which the Gambling and Racing Commission has been taking in its work. The comments she made about this report carried the sentiment that the commission was going off the rails in some way, that it was diverging from what she sees as the appropriate path for dealing with these issues.
Ms Tucker: No, they said it themselves. Read past the conclusions, Mr Humphries; read the report.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, Mr Speaker, but that is not-
Ms Tucker: They said it themselves.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, they have not said anything in there that casts aspersions on their own role.
Ms Tucker: They cannot monitor and they haven't got a code of conduct.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I heard Ms Tucker in silence. I would ask for the same courtesy to be extended to me.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .