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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2450 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: That is fine, but I stand by the commission and its legislation which, as far as I can see, has been fairly widely supported in the Assembly. I do not think that the commission's work has been crap, as Mr Quinlan says.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Did you make that statement, Mr Quinlan?

Mr Quinlan: I certainly did, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Then withdraw it, please.

Mr Quinlan: I withdraw it.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Humphries can withdraw it, too.

MR HUMPHRIES: I suppose I have to if it has been withdrawn by him, Mr Speaker. I think that the commission has operated in a fair and appropriate way. I think, moreover, that there is no basis for Ms Tucker, who has anointed herself as the only person in this place concerned about gambling, further holding up the process of delivering on the interactive gambling arrangements which this Assembly supported in 1998.

When the Assembly voted on this issue in 1998, Ms Tucker was heard to support the arrangements being put in place and argued for legislation to be put in place to regulate this area of activity. Now, in light of a change in the political climate about this debate, Ms Tucker says, "No, we would rather have a moratorium on interactive gambling." I am sorry, the Assembly, including you, Ms Tucker, supported these arrangements. You have had an attempt made to review them. The review has said that basically we should continue as we now are and you want to go back and have another bite of the cherry. I do not think that that is appropriate, to be perfectly frank with you.

To respond to Mr Quinlan's concerns, yes, the government will press the commission to develop codes of practice and assist with the development of regulations, as it is tasked to do under the legislation. I will not press it to do that any more quickly than is appropriate, given the fact that the commission does not yet have any interactive gambling taking place in the ACT in the sense talked about in the legislation.

As far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, I do not oppose Mr Quinlan's amendment; but I can tell the Assembly right now that I am advised by the commission that there has been no correspondence and there are no minutes of the commission relating to the identification of the commission's four major objectives, as listed on page 5 of this report. There is nothing I can table. I can tell the Assembly right now that there would be nothing to table as a result of the first part of the amendment going through.

Ms Tucker has taken exception, obviously, to the way in which the four objectives are referred to on page 5 of the report. Mr Speaker, I am told by the commission that that was nothing more than an attempt to summarise the objectives contained in the legislation itself; so I see no basis for supporting the amendment that Ms Tucker has moved.

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