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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2451 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (5.34): Mr Speaker, I think it is important to state the words of Mr John Broome, the chairman of the commission, in his introduction to the report done by the commission. The final paragraph of Mr Broome's letter is thus:

Mr Speaker, this is a very good report. The commission was established only in December 1999. In a mere six months it is supposed to have had all these things done. Ms Tucker has latched onto the fourth dot point of the four things that the commission has identified as its major objectives, that is, securing a sustainable revenue base for the territory. Perhaps the commission could have chosen better words to describe what it meant. Mr Speaker, I believe that that is contained within the functions of the commission in section 6(2)(i) of the act, being the collecting of taxes, fees and charges imposed or authorised by or under the gaming laws. It is simply the commission's wording, Mr Speaker. It indicates their interest in satisfying section 6(2)(i) of the act under which they work.

Further to that, the commission has engaged consultants KLA Australia Pty Ltd specifically to review the functions and operations of the commission and the systems employed, to identify any duplication within the commission, to identify any non-core activities that are currently being undertaken, and to recommend alternative delivery models and organisational structures that would improve service delivery.

Mr Speaker, from my reading of this report and my discussions with the commission, it is doing an excellent job. We have seen recently a hefty fine being imposed on the casino. I see Ms Tucker's amendment as nothing more than a continued slur on and continued vendetta again the members of the commission. We all know that nothing will be perfect enough in this world for Ms Tucker, but this continued slur is outrageous.

Mr Speaker, I am of a mind to totally reject this amendment of Ms Tucker's. Mr Quinlan's amendment goes some way to half getting rid of it. I would be interested to hear the rest of the debate as to why I should support any of it.

MR KAINE (5.38): I will be brief. I think that Mr Rugendyke just went totally over the top and I think that his remarks were totally unacceptable in terms of questioning Ms Tucker's motives for pursuing the course of action that she seeks to pursue. This authority is the creature of this place. From the outset there was some dissatisfaction with the way that it was created.

The Select Committee on Gambling made certain recommendations to this place and to the government about how the commission should be set up, what its functions should be and how it should operate, and Mr Rugendyke was part of that. The government rejected a goodly part of those recommendations; so some of us were never entirely happy with the way the place was set up.

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