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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2452 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I have not discussed the matter since. I have not spoken to any of the members of the commission since it was established. I have had no discussions with the executive officer. But I think that it is inappropriate to suggest that at no time should we ever review what this authority is doing. To accuse somebody of some sort of vendetta when they ask that matters be reviewed is really going over the top.

Maybe Ms Tucker is going a bit far at this stage in the life of the organisation in terms of what she is now asking to be done, but I have no difficulty with the fact that she is seeking information about what the commission did about the question of its four major objectives because I do not remember the legislation saying that one of its major objectives was to establish a secure revenue base for the territory.

It may have been implicit; but, in determining the functions and the purposes for which the commission was being established, I do not recall that being stated as one of the major items, yet the commission has determined that it has four major objectives and that is one of them. I am not too sure that that was quite what this place intended when it established the commission.

What we intended, more importantly, was that the commission should operate in the public interest. That may or may not involve establishing a secure revenue base; so I agree with Ms Tucker. I would like to see what the considerations were that the commission gave to this matter in arriving at those four things as being its principal objectives, particularly the one about establishing a secure revenue base for the territory.

If it is an independent commission, it has to have a secure revenue base to maintain its own operations; but I am not too sure that establishing a secure revenue base for the territory was part of it. I think that Ms Tucker is entitled to ask questions about that. She is entitled to look at the documents, just as any of us is entitled to look at documentation concerning any government activity. I know that we have a hassle every time we ask for it and very often we are left with having to go through the Freedom of Information Act to try to get the information in that way-there has been some experience with that-but I do not see, in principle, anything wrong with asking.

As to no further interactive gambling licences being let, Ms Tucker has not discussed that with me; but I must confess that I am experiencing some disquiet about interactive gambling and the licences that are being issued, particularly knowing how the Commonwealth views this matter. They can just chop it off; in fact, I think they have moved to do so. So, why would we contemplate issuing more interactive gambling licences in the current political climate?

Are we going to continue to defy the Commonwealth? Are we going to flex our muscles and do the David and Goliath act once again? We do it from time to time for a bit of publicity, but this is serious stuff. This is a matter that goes to the heart of what sort of social order we are going to have in this place. The government can flex its muscles if it wants, but I do not think that there is any reason why we, as a political institution, would oppose the sorts of things that Ms Tucker is suggesting here.

We are entitled to have a look at how this organisation is going. Are the terms of reference that we set for it appropriate? They have been there for some months now. Are we never going to review them? If we are, why not do so now? Is the organisation

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