Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2454 ..
MS TUCKER: I have to respond to Mr Rugendyke's quite unsubstantiated comments about my reaction to this report. I am not vaguely interested in the personal performance of members of the commission. I am interested in seeing from this independent statutory body a record of how they make decisions. That is what I have asked for. I was interested in looking at the report that that body produced. I looked at it and I analysed it. That had nothing to do with the people behind it; rest assured there is no vendetta
But I am concerned, as I have made quite clear, about the fact that this commission is not able to undertake at this point what it has been asked to undertake under the act. The commission has made that clear. Mr Humphries says that there is no problem because the commission is not actually working in the field yet. He was careful in speaking about the operators covered by the legislation concerning interactive gambling.
We have already had a debate about sports betting and wagering and I have already pointed out the inconsistencies of the government on this matter in that the government accepted a recommendation of the Allen review of legislation concerning bookmakers that sports betting and wagering should be brought under the Interactive Gambling Act; so the government has said that it thinks that it is the same sort of activity, but it forgets that in these sorts of debates and says that it is different. We know that it is operating already in sports betting and wagering.
I seem to recall Mr Humphries saying when we were having that debate-I stand corrected if I am wrong-that there was some urgency about this matter because some of the interactive gambling agencies which accorded to the strict definition of Mr Humphries were ready to go ahead quite soon. The commission has not explained in this report what is needed to monitor the patterns of use trends in problem gambling.
At one stage Mr Rugendyke, for example, did appear to be interested in this place in problem gambling. Being able to monitor it would seem to be a fairly critical factor, but that is not addressed in this report. Mr Humphries just said to this place that he has been told by the commission that there are no records of how they came up with these four objectives, particularly the last one. I find that quite shocking.
Mr Humphries: No, that is not what I said. I said that there was no correspondence or minutes on that subject.
MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries just said that there was no correspondence and there were no minutes, which is what we have asked for. Maybe I need to clarify that. Mr Humphries could be very helpful here. If there are no minutes and there is no correspondence but there is some other documentation and paperwork, it would do. This Assembly and this community would like to know how the gambling commission comes up with these sorts of statements. Mr Rugendyke thinks he has found it by referring to section 6(2)(i), which relates to collecting taxes, fees and charges imposed or authorised by or under gaming laws.
Mr Humphries: That is right. That is what it is.
MS TUCKER
: Exactly. That means securing a sustainable revenue base for the territory, I am now being told by those who know. I do not know because nothing has been tabled to explain to me what that means. Apparently Mr Rugendyke knows. I think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .