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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2455 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

he said that he has been talking to the commission. Mr Humphries probably knows as he has been talking to the commission.

Mr Rugendyke: All you have to do is make a phone call.

MS TUCKER: All I have to do is make a phone call! I love the process; it is so accountable! Anyone in the community who is interested now or in the future in how this independent statutory body works will know, if they have heard Mr Rugendyke on this day, that they just have to make a phone call. The commission is supposed to be an independent statutory body responsible for consumer protection and protecting the public interest in this city relating to gambling, which is obviously something that the community is concerned about, and we are told that the commission does not need to produce documentation. The language is ambiguous, very ambiguous, but there is no-

Mr Humphries: It is in the legislation.

MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries is interjecting that it is in the legislation. He did say that in his argument, but he was not very clear when he said that the commission had told him that it was in the objects of the legislation, so it must be right. Which object? I would love a reference, because I cannot find one. Maybe I am wrong here. Mr Rugendyke found something about collecting taxes, fees and charges under gaming laws.

Mr Humphries: That is right. That is what it is.

MS TUCKER: The commission does not make gaming laws. The commission does not have a policy function. That is the job of the minister. That is the job of the government. All the commission is doing is collecting the money. The objective refers to securing a sustainable revenue base for the territory, and we have no further documentation to explain it, which implies that the commission has a responsibility to ensure that a particular amount of money is coming in. That would obviously have an impact on the advice that the commission gave the minister.

We thought that the functions of this commission were basically regulatory and recommendatory policy work and that the commission must perform its functions in the way that best promotes the public interest and in particular, as far as practicable, promotes consumer protection, minimises the possibility of criminal or unethical activity and reduces the risks and costs to the community and to the individuals concerned of problem gambling.

Mr Humphries is saying that I got what I wanted; how can I complain? I did not get what I wanted. I wanted the social and economic impact to be looked at. Labor amended it out of my proposition and Mr Humphries did not support me. He could have. Mr Humphries will be talking at the forum about problem gambling. No doubt he will be saying, "Yes, Mr Costello, we care about gambling. There was a motion in the Assembly that called for a proper analysis of the social and economic impact, but we did not support it. However, we really care about it." How can you have credibility on this issue, Mr Humphries?

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