Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3495 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned that if we do not disallow this regulation we will lose the ability to utilise the tax sharing capacity that previously existed. This is obviously of major interest to anyone who is looking at the question of taxation on gambling. The academic papers that are produced on this subject always refer to the importance of the tax sharing question.
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77.
That so much of standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Assembly business having precedence of Executive business notices and orders of the day in the ordinary routine of business, unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, until the Assembly has completed its consideration this day of Assembly business, Notice No 6.
MS TUCKER: The other thing that has come up in the research and literature that is available on the issue of the tax revenue base for governments resulting from taxes on gambling is that governments are tending to encourage new forms of gambling as their tax revenue base from old forms of gambling dries up or is reduced. Julie Smith's study shows that since the 1980s not only has there been an increase in the forms of gambling but also expenditure on gambling per capita increased dramatically after Australian state and territory governments became more dependent on gambling revenue.
So we see this continual momentum of governments being encouraged to support new forms of gambling because they feel that their revenue base from gambling is declining from the current forms. But it is not as if the new forms of gambling pick up the slack from those forms of gambling which have had some diminishing returns. New people are brought into the newer forms of gambling. The National Office for the Information Economy made the point that interactive aniline gambling will bring in new gamblers. Some people who do not gamble now will engage in this new form of gambling. So there will be an increase in the percentage of the community throwing their money away on gambling. It is also clear that many people will not be able to afford to throw their money away .
It is quite clear that problem gambling is a major concern. It is also quite clear that the more people spend on gambling the less they are able to spend on more constructive activities which are better for the general economy. Once again, this is about the ation, as it is called in United States literature, of local economies. The only people winning from this tax bidding war is, of course, the industry. The industry is very delighted with this current situation.
There is a dilemma of course because, on one hand, you do not want to see governments becoming more reliant on revenue from gambling. But, on the other hand, you also do not want to see ridiculous tax breaks being given to the industry when the costs are going to be so great on our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .