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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3496 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

When we had the briefing and were looking at the five per cent in the ACT, we were told that the four per cent that is currently being offered by Norfolk Island and Tasmania would not be sustainable here because it would not cover the costs of the Gambling and Racing Commission. That is quite a startling statement. We are introducing this new form of gambling with millions and millions of dollars to be made by the private providers and basically all we are hoping to do is cover the costs of administering a gambling commission. What about the costs to the broader community? How should we be setting tax rates for this kind of activity? Surely it should not be just on the basis of this mad bidding war.

As members are aware, there is now more likelihood of a national moratorium. One of the reasons that the Greens have supported the concept of a moratorium is that we believe there needs to be a national approach to looking at how we should be setting tax rates and how we should be addressing the question of tax sharing so that the shifting of social harm is accommodated. And that is only within Australia. Obviously at this point we cannot accommodate the question of shifting social harm to other countries.

I know that one of our local providers has claimed that most of the punters are in the United States. We know that there are some questions being raised in the United States about that. At this point we are not going to be able to deal with it but at least nationally there is now a growing interest in looking at how we can, in a thoughtful and responsible manner, make decisions on taxation rates and taxation sharing related to gambling activity.

I hope that this regulation is disallowed so that the ACT is able to go to the national discussions, which hopefully will take place, with a base rate of not five per cent but 50 per cent-the rate which applies now and the rate which applied at the time we debated the interactive gambling legislation that contained some tax sharing capacity-and say that the majority of the members of this Assembly, representing the community of the ACT, want to see this bidding war stop and a responsible approach taken by all governments of Australia to address taxation rates in Australia on gambling activity and interactive gambling in particular.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney-General and Treasurer) (12.00): Mr Speaker, the government does not support Ms Tucker's disallowance motion. I think we need to understand that the regulation that Ms Tucker is seeking to disallow does two things, not merely the one thing that Ms Tucker has spoken about.

First of all, it is true that it sets a different marginal tax rate. But it also provides for a mechanism to allow for interactive gambling operators to claim a credit for goods and services tax, GST, paid against their ACT tax liability. Under the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations, or the IGA, the ACT has undertaken to take account of the GST impact on interactive gambling operations.

Mr Quinlan: How much would that be?

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