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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3499 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Although the ACT agreed to participate in a national licensing and regulatory regime for interactive gambling, and we now have a regulatory regime that is second to none, it does not mean that we have to stick to the parts of that regime which are not workable, and clearly the taxation arrangements were not workable. The new tax regime rewards operators who are prepared to settle and grow in the ACT and respect the stringent limits which we place on operating such a business in the ACT. I would suggest that the house not support the motion to disallow that Ms Tucker has moved.

MR QUINLAN (12.10): Mr Speaker, I have to say that I wish I knew more about interactive gambling and could keep up with developments out there in the ether. Towards that end I have instructed my office to arrange a briefing to bring us up-to-date on this subject because I guess it will continue to be a vexed issue for some time.

I think it is important that we as an Assembly differentiate between the elements of revenue raising on the one hand and the management of problem gambling on the other. Just as much as prohibition proved a failure in addressing the problems of alcohol, I do not think that prohibition or inhibition applied to gambling is necessarily the most effective way to address the problems that arise.

I thank Mr Humphries for his expose on how the previous rates were applied. I have to say that at midnight in this place last night I spent some time going through the formulae and working out exactly how they did apply. I understand that the regulation, with the first $10 million being taxed at 20 per cent, the next $10 million at 10 per cent and then the remainder at five per cent, has been set up to keep out small operators. I am a bit concerned whether we have pitched that at the right level. Again, I would like, in the fullness of time, to understand what effect that will have in terms of entry into the Internet gambling market. Will it virtually freeze out new players at the same time as it to some extent freezes out the potential fly-by-night operator?

I have received mixed messages in relation to the agreement on the repatriation of tax on gambling originating in another jurisdiction. I understand from what the Chief Minister has just said that a repatriation agreement applies in cases involving participating jurisdictions. I was given some different information when I was following that up this morning and I am pleased it has been cleared up. However, I would like to know whether this position still obtains because to some extent the structures that were set up in the ACT do not encourage operators to shift geographic location. Is it the case that the taxation regime applies to the origin of the bet and not necessarily the location of the operator? Is that right?

Mr Humphries: I am not sure about that.

MR QUINLAN: Maybe you should come to the briefing that I am arranging. I understand the logic behind the provision in relation to the GST but I am not sure again what real impact that has and how much GST applies to gambling-that has not been made clear. I do know from my homework that there are lesser rates applying in Australia and there are in fact even lesser rates applying to overseas locations to which punters would have access anyway.

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