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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2693 ..

taxation provisions and ratings to try to make the process more effective and efficient. The Assembly has generally supported that. This move will be inconsistent with the changes that we have made to revenue bills so far.

I do not understand and it is yet to be explained why we would have different treatment of this revenue measure over others. I guess it has something to do with the emotion attached to poker machines. I do congratulate my officers for tidying up the legislation. This has been one of those weeks for legislation to need to be sorted out. But the government is not keen on the amendment. We would much prefer this revenue measure to be applied consistent with virtually all the other revenue measures that we have and treated in the same way. If someone could possibly explain why this one has to be different, I might be a little bit more enlightened.

MS TUCKER (6.16): This amendment changes the tax rating in at least one way, possibly two. Firstly, it changes the method of setting tax rates from a disallowable instrument to being part of the act. This is one amendment I have not had time to understand in detail, since we received it only yesterday. It is because of that that I am not able to support it today.

Things to consider in setting tax rates include the government revenue not being too dependent on tax from gambling, a fair rate in terms of competing businesses, and the use to which the tax is put in terms of preventing harm. Unfortunately, we have no mechanism for linking these two and the best option, I have argued, would be for a mandatory amount—say, one per cent of gambling revenue—to go to a problem gambling fund, which I know was widely supported in the community a couple of years ago when we were working on these issues.

MS DUNDAS (6.17): I hear Ms Tucker’s concerns. I wish to clarify that my understanding is that this amendment is about a provision that was already in the Gaming Machine Act of, I think, 1987 and we are just ensuring that it stays in the act and does not become a disallowable instrument. I put forward that argument in relation to a number of things when I spoke before, but that was just to clarify that.

Question put:

That Ms Dundas’s amendment No 10 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 159, as amended, agreed to.

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