Alexander Marc: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8496] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to talk about the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission but before I do I will make just a couple of quick points. They are these. The extraordinary contribution by the Greens has me flabbergasted. They want to somehow put a stop to Internet gambling without offering anything constructive whatsoever. One of the things that they say is that they are in favour— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the members on the cross benches that Speakers’ ruling 53/4 a longstanding convention in this House indicates that it is not courteous to interject from the cross benches because that muffles the microphone of the person who is speaking. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware of the ruling and I will respect it but I just say that you could have applied it to Mr Alexander when I was speaking a minute ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member’s speech but as it has already been interrupted I ask Mr Alexander whether he could address formally through the microphone some of the questions that Sue Bradford has raised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debating point Mr Brown. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I find it extraordinary that a party that advocates the decriminalisation of marijuana and advocates prostitution can now turn round and have a problem with gambling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That has nothing to do with the bill. I ask the member to please speak to this part of the bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Let us look at the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission. Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins adds a role in the problem gambling levy-setting process to the functions of the Gambling Commission. I think that is important. It is a critical element of the bill because for once it will not be left up to the Ministry of Health to pluck a figure out of thin air and attempt to impose that plucked figure on the industry. Instead the ministry will have to justify itself. The commission will invite interested parties and the industry itself to take part in negotiating and scrutinising the— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the member is talking about Part 4 when he is talking about the problem gambling levy. That comes up in Part 4 not Part 3. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is all right. Will the member please continue. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I am addressing some of the activities that the Gambling Commission will be able to be involved in and one of the reasons that its independence is so critical to this bill. There will be an opportunity for greater scrutiny of what the gambling levy will be through the process of the commission and that is vitally important. 
There are a number of aspects of the commission that reinforce its independence—seven of them in fact. Members are statutory appointees with statutory functions and there are no ex officio 
members. The commission must make decisions independently of the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs. I think that is extremely important. It must be treated as if it were a commission of inquiry and in addition to its other powers under the bill it has the powers of such a commission. That is provided for in clause 199. The commission may engage experts to assist it—something that the Minister has already indicated. That is also vitally important and is something that was missing previously. The commission must report annually on its operations directly to the Minister of Internal Affairs who is required to table the report. Again that provides accountability and transparency—something that is presently missing but is included in the provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 132. There is no appeal when the commission decides appeals against Department of Internal Affairs decisions. I think that is fundamentally important because that distinguishes the department from the commission. It shows that there is an independence to it which must be upheld—and it will be. If complainants are unhappy about the way that the Department of Internal Affairs has handled a complaint about gaming-machine operations they may take their issues to the Gambling Commission. If it considers that the Department of Internal Affairs did not handle a complaint appropriately it must report directly to the Minister. 
Again I say the seven points that I have outlined here and which have been emphasised by the Minister previously enhance the independence of the Gambling Commission. That is the jewel in the crown of the whole Supplementary Order Paper because it takes direct control of things like the gambling levy away from a particular Minister’s province and puts it into a place where scrutiny can take place. That is vitally important. 
When we look at the Internet gambling aspect which has been credited to us—unfairly I might add because it is not something that we sought—once the rationale for it is looked at we see there is actually a sound basis for supporting it. One of the points is simply this. We will not be able to stop Internet gambling. The Supplementary Order Paper will allow one particular aspect of Internet gambling to at least allow the funds to return to the country from which they originate. Some of the funds will go to the gambling levy to help to address the problems of the 1 to 3 percent of gamblers who have gambling problems. So what that measure does is to close off one particular avenue of unaccountable funds that go into the gambling industry. I think that is important because we do not want to allow all the money that is gambled in this country through the Internet to fill the pockets of foreigners when we need not do that.