

- Title
BILLS
National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012
In Committee
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
29-11-2012
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
43
- Electorate
- Interjector
- Page
10390
- Party
AG
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Stage
National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012
- Type
- Context
BILLS
- System Id
chamber/hansards/c8ba53c5-ebc4-47a7-938d-14571d80a1cb/0259
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- BILLS
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- BUSINESS
- COMMITTEES
- PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
- COMMITTEES
- MOTIONS
- COMMITTEES
- MOTIONS
- BUDGET
- COMMITTEES
- BILLS
- BUSINESS
- BILLS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Environment
(Waters, Sen Larissa, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Indigenous Employment
(Payne, Sen Marise, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Queensland Floods Recovery
(Furner, Sen Mark, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Carbon Pricing
(Williams, Sen John, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Food Labelling
(Xenophon, Sen Nick, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
New South Wales: Grazing Trial
(McKenzie, Sen Bridget, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Education
(Sterle, Sen Glenn, Evans, Sen Christopher)
-
Environment
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- BILLS
- COMMITTEES
- DOCUMENTS
- DELEGATION REPORTS
- DOCUMENTS
- BILLS
- COMMITTEES
- BILLS
-
DOCUMENTS
- Murray-Darling Basin Plan
- Special Purpose Flights
-
BILLS
- Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill 2012
-
National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012, National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012
- First Reading
- Second Reading
-
In Committee
- CHAIRMAN, The
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Fifield, Sen Mitch
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Fifield, Sen Mitch
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Evans, Sen Christopher
- Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Division
- CHAIRMAN, The
- Division
- CHAIRMAN, The
- Division
- Third Reading
- Customs Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2012, Customs Tariff Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2012
- Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012
- COMMITTEES
- ADJOURNMENT
- BUSINESS
- STATEMENTS
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
-
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
-
Community Affairs: Supplementary Budget Estimates (Question No. 2397)
(Abetz, Sen Eric, Carr, Sen Kim) -
Asylum Seekers (Question No. 2506)
(Cash, Sen Michaelia, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Asylum Seekers (Question No. 2509)
(Cash, Sen Michaelia, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Employment and Workplace Relations (Question No. 2524)
(Abetz, Sen Eric, Wong, Sen Penny)
-
Community Affairs: Supplementary Budget Estimates (Question No. 2397)
Page: 10390
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (21:56): Yes, we certainly support Senator Xenophon's amendments. We also understand that the government is not prepared to implement mandatory $1-bet limits immediately, which is why we have decided to move an amendment that would effectively give a future government the option of moving a $1-bet limit. Our amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 7201 effectively mean that a future government has two options. If it decides, perhaps because a trial of mandatory precommitment demonstrates that mandatory precommitment may not be as effective as was anticipated, there is always the option of $1-bet limits. On the other hand, if a future government decides, as the Productivity Commission has, that $1-bet limits are the simplest, cheapest and most effective way of dealing with the issue of problem gambling, it can implement mandatory $1-bet limits on all machines immediately. It gives a future government the option. It is for that reason that, if there is no support for mandatory $1-bet limits, we will be moving an amendment that effectively says that all new machines, with some further time given to older machines, be made $1-bet ready.