Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Page: 10383

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (21:28): Yes. My point is that that analysis was based on a policy that in fact no-one is proposing. In fact, it is the primary rationale that is being given by the government to indicate that $1 bets are not cost-effective. The statement you made a little earlier is based on the fact that a policy was costed that is not the policy recommended by the Productivity Commission. The phased implementation would have resulted in a much lower cost of implementation. I am wondering if any consideration has been given to that issue and whether that would alter the government's thinking around the cost-effectiveness of $1 bets.