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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4515 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, as members would be aware, the national competition policy agreement, which was signed by Rosemary Follett when she was Chief Minister, does require deregulation of all monopolies unless a demonstrated community benefit can be shown. All of these pieces of legislation will obviously need to stack up with that national competition policy approach. So, Mr Speaker, I believe and the Liberal Party believes that we should allow that review next year to determine where we go in the future. The fact is that we actually do not have a choice, because we are required to go down this path. So, that is what will happen from a Government perspective. I have to say that this is one of the few issues on which it probably will not make much difference which party is in power, because it is a legislative requirement.

Mr Speaker, we will be supporting Ms Tucker's Bill. Her Bill, I think, is sensible, in that it requires the introduction of notices to be placed on gaming machines and at the entrance to gaming areas, warning of the effects of gambling and providing contact numbers for support agencies. I think we would all accept that for some people there are social problems associated with gambling. I have to say that, for the vast percentage of people, gambling is just something that is good fun occasionally. But, obviously, there are people that do have problems in this area.

Ms Tucker's other measures will provide that licensees may not allow the provision of cash from automatic teller machines, EFTPOS facilities or other facilities for gaining cash or credit within the gaming area, or be allowed to offer or extend money or credit to a person for the purpose of playing gaming machines. Again, Mr Speaker, we think this is a sensible approach. When it comes to gambling, we must make sure that safeguards are in place for the people who do have a problem with gambling as well as for people who treat gambling sensibly.

With regard to the two reviews, I think everyone would have to agree that there is not much point in passing either motion for review, taking into account that this Assembly has 11/2 weeks of sitting time to run and the Government goes into caretaker mode on, I think, 16 January. So, there is no way that either of these inquiries could actually happen. Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that, as we already do have to have a review under national competition policy next year - which has to look at such things as deregulation, numbers of poker machines and community benefit - at that stage it would be possible and sensible to expand that inquiry to potentially look at such things as social impact. Maybe the appropriate way to go is to suggest that our public servants in this area spend the next couple of months, before a new Assembly comes in, getting together all of the information that has been already gleaned in other States.

Mr Speaker, you would find that there is an absolute plethora of recent studies that have been conducted in Australian States which the ACT could draw on to make informed decisions on future ACT gaming policy. There have been gambling social impact studies, economic effect studies, studies on the assistance that people need for gambling problems, studies on how gambling affects donations to charities, community attitude surveys and surveys of the impact on small business. That is just the start, Mr Speaker. The list goes on. I think that one of the things the ACT has to learn to do is to not reinvent the wheel. If work has been done in this area, it would seem to me to be a good idea to use it.

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