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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4524 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

in the period from 1992-93 to 1996-97 there was an increase of some 1,000 poker machines. What does my Bill do to increase the number of poker machines? It does nothing. It does not increase the number of poker machines. It just changes their types.

It is reasonable, in one sense, to say that it will increase the number of poker machines with which people are prepared to gamble - in the normal sense in which we use the word "gamble". From that point of view, there would be an increase in poker machines by up to 120. That is much less than if we allow the current regime to continue; if we allow the licensed clubs to retain the monopoly, against competition policy, on these poker machines. So, why are we allowing them to maintain this monopoly? There has never been a decent argument put here. Is it because they make some contribution to the community? Nobody can deny that. There are some fantastic contributions that licensed clubs make to the community, not only in direct donations but also in providing healthier lifestyles for a number of people - which includes being able to go out, to enjoy cheaper meals, to be involved in sport, and a whole series of things. Nobody denies that. It is something that we should appropriately recognise.

The question in my mind is: But, if we were taxing them at a normal level beyond the 22.5 or 23.5 per cent on gaming machines, if we were taxing them in the way we tax normal businesses, would we have that much more money in the broad community coffers in order to be able to achieve many of the same goals and still have more money as well? I think they are important questions that need to be answered.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that I am not going to have support for this legislation. But next year, in a new Assembly, I hope that the Assembly will be able to handle a comprehensive review of the law on social policy surrounding gaming machine licensing. I heard the commitments that the current Chief Minister made to that. I will be prepared to support that kind of review in the next Assembly. But it should be combined with a series of other things as well. Mr Speaker, I think that it is time to reform the policy on gaming machines. We need reform, for a series of reasons. The current regime does not allow adequate control by the community over the number of gaming machines in operation. The current regime discriminates in favour of some operators against others, in contravention of national competition policy requirements. The discrimination against some kinds of businesses puts a large number of jobs at risk - jobs, Mr Speaker; jobs, Chief Minister; jobs.

The current regime is a product of, and perpetuates, an undesirable process of interest group lobbying and non-transparent agreements between lobby groups and political parties. The current regime does not oblige gaming machine operators to contribute to addressing the social costs and public expenses resulting from gambling. The current taxation regime for gaming machines is sacrificing available opportunities for public revenue and is missing opportunities for scaled taxation rates to give incentives for the revenue from gaming machines to be directed to charitable activities.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear from an answer at question time today by the Chief Minister that, if we were to align our revenue raising on gaming machines with that of New South Wales, we would be in a position to be able to raise revenue of an extra $4m or so. (Extension of time granted) To prepare the way for reforms such as these, an inquiry -

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