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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (24 August) . . Page.. 2267 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The resources available to Australia's economy - its people, capital, land - are not stamped For use only by the gambling industries. If these industries did not exist, most of the resources would be employed in other uses, creating similar levels of income and jobs to gambling itself.

It then goes on to argue:

Thus while there may be instances where additional jobs or income are generated say in depressed regions - most of the resources in gambling industries will have been diverted from other industries.

Quantitative and economic models developed by the commission found that "changes in the sizes of the industry would have little impact on Australia's GDP, consumption levels or labour market outcomes over the long term". So the world as we know it will not collapse if we regulate gambling so as to minimise the harm it causes.

I turn to regulation of gambling. The Productivity Commission has an interesting track record on deregulation of industries. It has been described as the holy shrine of economic rationalism. Economics editor for the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, wrote recently that the Productivity Commission has "advocated the deregulation of more industries than you can name", but not the gambling industries.

The Productivity Commission, in its draft report, argues that gambling is a special industry that requires special regulations. It argues that this is because the gambling industry is able to "simultaneously provide entertainment that is harmless to many people while being a source of great distress - and even financial and personal ruin to a significant minority". The commission goes on to argue that "the benefits which many derive from gambling - to the extent that they include occasional winnings - are in part derived from the financial losses of others and the consequent suffering of some".

The commission recommends that the fundamental principles for regulating or taxing the gambling industries differently to any other industry should be based on promoting consumer protection, minimising the potential for criminal and unethical activity and reducing the risks and costs of problem gambling. Ross Gittins wrote in his column:

When the high priests of economic rationalism think we need all these extra rules and regulations, you know we've got a problem.

The Productivity Commission's harshest words were reserved for the current regulatory environment in which gambling industries operate in Australia. As I have already indicated, the commission believes the gambling industries are special-case industries requiring special regulations. The commission recommends that regulations and policy approaches strike a balance between harm minimisation which can effectively limit costs from problem gambling and protection of the legitimate pleasure of controlled recreational gambling.

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