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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1106 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I believe that we do need a national approach on betting issues. I certainly do not discount the concerns that have been raised in this place about the impact on the Australian community of gambling. I do not gamble very much myself. It has been years and years since I put any money in a poker machine, and betting on horses is an activity restricted to Melbourne Cup day for me.

Mr Kaine: You have a bet every three years at the polls?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is true. I take a big gamble when it comes to standing for election to the ACT Legislative Assembly, perhaps. Otherwise, I am not a person keen on gambling, in a personal sense. I can see that this community has to deal with the impact of gambling on the community as a whole. That is a concern that I would state on my own behalf, on behalf, I am sure, of the Government as a whole, and I hope on behalf of all members of this place.

But the issue here is not how we prevent access. Restricting the number of sports betting licences in the ACT will not affect access. Let us say we have only one sports betting licence in the ACT. What problem gambler in the ACT would be unable to get access to sports betting as a result of that restriction? None. As long as they have a telephone, an Internet connection or some other means of getting access, they can place a bet with the sports betting operator. What value is there in being able to place that restriction?

We have to ask ourselves how restricting the number of licences available to operate this kind of business prevents the number of problems associated with sports betting. Even if you have a restriction on the number of licences in the ACT, you still have four licences. People have at least four different operators to choose from when placing a bet. No problem gambler is going to be deterred by that. What is more, every gambler in the ACT who has access to a telephone or an Internet connection can bet with interstate operators and indeed international operators, because they are also accessible on the Internet.

So the question has to be asked: What possible benefit do we confer and what possible harm do we rectify by restricting sports betting operators in the ACT to four? The next question that flows from that is: If we want to restrict the number of sports betting operators to four, are we going to start placing restrictions on other gambling providers in the ACT? Only recently we placed a limit on the number of poker machines in the ACT. That is a bit different, because the proximity of the poker machine does determine people's access to it. As I have argued, there is no limit on access to sports betting, as long as you have a telephone or a computer. The problem here is: How do you define the harm you are trying to remedy and, once you do that, how does this particular measure help at all? My argument is that it does not do that.

On the question of regulating this activity properly, the ACT does have a regime at the moment which comprehensively protects consumers. A number of the things which the Senate committee recommended should be put in place to prevent problem gambling are already law in the ACT. Those things which are not are being examined and will be adopted and brought forward to this place by the Government, if not by other members of this place, to consider in due course, if that is appropriate. Mr Speaker, we do not need a moratorium on further licences to be able to effect those sorts of changes.

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