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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1728 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

gambling is limited and hence so are our ideas about what it needed in the way of a regulatory system or, indeed, other means of dealing with the problems.

The issue of problem gambling in this emerging technology is also addressed in recommendation 5 of this committee. Recommendation 5 said:

The Productivity Commission report also should have caused serious alarm bells to ring for anyone who was even vaguely interested in social harm related to gambling. The Productivity Commission's key findings include criticisms of the regulatory system Australia-wide, particular needs, and arguments for a national approach. Their work included the first national survey of problem gambling, which sampled 10,600 people and 40 agencies. Their specific criticisms, highlighted in the recommendations, are that existing arrangements are inadequate to ensure the informed consent of consumers or to ameliorate the risks of problem gambling.

The report said that around 130,000 Australians-about one per cent of the adult population-are estimated to have severe problems with their gambling. A further 160,000 adults are estimated to have moderate problems, which may not require "treatment" but warrant policy concern. Taken together, problem gamblers represent just over 290,000 people or 2.1 per cent of Australian adults. Problem gamblers comprise 15 per cent of regular non-lottery gamblers and account for about $3.5 billion in expenditure annually-about one-third of the gambling industry's market. They lose on average around $12,000 each year compared with just under $650 for other gamblers.

The costs include financial and emotional impact on gamblers and on others, with on average at least five other people affected to varying degrees. For example, one in 10 said they have contemplated suicide due to gambling and nearly half those in counselling reported losing time from work or study in the past year due to gambling.

The main source of national benefit from the liberalisation of gambling has been the consumer gains through access to a service that gives people enjoyment. Net gains in jobs and economic activity are small when account is taken of the impact on other industries of the diversion of consumer spending to gambling.

I would like to stress that point to this government, which is so enthusiastic about supporting and in fact subsidising the private sector. Do you care that the increased spending on gambling is having a negative impact on the business community, or is the easy money that is got through taxes worth a lot more to you? Is it the case that you know politically it is easier to stay quiet on the real consequences of gambling activity than it is to find other ways of raising revenue?

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