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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1731 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The level of detail that the Senate committee has recommended is only found, on some matters, in the commission's instructions to applicants. This is not a piece of regulation. What it does is ask a series of questions and requires the applicants to write an essay explaining the problems of gambling. The answers are then the basis for the minister's decision.

There are details on some of the issues raised by the commission but there are also serious gaps. There is no discussion, for example, of secure ways to ensure that the person logging in to play is in fact the registered player. There is no discussion of "near miss signals", which encourage a player to feel they have just missed out. These are not detailed but they may be important ways to stop the gambling operators encouraging more gambling. (Extension of time granted.)

The big problem with these questions and requirements is that there are not always clear criteria spelt out against which these answers can be tested, which is a basic requirement if they are to be applied consistently. The gambling commission is working on developing questions in the absence of these criteria in legislation and regulation. In other words, we are just beginning to develop a system here.

The uncontrollable nature of the Internet is used to argue the futility of a ban. But this is conveniently forgotten when the same people argue the benefits of a regulated system which will supposedly address problem gambling by such mechanisms as exclusion provisions. There will still be opportunities for gamblers to place bets with offshore providers. Whether a person loses their money here or offshore I imagine will be an academic point to those who suffer the consequences. We need to be really clear that by supporting limitless opportunities for more and more gambling opportunities in our community we are saying as legislators that we approve of the activity, that we are not concerned about the social and economic fallout.

Protestations that gambling is just entertainment and that responsible delivery of services will deal with the few problem gamblers ring hollow. We have been hearing this argument for so long and yet we have seen little real commitment from industry or government to deal with the problems. It is doubtful whether government and industry responses to problem gambling are effective and there has not been any serious evaluation of current responses. The industry uses aggressive marketing strategies to encourage more gambling and state and territory governments have been complicit in this.

Community agencies that attempt to deal with the problems have not been overwhelmed by offers of funding. Nor have governments shown a huge interest in understanding what the actual costs of increased gambling are to the community or in evaluating current programs and responses. The evidence is clear, however, that if gambling opportunities increase so will problem gamblers. There are some benefits to regulation if privacy and fair dealing are guaranteed but there does not appear to have been a very rigorous approach on this matter either.

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