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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2015 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

need one more win or that they are on a roll-or just in the heat of the moment-to gamble away more money than they have, with potentially serious consequences.

The information I hear from the sector is that there is a problem with credit provision. Firstly, there is credit from the normal consumer credit sources: personal loans, credit cards and ATMs, et cetera. Secondly, there have been some reports of problems arising from credit provided by sports bookmakers and, in one recent infamous case, credit provided in a way that circumvented rules-by a hotel.

The problem of gambling on credit is, of course, broader than the problem of credit from gambling providers. Credit can be accessed through credit cards, personal loans, from friends and family, by stealing and through loan sharks. But if the person you are betting with is making more money available right then and there, it is a particular concern.

Most lenders are subject to a consumer credit code, which means that there are certain checks that the credit providers must make before giving credit. Bookmakers, however, are not governed by the credit code. They do not do the checks that legitimate credit providers must. The forms commonly used by bookies to do their credit checks simply do not ask the right questions, and they do not gather the same information that lenders under the credit code are required to.

Again, there are breaches of the code but, when a credit provider lends money to someone to whom they should not, there is some redress. If a bookmaker lends money without thoroughly checking out the gambler's capacity to pay them back, it is not their fault. The bookmaker cannot be held accountable under the consumer credit code for that decision. The responsibility falls on the gambler, who may well have been vulnerable. Some level of responsibility must, of course, fall on the shoulders of the person taking the loan. But bookmakers are not trained, are not scrutinised and are not held accountable, as legitimate credit providers are.

Another argument I have heard against prohibiting credit for race and sports bookmakers is that they make the assessment of when to provide credit as a business decision and would not do anything to affect their business. I do not think that is a good enough guarantee, when 33 per cent of problem gambling expenditure occurs in wagering. That is from the Productivity Commission final report, on page 22.

Credit provision by the bookie-"I'll help you out now, and you can get the money by stealing from your family later"-will only contribute to the problem, and it won't necessarily be bad business for the bookie in the short term. Providing credit is about making it easier to continue gambling right then and there. It means you do not run out of money, and that is one of the key reasons that problem gamblers who have been in counselling give for continuing, according to the Productivity Commission's research. Repayment of the loan becomes your problem later. I believe that bookies and other gambling providers have no place offering credit to gamblers, and I would like to flag here that the Greens will be working on amendments to broaden the prohibition on credit.

I will leave further comment to the detail stage of this bill.

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