Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 459 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
So when we hear that there is no problem because it has always been so, we need to reflect on how gambling has changed and how community attitudes are changing, while, of course, some elements have stayed the same.
Poker machines account for roughly 80 per cent of Lifeline's gambling clients, with horses and TAB at each around 5 per cent. However, bear in mind how prevalent poker machines are, and then consider that the new industry chiefs of online sports betting expect to be reaching new markets-probably younger people more comfortable with using the Net.
Coming back to this motion, sports betting occurs on the track, online and on the phone. Sports betting includes spread betting, which is a complicated system of gambling on a team or political party or whatever, achieving a result within a range. I think I have that right. Spread betting is a riskier form of betting in some ways because the odds change as the game or event progresses. This makes it possible for a person to suddenly lose a lot more money than they can afford. Spread betting in particular is the subject of most of these disallowance provisions.
These rules have not been changed; they have been regazetted-simply because this Assembly changed the parent act when we passed the competition review fuelled new Race and Sports Bookmaking Act last year. Whether or not they have been changed, this gazettal gives us a chance to scrutinise the rules for the first time in years, and I am arguing that there are problems.
Coming now to the specific parts of this motion, I will go through each part that I have proposed to disallow to outline the concerns. In relation to clause 6.6.2-I have proposed to disallow the word "unless" followed by subclauses (i) and (ii)-the first part of it says that a sports bookmaker must, after five business days of the client being overcommitted:
- close all the client's open positions; and
- accept no further sports spread bets until margin has been received;
Basically, this is a cutting clients' losses clause. Five business days can let someone get into a fair bit of trouble. In a case that is currently unresolved before the courts in New South Wales, it is alleged that a Sydney man accessed ACT Sports Betting-not allowed in New South Wales-and, despite having a $1,000 credit limit, was allowed to gamble himself $10,000 into debt within 48 hours by spread betting. Five days is really a long time and may be something to look into.
However, it is the exemptions in the two subclauses following the word "unless" in the instrument that are of most immediate concern and I have moved to disallow. The second subclause, (ii), which appears following the word "unless", seems very dangerous. If the client says that they have overspent due to circumstances beyond their control and promises to get the money forthwith and the bookmaker makes notes of this and what has been done to try to get the money, they can continue. That is not much of a check.
Credit providers are regulated by the consumer credit code. It is questionable whether the consumer credit code currently applies to bookmakers, mainly, I understand, because credit provided on terms of less than a certain number of days does not come under the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .