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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1201 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

or alcohol and other drugs use. Gambling is just another issue where minimising harm is a good option.

We must recognise that gambling does occur, legally and illegally, and look to ways of minimising harm, so that the whole of society does not suffer. This is about trying to help people to control impulses that they have failed to control.

I want to remind members of the Assembly of some of the facts about gambling. Adult Canberrans lose an average of about $800 per year through legalised gambling. Second, research performed by the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission in 2000 shows that about 27 per cent of Canberrans gamble on at least a weekly basis. These gamblers are increasingly gambling more money, more often. Finally, problem gamblers make up almost 2 per cent of adult Canberrans, and 70 per cent of these problem gamblers attribute their problem to the use of gaming machines.

Although gambling is commonplace, and the vast majority of people gamble responsibly, problem gambling is a social issue that requires government and community action to curb it. It is also true that the ACT government takes about $50 million a year in taxes on gambling, so this government, like all other governments in Australia, has a vested interest in the continuation of gambling. More specifically, it has an interest in the continuation of the regulation and taxation of legalised gambling. This bill provides for a continuation of the status quo, a cap of 5,200 machines and another review.

However, the question is how much breathing time do we need. This debate has gone on and on. We have had an Assembly review in 1998. Since then, we have had a comprehensive review by the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, the report of which was handed down in December, and we are currently in the throes of another review. The previous reviews made clear recommendations.

In supporting this bill, we must acknowledge that the cap was suggested in 1998-and, as Ms Tucker has pointed out, for some very good reasons-and that the cap has still not been reached. We do not have 5,200 machines operating in the ACT. I believe, therefore, that the cap on poker machines could be seen as a misleading solution. The biggest problem with the machines is the technological developments that have occurred in the field in the past five years. Technology driven growth is the result of policy directives to cap the raw number of machines, and this has created a huge spike in research and development spending, which has lifted gambling machines to new heights.

We have watched as technology and psychology meet in the gambling machine industry. There has been increased pressure on the gambling machine industry to produce machines that increase their turnover and entice more people to use them, so that people lose more money, more quickly. One change is the proliferation of low-bet machines. These are seductive because they potentially involve only low bets, but the size of the bets made on them is significant. The amount of money you can lose on a poker machine, despite what is set as the minimum possible bet, is actually quite astonishing. The setting of a maximum stake on machines is one harm minimisation proposal that makes eminent sense.

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