Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1958 ..
MS DUNDAS
(continuing):I would like to make the point that I have had to circulate a revised amendment, because, in the time that this bill has been on the table, we have seen fluctuations in the number of gaming machines that are currently in the community. My understanding, from discussions today with the Gambling and Racing Commission, is that there are currently 5,020 machines in the community. That means that there are 180 licences waiting to be allocated. When we were having this debate a couple of months ago there were actually 5,068 machines in the community.
I understand that a small club has closed and that those machines have been returned to the Gambling and Racing Commission. But it clearly highlights the problems that we have in that the number of machines that we have circulating through our community is fluctuating; we're not doing this with a considered approach; we're just continuing the situation that we have and not really looking at the reforms that are needed. We cannot proceed with the debate on reform until the government comes up with the goods. I believe the government has dragged its feet on this issue and does not deserve another two years to do nothing.
I hope that this debate and the numerous debates that have happened around gaming machines in the ACT will cause the government to take action and respond to the reports that it has from the Gambling and Racing Commission and actually come up with a proposal, as it said it would, to do something about problem gambling in the ACT in relation to poker machines.
MRS CROSS
(5.48): I will be supporting the part of the government's Gaming Machine (Cap) Amendment Bill that will keep the cap at 5,200. I will be supporting this because it provides flexibility for the Gambling and Racing Commission to respond to increased community demands, whilst still providing a ceiling for the number of machines that will be available to ACT licensees. This flexibility is extremely important as it will allow gaming machine levels to reflect community sentiment, whilst keeping allocation levels well in control.Since the introduction of the Gambling and Racing Commission, only three applications for new poker machines have been successful. This is indicative of the stringent criteria required by the commission before approving an increase in gaming machines. A reduction in the cap to 5,068, or, as I've just heard, 5,020, I don't think is necessary and is unwarranted, because the Gambling and Racing Commission has shown it is a responsible enough organisation to limit gaming machine allocation to a level below the cap if necessary. Hence, I will be supporting the government in keeping the gaming machine cap at 5,200.
I will not, however, be supporting the government's proposal to extend the cap for two years and will, hence, be supporting Ms Dundas' amendment that will extend the cap for only one year. A year is more than enough time for the government to develop and invoke permanent legislation in relation to gaming machines. This issue cannot be put off forever, no matter how well the interim measures are working. It is about time the government stood up and provided some certainty over gaming machine legislation.
Genuine long-term legislation is needed to ensure that a proper balance is reached between the problem of problem gambling and the community's right to gamble. It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .