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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1984 ..

MS TUCKER

I have made clear my view of the social impact on the pool premises of allowing a gaming machine licence. I have illustrated the need for this change and the need for this change to be made urgently. But, of course, if we pass this amendment the assessment will be up to the commissioners.

For the purposes of illustration, I believe that this amendment would allow the commissioners to consider whether the addition of poker machines to the pool premises would, firstly, affect adversely the nature or character of the premises-I believe it would; and, secondly, whether it would affect adversely the general use of the premises. Yes, it impinges on use of the premises by people with a problem with gambling. Yes, it impinges on the use of the premises by families who may be concerned that their children will see gambling on poker machines as a usual thing to do.

I have had a letter from the director of the Ginninderra Swim Club. The swim club uses the Kaleen indoor swim centre, which is co-located with the Kaleen Sports Club, a club licensed for gaming machines. He states in his letter that the club has been supportive and has never caused any problems for the swim club, which is a successful swimming group, attracting large numbers of people. I am pleased to hear of this relationship. However, the prospect of including a club in this new community pool is, I think, different.

I do not know whether there is a flow-on effect in terms of recruitment to gambling by the co-location at Kaleen. That would be an interesting study for the gaming research group in its work particularly on young people and gambling. Of course, people under the age of 18 are not allowed on club premises on their own, but is it an effective form of advertising by association for them later in their life when they are over the age of 18?

Gambling on the pokies is something that many seem to enjoy, and good luck to them. There will always be people who want to gamble and the government regulation of gaming is aimed at harm minimisation. But there are risks. There are risks to our community in allowing unchecked spread and ill-considered location. The statistics show that poker machines do create their own market. Arguably, it may be the fundamentals of education, strength of community, social capital, alternative activities through which to switch off and relax, and alternative risk-taking activities which will make people more resilient to the lure of pokies. But, meanwhile, as regulators, we need to be aware of what risks we are creating.

We do know that those least able to afford it are the most impacted upon by poker machines. Social research indicates that for disadvantaged and marginalised people, gambling and that far away possibility that there might be a big win is very seductive. I remind members of the survey on the nature and extent of gambling and problem gambling in the ACT that was released in 2001, which found that Canberra's problem gamblers lost $77 million or $14,500 each annually when punting, despite the fact that 74 per cent of them earn less than $35,000. Professor Jan McMillen of the Australian Institute of Gambling Research believes that was a conservative figure, given that the respondents underreported their spending, particularly on gaming machines and casino tables.

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