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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2511 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

of gambling; otherwise this argument of returning gambling profits to the community is simply a smokescreen.

Other arguments against allowing poker machines outside registered clubs are actually arguments for better regulation of poker machines, irrespective of where they are. I believe it was Ms Tucker who previously mentioned research indicating that proximity to residences has a large effect on the incidence of problem gambling.

The Victorian government even restricted the number of poker machines in the suburbs, particularly near low-income areas. The message here is not that clubs are better for problem gamblers but that we need to pay closer attention to where poker machine venues are located and regulate for this appropriately.

We should consider removing poker machines from our suburbs and restricting them to town centres and larger commercial areas. The restriction of poker machines to clubs has not stopped the drift of pokies closer to residential areas. In fact, as Mr Stefaniak mentioned in his opening speech last week, a number of suburban taverns have shut down, only to be replaced by a club with poker machines in exactly the same place.

Another argument is that allowing poker machines beyond registered clubs will greatly increase access to poker machines. Once again, this is an argument for better regulation. Perhaps a cap on the number of venues with poker machines or maybe a cap on the number of machines per venue would be better. There will always be a market for venues without poker machines. Indeed I think that there are still a number of clubs that don't have poker machines.

The commission should be able to consider the number of venues that have access to poker machines and be able to restrict the proliferation of venues. The simplistic idea that restricting poker machines to clubs will stop this proliferation of venues has proved ineffective and is inequitable.

There is also the idea that the need to sign in at clubs or to be a member allows a greater ability for problem gamblers to self-exclude. However, in practice, many venues are left unattended or are laxly supervised. Once again, this is an argument for greater regulation of venues. A requirement to identify patrons before allowing access to poker machines could be applied to any venue, regardless of ownership.

A lot of hype has surrounded the proposal to extend poker machines beyond clubs. Opponents try to paint a picture of every pub and hotel being filled with wall-to-wall poker machines. But the reality is likely to be somewhat different.

Firstly, this bill only allows a small number of machines at each venue. Secondly, there are only a few machines left within the ACT cap to be distributed. This means any change will operate completely differently from the situation in New South Wales and Victoria where the introduction of poker machines in pubs was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of machines. Thirdly, the ACT has introduced additional requirements, including staff training and the addition of higher taxation of private enterprises, so that adding only one or two poker machines is only marginally attractive.

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