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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2516 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As to the increased access: enough said. That leads to greater gambling. They have an assumption-they call it distance decay-that there is less involvement the further that machines are from EGMs; people within 500 metres are more likely to use machines more often and for longer.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that the research is supporting previous research, which was that we do have to be aware that the easier it is, the more we make venues that have poker machines more accessible, the more the problems are going to increase. That is the reason that we are not prepared to support this bill, basically.

What we know is that this would be setting a precedent, even though it only involves a few taverns and hotels at the moment. Of course, once this is accepted, then you have the potential, as you see with clubs, for organisations to come in and become very large and very well off as a result of having poker machines. You will see an increase in gambling resulting from that.

I remember, in lobbying from the Hotels Association, I was reassured, at one point, that I needn't worry, because it wouldn't have an impact on the clubs' revenue and the clubs' money that came from the poker machines, which was an argument, in my view, for not supporting it. What was explained to me was that yes, more people would be gambling, or there would be more gambling, if you increased the availability in that way, but it would not have an impact on existing businesses. Obviously more people would be using the product. That's exactly what the research is saying will happen.

I know people think that we're overstating the problems associated with gambling-or that's one of the arguments that are put. But I don't believe that, when people put that argument, they support it with figures and costs, cost analyses of actually what the impact is; not only the financial costs-although, as I said, it has been done; New South Wales did it once-but the social costs as well; and what it means for people if they have someone close to them who is gambling inappropriately. What is inappropriate is a value judgment, of course.

As much as we focus on responsible service and responsible gambling, stopping people smoking, putting clocks up and the like, you will find, as the evidence has supported, that this problem will increase as you make gambling more accessible; and you will see an impact on society. The people who will be impacted upon quite often will be innocent, and they will be the families of people who are gambling inappropriately. As I said, it's definitely a value judgment about what's appropriate and not a judgment that someone can make from the outside.

It doesn't matter how much we talk about responsible service. One person can responsibly gamble $1,000 in a weekend, depending on their income, obviously. Another person can be totally irresponsible in gambling $20 in a weekend if they're on a Centrelink pension. As we all know, if you live on a Centrelink pension, you're under the poverty line anyway. If you've got a family depending on what's already under the poverty line in benefits from the federal government, then that $20 is inappropriate. Gambling venues-and the clubs put this line, and I reject it-say that

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