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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2521 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

care about you-you are far more likely to have your gambling habits controlled, as with a heroin habit, than if you are in a big, anonymous place.

I do not subscribe to shooting galleries or heroin trials. I know Ms Tucker does, and in this she is contradicting her own rhetoric about supporting heroin trials. People in the ACT have lots of access to poker machines. Mrs Burke, and maybe Ms Dundas, too, made some comments on how easy it is and how, especially in a larger establishment, you can get swallowed up. You are anonymous, no-one necessarily knows you, and you can give your addiction full rein there.

When I introduced this bill, I gave a personal example, from when I was helping on the board of a small club, of how you can assist someone who might have a bit of a gambling problem because you know them and can say "Hey, mate. Stop. You're going a bit overboard."If you know someone, you are able to do that. I have yet to see that happen in a big establishment. If anything, this may assist some problem gamblers.

Taverns and hotels will also contribute to things like the community contribution fund. If they get the poker machines, their rate would be somewhat higher than for the clubs. There are some issues of equity here. This is a very simple bill. Ms Dundas commented on how a number of taverns have gone broke and have been taken over by clubs. What could have been two machines might be 70 or more machines because a club has gone in. That does nothing to help problem gamblers; that is very much a proliferation.

In terms of equity, little hotels and little taverns have to charge a hell of a lot more. They are not on a level playing field whatsoever. They are charging something like $3 for a schooner instead of $2.40 or something, which you can get at a club. Trying to compete with the meals is very difficult. They are charging nine or 10 bucks for a counter lunch instead of the five bucks you can get in a hotel. They are quite clearly not on a level playing field, which makes it very difficult for them to compete.

This bill will assist in some way. It will assist people who have had trouble even taking a holiday because it is a family business, and in many instances that is what we are talking about. These are people who have been working, say, for seven years and have difficulty getting away. This bill might assist them to hire casuals for three or four weeks to enable them to have a break. It might assist in terms of people not having to do two jobs and running themselves into the ground. Why do they stay in the industry? They like it because it is a people industry. People like that might not have to do two jobs.

There is so much inherent fairness in what we are trying to achieve here. We are not about extending caps. It is not a foot in the door to open the floodgates. These people do not want the floodgates opened; they just want a fair deal. They already have access to two non-existing class A machines-the last one went out in 1994-and, in the case of the six hotels, up to 10 class B machines. But they do not have access, and they never have had access, to up-to-date class C machines.

That is all they are after. They are not after more. It is not like the taverns want to have six, 10, 15, or 20. It is not like the hotels want to become poker machine palaces

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