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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3958 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

some figures, but I cannot guarantee them. I can quote from my source, which is a club. They have a vested interest. They advise me that between 1998-99 and 1999-2000 increase in real per capita gambling expenditure in the ACT was 1.3 per cent compared to the national average of 3.3 per cent.

They also advise that the ACT is in the middle of the ruck in terms of expenditure. In per capita terms, expenditure in the ACT on gambling in 1999-2000 was in the mid range amongst the states and territories, behind New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory. According to the Productivity Commission, which Ms Dundas referred to, the relatively high overall per capita spending on gaming is because of the higher disposable income in the ACT.

??Ms Dundas referred to the Productivity Commission, so let me also continue to refer to the Productivity Commission. In its conclusion it said, "Quantity constraints on gaming machines appear to lack effectiveness for ameliorating problem gambling."Attention to the "demand side"-education, effective harm minimisation, counselling and treatment-and not simply the "supply side"-that is, restrictions-is the key.

This reorientation has begun in the ACT and continues with community based clubs taking a proactive role and supporting the holistic approach-addressing the gaming environment, the training of staff and gambling counselling. For example, there is treatment through Lifeline's Club Clear program and the Bet Safe program.

Let me support that by quoting from the monthly newsletter of the Wesley Mission, which I received at the end of May.

The Wesley Mission, who work with people with a gambling problem, recognise that the ACT is doing something. The danger is that we end up with a bidding war of who is more concerned about gambling or who comes up with the most headline-grabbing change in the provision of gambling, rather than taking a constructive look at what is going on and the benefits arising from the club industry, which Mr Stefaniak referred to.

We ought to take the commonsense view and listen to the Productivity Commission. They are virtually telling us that prohibition is not the answer; education is the answer. We ought to give credit to the work that has been done in the industry in the ACT to minimise problem gambling and maybe allow freedom of choice.

Some of what Ms Dundas has said today I resent as an individual. I will be managed. If I am playing a poker machine and want some more money, I will have to go and get it because that is good for me. I resent that. These restrictions will impact not on the problem gambler but on people who want to play poker machines and can manage their gambling. I actually like to gamble. I do not play poker machines much, but I like to gamble. I think I can manage it, and I do not want to be controlled by the state, if you do not mind.

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