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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5181 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Of course, we are all waiting with bated breath for the government's legislative changes to the use of gaming machines. There should and must be serious changes. I am sure we have all got ideas to add to what will be put forward. I have suggested for years that a problem gambling fund, which takes a percentage of all gambling revenue, would be a useful means of ensuring that services are provided across the community to address the harm created by gambling. Such a fund could operate at arm's length and thereby reduce any possible promotional effects-a hospital supported by poker machines, for instance.

However, the best means of reducing harm is prevention. We have suggested making all poker machines in the ACT class B, which would substantially reduce the potential to lose large amounts of money quickly. We have also suggested banning all advertising of poker machines and gambling. These are the kinds of measures that we have been looking for.

It is also important when considering gambling revenue to look at the revenue to government through tax. The economist Julie Smith has presented carefully researched evidence of governments around the world which, through increasing gambling taxes, have become dependent on gambling revenue for many community services and essential services, such as hospitals and schools. So while clubs are community organisations, their original and ongoing purposes are related to community in some way, whether it be a particular ethnic group or sport or a political movement or group. For this reason it is preferable that they, and not businesses, be in charge of gaming.

There is an additional requirement for clubs to donate some of the revenue to community purposes-which are defined not to include political parties. But that is not the primary "community-ness"of clubs. We should also be careful not to link important community activities with grants of gambling revenue. We need to be reducing revenue by reducing problem gambling.

I think it is important to note that under the current system community contributions offer the opportunity to promote gambling venues to the community. If Mrs Cross and Ms Dundas are so concerned about the impact of inducements, advertising and promotion, then surely they can see the link between this and clubs giving money to community causes. That is why we have supported the Productivity Commission's proposal that you do not do that-you do not invest in decisions about where social need is in particular groups like clubs in the community.

The Select Committee on Gambling, which looked at the economic and social impact of poker machines, was told that at one point a community benefit fund, managed by particular groups in the community associated with the gambling industry, was set up in South Australia-it may have been Victoria. There were real problems with that because there were restrictions on how that money could be spent, particularly in view of any negative impact on the general image of gambling in the community. That state came to the conclusion that that was a problem, that there was a conflict within that fund.

Mr Corbell has just said that he thinks we are receiving quite a small amount from gambling taxation in comparison to other states and territories. That may well be the case, but the point is we are still getting about $30 million. Mrs Cross is making a very big hoo-ha in this legislation about a few hundred thousand dollars that goes particularly

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