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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 591 ..

We need to stop expecting poker machine numbers to rise and rise. We need to manage licences dynamically and empower the commission to cancel and relocate existing licences as they believe is appropriate under new guidelines. In this way, not only can machines be transferred to locations or proprietors most likely to minimise problem gambling, but new areas and new venues can be provided with machines without increasing the total cap. In fact, the number of machines could be aggressively reduced. This is what the ACT Democrats want to see and we hope that the government has the courage to support that idea.

I now turn to the part of Mr Stefaniak’s bill which seeks to make it easier for clubs to transfer machines between their premises, and I am opposed to this provision. As has been previously indicated in this chamber, research on problem gambling has shown that there are arguments in favour of restricting gaming machines to town and group centres, where at this stage we find most clubs and most taverns. The Victorian government has moved in this direction by restricting the number of poker machines in the suburbs, particularly near low-income areas. The non-profit clubs have not demonstrated they are concerned enough about the impact of their machines on nearby residents. So I think it is essential that the Gaming and Racing Commission retain the power to determine whether a particular location, and the number of machines at that location, is appropriate. I am concerned that Mr Stefaniak’s amendments undo that power, so I cannot accept them.

As I have indicated, I am disappointed that this Gaming Machine Amendment Bill as put forward by the Treasurer is not the legislation that we were hoping for out of the Gaming and Racing Commission review that was released in December 2002. We need to move forward with broader gaming machine reform. There are a number of areas we need to be addressing. Licences is one area that I have addressed tonight. The community contribution scheme is one that has been flagged, and I am disappointed that tonight we are just extending the cap and again tinkering around the edges instead of doing the whole reform process that we have been looking for for so long.

MS TUCKER (12.22 am): This bill was introduced on 10 February, so it is being debated in the next sitting week. This is prompt by any of our standards in this place, which is why I sought to adjourn debate on it. No argument has been put for urgency, and I do not think it is good process at all, but obviously both Labor and Liberal are keen to push this bill along. I know that pubs and taverns have run a very strong campaign for access to gaming machines and that the argument they put is one of equity; that clubs have a guaranteed funding source and an unfair advantage. The position the Greens have taken has been that gaming machines should remain in clubs, although we also recognise that the scale and role of clubs in the ACT have changed considerably over the past years and that their community development functions have faded against their status as entertainment businesses.

I think there is an issue concerning the impact these operations have on other businesses in the ACT, and there is definitely a case to look at exactly how we manage the link between gaming and clubs. Nonetheless, it is not our view that increasing the number of machines or the number of venues for gaming in the ACT is a way of dealing with this inequity.

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