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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1870 ..

important to note that 75 per cent of problem gamblers say that they use ATMs regularly whereas 90 per cent of patrons who are not problem gamblers say they use the machines rarely or never. Other patrons rarely use ATMs but problem gamblers regularly use them. The fact that this bill retains the ability for venues to have EFTPOS facilities means that those patrons who wish to withdraw cash can still do so without leaving the venue.

The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission discussed the comparison between EFTPOS machines and ATMs at some length. The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission report states:

Currently the provision of cash through an EFTPOS facility requires the patron to interact with an employee of the licensed premises. This does not need to occur with an ATM. ATMs can be, and quite often are, placed in a restricted corner of the premises where little, if any, monitoring of the use of the facility is maintained. This would enable a problem gambler to repeatedly utilise the cash facility with no knowledge by the gaming licensee or their employees. With the EFTPOS provider-customer interaction, repeated or excessive use should become obvious to the provider. The lack of anonymity that an EFTPOS facility provides when compared to an ATM could also provide the ‘reality’ check that many problem gamblers are said to require.

The proposal that I am putting forward this evening is not unique in Australia. Tasmania has never allowed ATMs in poker machine areas and there are no calls for it to do so. There is no campaign mounting in Tasmania saying, “Let’s put ATMs next to the poker machines.” South Australia recently introduced additional restrictions on ATMs and Queensland places limits on withdrawals. Jurisdictions across Australia have been increasing regulation on the provision of cash facilities in gaming venues in recognition that easy access to large amounts of cash can encourage and exacerbate problem gambling and cause significant social harm. Of course, there is some concern that harm minimisation measures such as removing ATMs from gambling venues will reduce gambling revenue. I think it is fair to say that this is a fundamental reason for opposition to these types of reforms.

The survey of the extent and nature of problem gambling in the ACT estimated that problem gamblers generated about half of the revenue from poker machines. It is estimated that problem gamblers generated some $62 million from poker machines in the territory. I think we have to realise that, despite the fact that the territory gains revenue from gambling—we use that revenue to fund a whole lot of services and clubs use gambling revenue to support other worthwhile community activities—this does not make it ethical to take money from people who have a serious gambling addiction. It is the first responsibility of members of this Assembly to ensure that those people in our community who are at risk are protected before protecting the revenue of gambling providers.

This bill is intended to commence on 1 January 2005. This will give gaming machine licensees sufficient time to ensure the removal of existing machines. If a licensee is unable to remove the ATM before the commencement of this bill, the bill inserts a clause allowing licensees to apply to the Gambling and Racing Commission for an exemption from the operation of the proposed prohibition for a reasonable period to allow them sufficient time to remove the ATM from their premises.

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