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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2668 ..

I have several amendments and I know there are quite a few from other members, some of which are extensive and came quite late, without any previous notice of their content. This seems to be a theme this week. I remind everyone that the earlier we note notice of proposed amendments, the easier it makes all our jobs and the better we can consider them.

MS DUNDAS (4.33): Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACT Democrats will be supporting this bill in principle. The Gaming Machine Bill 2004 has been a long time coming. The genesis of the bill is that it was a review of the Gaming Machine Act, first requested by the previous Chief Minister, Mr Humphries, back in 2001. The review was repeated under the new government. Then we had the very slow process of completing the review and getting the government response and—finally—some legislation to appear on the table. This has all happened in the last few weeks of the Assembly.

This bill introduces a whole new set of procedures for regulating gaming machines. It picks up a number of the Gambling and Racing Commission’s recommendations, and I commend the government for the initiatives they have agreed to. I believe it was a good idea to introduce an entirely new act, as the old act had become increasingly difficult to understand because of a number of amendments over a number of years. In addition, the technology of gaming machines has become increasingly complicated, and it is appropriate that the commission has an increased ability to regulate this new technology. I particularly welcome the improvements in section 6 of the bill, which goes into some detail about the mechanics of regulating a large number of areas of technology.

The Democrats welcome debate on the Gaming Machine Act today. It is a long time coming, and hopefully the wait is worth it. But I am concerned that the government continues to reject a number of harm minimisation measures that were put forward by the Gambling and Racing Commission in its report. It is a pity that the government continues to show that it requires a high threshold of evidence before it is willing to accept a proposal aimed at reducing problem gambling. In contrast, it does not require the same amount of evidence to determine whether to increase access to gambling in the territory, such as the ability of the Treasurer to increase the number of poker machines.

The Democrats approach this from a very different perspective. We approach it from one of minimising harm and observing the precautionary principle. If we are presented with a reasonable means of reducing the harm associated with poker machines, we should adopt that process unless there is a significant amount of proof that it would not work. This government, unfortunately, reverses this premise and instead says that the burden of proof is on those who wish to protect problem gamblers, not on the gambling industry. I once again note that problem gambling is a significant problem in the ACT community.

The ACT survey of problem gambling highlighted the extent of gambling in the territory. There has never been any formal response to this analysis by any government, despite the disturbing picture that it puts forward. The survey showed in 2001 that ACT residents with gambling problems represented over 5,000 adults, or nearly two per cent of the ACT adult population. This group accounts for nearly 40 per cent of all gambling expenditure in the territory and an even higher percentage for gaming machines.

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