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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2690 ..

access to cash facilities at gaming premises. That is also in line with the recommendation of the Gambling and Racing Commission.

The reason we would work to allow access to EFTPOS facilities but not ATMs is that, when you are accessing EFTPOS facilities, you are usually restricted to smaller limits of cash, venue-imposed limits, and gaming machine licensees would then become aware of users that are repeatedly using EFTPOS facilities, particularly in a short period, to take out more cash to put through machines.

That would assist the providers in identifying possible problem gamblers and enabling them to take the appropriate action, as they should under the code of conduct. It also means that patrons who wish to access cash can still access cash; their rights have not been limited. But problem gamblers will be subjected to a reality check, a conversation with somebody when they need to access cash. I do not believe that this is a controversial amendment. It is working solely to ensure that problem gamblers are supported in terms of not continuing their habit.

Research conducted by the federal government’s Productivity Commission shows that problem gamblers are the biggest users of ATMs in gaming venues. Ninety per cent of patrons who are not problem gamblers say that they use the machines rarely or never. Patrons who are not problem gamblers are not accessing ATMs, so removing ATMs would not severely impact on them. However, 75 per cent of problem gamblers use the machines regularly to withdraw cash. This amendment is targeted specifically at problem gambling.

I hope that the Assembly will see the benefit of this amendment in terms of specifically targeting problem gamblers and not trying to impact on patrons who are using a club in other ways. I have discussed this amendment with ClubsACT and I heard the issues that they raised. I have used ATMs in club facilities, but that is something that I am willing to let go of so that problem gamblers can get a reality check and we can support them in terms of dealing with their habit. Other patrons will be still able to access EFTPOS facilities, so it would not be a large impost on them. This work is being followed in other states. South Australia and Tasmania are examining it and I think that it is something that we should be doing in the ACT.

MRS CROSS (6.05): I shall take this opportunity briefly to express my support for Ms Dundas’s intention to increase the number of harm minimisation measures in gaming areas in the ACT. Harm minimisation is crucial to reducing the alarming levels of problem gambling in society. Warning signs, clocks, restricted cash facilities and a prohibition on credit are all important measures designed to reduce the incidences of problem gambling. Whilst I respect Ms Dundas’s attempt to implement a further harm minimisation measure through prohibiting ATMs from licensed premises, I cannot support this one as it would substantially impact upon other areas of a club, pub or tavern.

I am fully supportive of ensuring cash facilities are not provided in gaming rooms, but I do believe that prohibiting ATMs from clubs would be going too far. It would not only affect the convenience of non-gambling club patrons but also substantially damage other activities of a club, such as food and beverage services.

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