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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4293 ..

75A Credit limit on note acceptor

(1) A licensee commits an offence if the licensee, without reasonable excuse, operates a gaming machine with a note acceptor that accepts the introduction of notes at a time when there is more than $20 credit available for play on the gaming machine.

Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.

I am proposing these amendments because there is the potential here to put in place a stronger system of consumer protection in gambling. As I said in the debate on the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill, having additional limits on what note acceptors will allow is likely to be a very useful measure. Whilst the government’s regulations take a good step in prohibiting the use of $100 and $50 notes—the maximum note value that will be accepted is $20—there is nothing to prevent someone using $20, $10 or $5 notes to gamble away in one game much more than they would want to or that their household budget could afford were they not caught up in the gaming machine spirit.

The measure proposed in amendment No 4 follows the model used in Queensland in 2000 and 2001. It requires gaming machine operators to adjust their note acceptors in a way that means that they will not accept any more notes when the credit on the gaming machine is $20 or more. When Queensland did that, it resulted in a significant drop in revenue from gaming machines in clubs. The policy did not apply to gaming machines in casinos and hotels, which caused some consternation. After apparent lobbying on this point, the government decided to remove the cap from clubs.

This proposed change to the regulations would have a delayed commencement date to enable the technical modifications to be made. My amendment No 1 sets this delay at 12 months later than the commencement date for the remainder of the new regulations. That is important because some technical changes would be required. The Queensland Office of Gaming and Racing managed this transition in Queensland with advice on the technical requirements.

The amendment also has a defence of without reasonable excuse to allow for transitions or exemptions to be worked out if absolutely necessary. There was not, as far as I have been able to tell by asking the Queensland office, a review of the effects of this cap on players. Monitoring the effects in the ACT should this change get the support of members today would be an important part of the change.

Some commentators in Queensland believe that the drop in revenue did not indicate a drop in problem gambling. However, this claim does not seem to be on the basis of any particular evidence. We do know that around one-third of gaming machine expenditure comes from people who can be identified as having problems with gambling. To be precise, in the 2001 ACT survey it was found that problem gamblers accounted for 37.3 per cent of gambling expenditure.

When gambling is a problem for a person it impacts on the rest of that person’s life in a harmful way. That, in turn, creates problems, sometimes severe problems, for the person’s family, friends and sometimes workplace. We have all heard of the cases where large amounts of money have been stolen from workplaces because of someone’s gaming machine habits.

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