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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4295 ..

step in applying for access to additional funds by requiring the customers to confirm their original decision before that extra access is granted. Again, this is a relatively simple amendment that is aimed at consumer protection. Hence, I am able to support it.

The other thing that Ms Tucker is trying to do this morning goes to the issue of note acceptors. During the debate on the Gaming Machine Act, the Assembly rejected the proposal that note acceptors be removed altogether. I think that that would be a far better way of controlling the problems associated with note acceptors. I remind the Assembly that note acceptors make it very easy for gamblers to spend extremely large amounts of money very quickly and someone who is affected by problem gambling can lose financially from this method by easily increasing their expenditure without necessarily having that physical reminder of what is actually happening.

I understand that this amendment is seeking to proscribe a requirement that has been in operation in Queensland by ensuring that notes can only be inserted when a machine is low in credit, so that gamblers will then have to insert money into the machine more slowly and will be less able to lose large amounts of money quickly. It has the added benefit of not interfering with the use of gaming machines by recreational gamblers. I support these amendments and I hope that the Assembly will see the benefit that they will provide in harm minimisation in relation to gaming machines in the territory.

MR STEFANIAK (10.54): The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. Over the past 3½ years—in fact, I think that it was something started by the previous government—there has been an extensive review undertaken of the gaming industry in the territory by the Gambling and Racing Commission. Late last year, I think, the current government came down with its recommendations after a lot of consultation. There were papers out for community consultation before that. After much debate—indeed, we have had several bills before the Assembly, including some private members bills from me as much as anyone else—the legislation was finally passed in May. I think that it is very important to give the legislation a chance to work, for starters.

It is crucial that this industry, which provides employment to thousands of Canberrans and provides cheap entertainment for probably hundreds of thousands of our citizens, be allowed to proceed with certainty. The gaming industry, particularly the clubs, which are almost invariably affected by changes, needs significant certainty in relation to where it goes from here. The industry was not particularly happy with a number of things passed by this Assembly in May when the revised act was actually passed. I think that the act is a very balanced approach to gaming in the territory. I think that everyone had a lot of input. Certainly, at the end of the day, I was quite comfortable with how it would work.

There were some things that the clubs certainly did not like. There were probably certain things that Ms Tucker and the people who speak to her did not particularly like, but the act does provide certainty and it provides certainty after close to a 3½—year period in which the whole issue was being looked at, and looked at very thoroughly. I think it is somewhat premature for these types of amendments, if anything else, to be brought before the Assembly and I do have some significant concerns in relation to a couple of them. I think that the act needs to be given time to work.

I note that research is being undertaken in relation to a number of these issues—amongst other things, the matter of note acceptors. Professor Jan McMillen’s group at the ANU

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