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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4297 ..

through this Assembly and went through a consultation process over 3½ years, should be given a chance to work. The opposition will be opposing Ms Tucker’s proposal.

MRS CROSS (11.00): Mr Speaker, whilst I agree with the principle behind Ms Tucker’s amendments to the gaming machine regulations, I will be supporting only amendments 2 and 3. Ms Tucker’s amendments 2 and 3 relate to the use of player accounts and the limits on these accounts. Amendment 2 requires licensees to explain to individuals seeking to set up a player account how to set up limits on this account. This is certainly an important harm minimisation mechanism and thus shall have my support.

Similarly, amendment 3 requires the changing of account limits to be confirmed in writing seven days after the request for a limit change is made. That will stop individuals betting above their heads or chasing losses when they cannot afford it. Essentially, it means that players will actually have to want to change their limits, not just think that they do in the heat of the moment. This is another important harm minimisation measure and will again have my support.

I will not, however, be supporting amendments 1 and 4 because I believe that they are just not viable. To make it an offence for a club to operate a machine with a note acceptor that accepts cash when there is more than $20 worth of credit on the machine is draconian and not viable. Manufacturers of gaming machine products will not manufacture goods specifically to suit ACT laws as the ACT is just too small a jurisdiction. Similarly, changing every machine the clubs currently have within one year would be very costly and burdensome on the clubs. At this stage, there is no concrete evidence to support claims that that would reduce problem gambling. Once again, I shall be opposing Ms Tucker’s amendments 1 and 4 but will be supporting amendments 2 and 3.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (11.02): The government will not be supporting any of the amendments. We have been through a fairly long and exhaustive process, commencing with the commission’s report, followed by the government’s tabling of its response. There was a high level of consultation all round in relation to that. That response was on the table for something like 12 months and the regulations have been derived from that response.

The Queensland experience that was brought up would be, from the industry’s perspective, quite crippling. I am prompted to ask why someone does not move for the total outlawing of poker machines in the place. We would have to reorganise society, because there is such a strong orientation towards club life and club support for so much of our community. Canberra is the national capital and a relatively large city but, at the same time, it has characteristics that I think could only be found in New South Wales country towns in the way that club life and club support of sport and other activities and the provision of facilities are so integrated within our community.

The Queensland experience says: if you want to wreck the club industry, that is how you do it. As Mr Stefaniak rightly pointed out, for good and sound reasons smoking will be outlawed by the end of next year or 2006, and previous experience elsewhere indicates that the clubs will go through a tough adjustment period in relation to the banning of smoking. I think that we have done enough. I think that, as Mr Stefaniak said, we have

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