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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4299 ..

Mr Quinlan has said that these changes would destroy the clubs. The clubs have very high revenue at this point in time. They are not going to collapse. You could argue that in some ways they would have to provide services that were not quite so reliant on poker machines, but if the revenue came down across all the clubs the changes would have an equalising effect. They could still be offering services, maybe not quite to the degree that they do now, but it would also make more equal the relationship between the clubs and taverns in the ACT, which obviously have suffered a great deal as a result of the very uncompetitive prices that have flowed from the subsidisation of food and alcohol in clubs.

We are all very well aware of the concerns that the taverns and the hotels have expressed on that over the years. Whilst I have not supported the expansion of gambling machines to hotels and taverns, I have certainly had sympathy for the concerns they have raised about the difficulty they have in competing with the subsidised products provided by the clubs. As I said, this is about consumer protection as much as anything. I just think that it is pretty obvious from the research that has occurred that creating a break for gambling and putting limits on how much can be spent at any point in time are very significant measures for dealing with problem gambling.

The other irony of this matter is that the gambling industry has always said that gambling is for recreation, that it is about pleasure, and the problem gambling aspect of it is exaggerated by consumer protection advocates such as Lifeline and politicians such as Ms Dundas and I who have taken a strong consumer protection approach in this Assembly to gambling. If it is indeed just about having fun and recreation, there is absolutely no problem with gambling smaller amounts, but the reality is that that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about trying to assist consumers in an environment that is very seductive in terms of people spending more than they can afford to spend. I am pleased at least to see support for amendments 2 and 3 regarding player cards. I thank members for their comments.

MR SPEAKER: Before I put the question, I wish to point out that Mrs Cross indicated that she wished to oppose some parts of this motion. She will not be able to do that, unless someone moves for the separation of various parts of the motion.

Motion (by Ms Tucker) put:

That the question be divided.

The Assembly voted—

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