Page 3716 - Week 12 - Thursday, 22 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sign to be displayed will be removed and it will no longer be an offence for a licensee to “cause” a sign to be displayed. I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to a drafting error in clause 14 on page 9, line 3. In proposed section 75 (1) (c) the bill refers to “either” then it lists three actions. Clearly that is not correct and I am sure the government will take appropriate amending action to remove the word “either” and replace it with “any of”. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Foskey, just before you commence, I would like to bring to the attention of members that we have in the gallery 30 years 9 and 10 students from Burgmann Anglican School. We welcome them.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.03): In light of the recent report on community contributions from the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, which showed a 22 per cent reduction in the amount of money going to the charitable and social welfare category, I would like to applaud the government for this attempt to improve the situation. I must say that I would do it differently; nevertheless I am going to support the amendments. I am always happy to support measures aimed at reducing the harm caused by problem gambling and to help those organisations that offer welfare services for problem gamblers.
In my remarks on the bill I will just mention what I see as the three main elements. The first set of amendments to the licensing requirements and the factors to be considered by the commission are sensible and worthwhile changes. It would certainly appear logical that the commission assess the licences at the time the machines become available and that a licensee’s past conduct in relation to gaming machines be considered when they seek to continue or expand their involvement in the industry.
The second group of amendments relates to the signage and advertising changes in clauses 16 and 17. The Greens have consistently advocated a harm minimisation position. We respect people’s right to choose how they entertain themselves, although we do recognise that there is significant social harm that comes about as well and therefore governments must be in the business of trying to balance competing interests. In clause 16 the government is proposing to clarify the prohibition on external signs advertising gaming machines or gambling activities.
While I do appreciate the intent of the provision and can see that for organisations such as ACTTAB there was an issue with the current provision, I must say that I do not feel that the proposed change is the most effective way of rectifying the problem. The use of the word “mainly” I think does create some ambiguity. Due to my office’s concern about this issue they initiated a discussion with the Chief Minister’s office, the Chief Minister’s office contacted the gaming and racing authority and subsequently there was a meeting with both the ministerial adviser and a representative of the gaming and racing authority.
I thank the Chief Minister’s office for arranging that because we were able to be persuaded, to some extent, to their opinion that the wording does achieve the intention stated in the explanatory memorandum. I am happy to accept that advice but I would urge the minister to ensure that he has general counsel level sign-off that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .