Page 4683 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
recipient of gaming revenue from those sources, particularly the Labor clubs, of course, and the Tradies clubs as well, which are owned by an affiliated union.
Problem gambling does reach throughout the community and imposes costs on everyone. What this bill does is to largely maintain the status quo. There are a number of measures in place in the ACT to respond to problem gambling. Unfortunately, whilst individuals make these decisions on their own, we know that for some people it is a severe addiction, and the fact that $800,000 over a couple of years can be put through one club demonstrates that there is a lot more to be done to try and fight the scourge of problem gambling in our community. On balance, this bill has a common-sense approach to private gambling such as occurs in private homes. The good news is that, as many of us are aware, the issue of playing card games for money in one’s own home will now become legal.
The bill also deals with what is described as charitable gaming, and this matter raises some interesting issues. In general terms, we support the approach to regulating these activities. It recognises community fund-raising activities, which are, of course, an important part of our community, and appropriate regulation is required to ensure the integrity of these activities.
We have had some discussions with groups such as the Australian Hotels Association on this issue, particularly around the issue of poker tournaments. They have had a bit to say about the issues around charitable gaming and how that would be regulated. Obviously, that is something that needs to be watched and properly regulated, as with all aspects of gaming. There is a draft regulation dealing with the issue of charitable gaming. This regulation does not appear to impose onerous conditions on an organisation that wishes to undertake charitable gaming. The nature of record keeping and reporting seems to be in accord with what would be expected.
There are also proposals concerning the playing of two-up on Anzac Day—the removal of restrictions on where two-up can be played. I draw the attention of the Assembly to some of the comments in the scrutiny report on this bill. The committee raises a question about what is meant by “dishonestly”, as this word is used in clause 23. Further, the committee notes it would be useful to have some examples to explain the concept of “dishonestly”. I would commend those points to the minister.
In summary, the opposition will be supporting this bill. The issue around these public gaming tournaments is something that will no doubt be revisited down the track. I understand there is an agreement with the casino at this stage for those sorts of tournaments to be held only in the casino. I have an open mind on that, and that is something that will be looked at down the track. But at this stage we are very pleased to support the bill. It does balance these challenging issues.
As I say, this will continue to be an issue that the Labor Party are heavily conflicted on because of their massive reliance in the ACT on gaming revenue. They simply cannot escape the fact that has been noted by many commentators on this issue, particularly by people such as Tim Costello, that the Labor Party in the ACT, by being such a massive beneficiary of gaming, are hopelessly conflicted when it comes to the issue of regulation and, indeed, in dealing with the serious scourge of problem gambling. We will be supporting the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video