Page 4248 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
expect that would cover a number of the more complex issues raised in the Productivity Commission inquiry.
In the meantime, this bill seeks to promptly address the significant funding shortfall and enable those providing counselling and educational services to continue to operate on a sounder financial basis. The Gambling and Racing Commissioner is the most appropriate person to administer the scheme. The Gaming and Racing Control Act 1999, section 17, sets out that one of the commissioner’s functions is to monitor the social and economic effects of gambling and problem gambling in the ACT, including the need for counselling and other services.
Problem gambling funding is not a community contribution. It is a reparation for a harm caused by the machines. It is not making a contribution to the community. It does not add anything. Rather, it goes some way to make up for the harm done. It is not appropriate that it be categorised as a community contribution. The more appropriate name is a mitigation measure. An analogy to illustrate the point is James Hardie providing funds for those suffering from asbestos-related disease. No-one would consider this a community contribution. Rather, this is a reparation for the damage caused.
Similarly, poker machines cause real harm. People commit suicide because of their addiction. Families and relationships are destroyed because thousands of people in our community are suffering from this issue. Using the money from the machines to address the problem is a reasonable, proportionate action. We need to move away from this and administer the system in a much more open and transparent manner that better reflects the community’s view of how things should operate. Placing those who benefit from something in charge of its reduction is fundamentally at odds with the most basic notions of good governance. Real or otherwise, the perception of conflict of interest is very strong.
One argument that has been put by the clubs is that all the providers are accredited and therefore there is no way for the process to be corrupted. It is simply not, I believe, a sufficient safeguard. The fact that they control the quantum and are in a position to control or regulate the type and delivery of any particular service simply is not satisfactory. The most appropriate regulatory arrangement is that the Commissioner for Gambling and Racing administer the fund and provide a structured mechanism for the rollout of problem gambling reduction services. This is exactly what the bill does.
This is a simple and effective, perhaps the most targeted and demonstrably effective, harm minimisation measure. It is consistent with and can operate very well in addition to all other harm minimisation measures and regulatory controls proposed by the commonwealth or the ACT. It is a sensible, reasonable and proportionate response to the seriousness of the harms caused by problem gambling.
The Greens intend to debate the bill in the October sittings and extend an invitation to all stakeholders and members of the community to provide feedback on the bill. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Barr) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video