Page 5976 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
significant social issue, since they have got to this place. And if they are in union with the government, as they are, they should simply make the government appoint the resources available to address this problem.
Again, as I have said already, it is quite evident that the presentation of this bill was premature. We had the release of the prevalence study prepared by researchers at the ANU. I think it actually testifies to this undue haste. The Greens, once again, have rushed into print with legislation, without waiting for the important information, information that they knew or should have known was about to be released. Now, having got the evidence, they are just full steam ahead, ignoring what is actually in the report, and certainly are not really attempting to address, except in a very heavy-handed way, the issue of problem gambling in the ACT. Where is their evidence-based approach to problem gambling? It is not in this bill, because they did not wait until the ANU’s prevalence report was released.
It brings me to the amendments that I have circulated to this bill. These follow consultation that I have had with people involved in the gaming and gambling industry and in the community sector. And the amendments will attempt to provide some balance and transparency to the proposals in the Greens’ bill.
The main part of my amendments proposes a gaming advisory board. The prime function is to gather evidence from experts in the industry and provide advice to the Gambling and Racing Commission and, indeed, to the minister. It is to comprise seven members from across the gambling industry and from ACTCOSS.
I am also proposing two amendments relating to the proposed new tax. The first is that the new tax should be applied at a rate of 0.5 per cent rather than 0.75 per cent. As I have said, the minister is moving it to 0.6 per cent. Secondly, I want this contribution that is intended to be mandated under this bill to be considered as part of the clubs’ community contribution.
I am proposing these amendments because I believe it is imperative that the ACT government increase their contribution to dealing with problem gambling. Hence, the government, the biggest recipient, should also help carry some of the burden. They cannot say, “We will take the profit,” and then say, “But we will help at a much lesser level than the clubs are doing.” That is initially through the work they do in-house at addressing problem gambling, which they are very experienced and very good at, and then, outside that, by aiding the community by, in this case, providing $400,000 to Lifeline.
Hence, if the government judges that more should be done in response to problem gambling issues, surely it is incumbent on the government to provide some of the resources to prepare any response to those issues. It should not be the sole responsibility of the clubs or the broader gambling interests to be the sole source of resources to deal with problem gambling. We have got to the stage now where the clubs voluntarily contribute more direct assistance than the government does.
I also note that ACTCOSS said in their submission to the Productivity Commission that problem gambling is a public health issue. If that is the case, this strengthens the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video