Page 2815 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
regulating electronic gaming machines so they reduce or, if possible, eliminate the potential for problem addictive gambling. If it is not possible to get rid of or seriously reduce the amount of problem gambling, we should seriously consider phasing them out. I do not think the bill as proposed by the government does that and, unfortunately, I do not think majority of the amendments proposed by my fellow committee members are going in that direction.
Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all deal with the relocation and trade-in scheme. I agree with the majority of the committee in saying that, given that poker machines are something which can legally be put in clubs in the ACT, it is quite reasonable to have a comprehensible, viable scheme for moving them between venues. The bill as presented certainly does not do that. So I agree with the majority of the committee that some scheme along those lines is needed. My disagreement is that I think that the scheme needs to have as one of its goals a reduction in problem gambling.
I note that, at present, if you want to move machines you have to do a social impact statement. Recommendation 5 is basically around saying you do not have to do the social impact statement for a small number of machines—an unknown small number. That seems to me to be a watering down, so I definitely do not support that amendment.
I agree with amendment 6, but I would like to see the review’s terms of reference include the reduction of problem gambling as a higher priority. I do not support recommendation 7, because it is trying to remove the aspirational goal of reduction of poker machines from the bill. I agree it is only an aspirational goal and that the bill as presented is not going to get there, but I really do not want to see us remove even this token number. We have got to go forward, not backward.
I agree with recommendations 8 and 9 about the ATMs if that was going to have a significant and major impact upon the rest of the clubs’ business. However I am not sure there are any instances where it would be relevant. I would like to see that, in general, it is carried out because it is something the Productivity Commission thought would be relevant.
I do not support recommendation 10, which seeks to make the territory’s timetable for ATM regulation rely on the federal timetable. My reason for that is purely pragmatic—there is always the possibility that the federal government will manage to not pass the legislation, and I do not want to see our legislation held up because of potential problems in another place.
I support recommendations 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, because these are all focused on problem gambling. I am hopeful that, if implemented by the government, they will make a difference—hopefully not just a small difference—to problem gambling in the ACT.
I am concerned about recommendation 16 and the MOU with the clubs. While I am not against an MOU, I would have written it differently. I am concerned that the terms of reference for it could easily be skewed too much towards maintaining the role and contribution of clubs in the ACT community and supporting the economic viability of the sector and not enough towards minimising harm caused by problem gambling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video