Page 3591 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This leads to a number of other recommendations. I believe that we should introduce a withdrawal limit for EFTPOS machines whilst retaining the ATM limit. It should be at the same limit; we want that consistency of figures. I have suggested $250. It is clear at the moment that EFTPOS machines are being used to circumvent the ATM limit, and this is very disappointing. Minister Burch has taken steps here and has asked the clubs to develop a voluntary code of conduct providing guidelines on the appropriate use of EFTPOS facilities. Given the evident intent to circumvent the ATM limits through the provision of the EFTPOS option, it is my view that the government should move immediately to close this loophole rather than waiting to see whether the voluntary code of practice is adhered to. Such a limit would not apply to a straight EFTPOS transaction, so if you made a purchase on EFTPOS that would be a different matter. We discussed in the committee, for example, people taking a large family group or a group of friends to the club and wanting to pay through EFTPOS. Obviously, that should not be constrained; if you rack up a $400 food bill, you should be able to put that on EFTPOS in a single transaction.
This is about harm minimisation for people who have a problem with gambling and limiting the amount of cash that they can access in the club environment so that we help them to not put too much money through the poker machines. It is for those people who are not able to limit themselves. That is what this is about. That is what harm minimisation is about. The way that EFTPOS machines were being used was clearly circumventing the intent of these harm minimisation measures.
Turning to cash input limits on machines and note denomination limits, I did agree with the committee that there is scope to remove the note denominators. Some people may be surprised by my comments on this, but I agree with the recommendations and strongly reiterate my view that note denomination limits should not be removed before a cash input limit is finalised and operational. The ACT is one of only two jurisdictions that do not employ a cash input limit on ATMs. Again, this is going to a harm minimisation approach. The committee has recommended $250. You will see a consistency here; it is a $250 limit across all of these measures. Clearly if there is essentially a budget on that, whether someone puts it in through a $50 or $100 note is not such an issue when there is a clear budget to assist those who are unable to control, or who need help in controlling, gambling addiction and gambling problems. I would just reiterate the importance of those two measures going hand in hand.
The committee recommended that the community contribution be increased from eight to 10 per cent. I agree with that, but I do hold the view—and, as the report notes at footnote 424, as Ms Fitzharris and I propose—that this be set up in a way where the additional two per cent goes to a dedicated community fund to be managed by a panel of government, industry, community and sporting organisations. The community fund should establish a different focus from that of the community contributions payments managed by individual clubs. For example, clubs might be able to provide larger grants or they might provide infrastructure grants or annual theme grants. There is a range of possibilities there. Clearly the clubs are set up with particular objectives in their constitutions, and rightly so, but in terms of the community contribution it is appropriate that the community disburse some of that money. People may choose to spend it on a range of things, but I think there is some scope for some independence in that process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video