Page 1664 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
able to come to that agreement with the Labor Party as part of the parliamentary agreement for the Ninth Assembly.
In addition to the work that is already occurring we need to respond to gaps in the current legislation, and that is the main focus of my motion today. I hope all members have now had a chance to hear Laurie’s story. Laurie is a highly educated Canberra woman who is also a recovering addicted gambler on poker machines. Laurie put tens of thousands of dollars into poker machines at her local club, losing much of her life savings and putting a huge strain on her personal relationships.
A couple of months ago she was brave enough to speak out and share her experience with the community through an interview on ABC radio. I think this is a tremendously courageous thing to do because none of us are proud of our weaknesses and to publicly air them is a courageous thing to do. I think it is very valuable to tell a true story of the impacts that can happen and to empower others to perhaps confront the challenges that they face. I was also grateful to be able to meet with Laurie and her partner and hear firsthand her experience. I would like to acknowledge that they are both here in the chamber today and I welcome them to the Legislative Assembly.
While there are many different issues involved, it was clear from speaking with Laurie that there was one immediate change that could help to prevent this kind of harm happening to others in the future. That change is to apply the $250 cash withdrawal limit in gaming venues to all cash facilities, both ATMs and EFTPOS outlets. Currently this provision only applies to ATMs and this creates a significant loophole. This change would reflect the original intent of the legislation, which is to minimise harm for problem gamblers by reducing access to cash. The current provision is not effective because problem gamblers can easily access unlimited amounts of cash through an EFTPOS facility.
It is true that withdrawing cash from EFTPOS is different from using an ATM because it requires some level of interaction with another person. Some opponents of this change have argued that this interaction should allow staff at venues to identify signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary. Laurie’s case clearly shows that this is not happening on the ground. Perhaps this is because staff do not have enough knowledge to be able to recognise these signs or maybe it is simply not in the interest of venues to stop someone playing the pokies so much. Either way, it is clear that there is a loophole in the current system that is causing significant harm, and that needs to be amended. If we are serious about harm minimisation a restriction on cash withdrawals should apply to both ATM and EFTPOS facilities in gaming venues across the ACT.
I also note that this change would not impose an unreasonable burden on other patrons. This provision is limited to cash withdrawals; so it would not stop patrons making larger purchases for food, drinks or other items using a credit or debit card. And with the increasing use of tap-and-go payment technologies, implementing this system should be relatively simple for venues. This is a small change that could significantly help problem gamblers reduce or avoid harm from poker machines.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video