Page 3321 - Week 09 - Thursday, 24 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
regulation is that I will be undertaking a consultation process. I will be seeking views from the whole community through the your say website beginning today. I will also convene a panel of experts to advise on what the limit should be. Five dollars is only a starting point and this government will be open to lower amounts based on consultation and expert evidence.
Some may say that if we are to have pre-commitment, it should be voluntary. But the problem with that, as an Australian evaluation by Professor Paul Delfabbro in 2012 found, is that many patrons do not see pre-commitment as relevant to them as they do not have a gambling problem in their opinion. But this government is not just focusing its harm minimisation efforts on those who already have a problem with gambling. We are seeking to reduce gambling harm for everyone who interacts with gaming machines.
It will be mandatory for players to set a net loss limit but we have not set a specified limit as to what that will be. The question of whether the system sets a default limit is one that will be considered further by the government as our broader harm minimisation work continues. Mandatory pre-commitment does have human rights and privacy implications. It will be necessary for casino patrons to identify themselves and this information will be stored as part of the pre-commitment system.
The bill includes provisions to ensure that pre-commitment information can only be used or disclosed in specific circumstances and it is an offence to otherwise use or disclose this information. These issues are addressed in the human rights analysis in the explanatory statement for the bill.
I will mention here briefly, however, that engaging with gaming machines is a voluntary activity. There is no compulsion to provide identifying information for inclusion in the pre-commitment system unless a person wishes to play gaming machines at the casino.
While the bill provides the framework for the casino licensee to begin acquiring authorisations, it also provides that the casino bears the risk of doing so. Where a casino redevelopment does not proceed or is not completed for a reason within the control of the casino, the restricted authorisations held by the casino will be forfeited to the territory without compensation. Where the redevelopment does not proceed, despite the best endeavours of the casino licensee, there will be a limited period where the authorisations can be sold back to class C licensees before forfeiture applies.
There are a number of administrative, operational and technical matters that will need to be addressed before any approved redevelopment proposal can be progressed but they are outside the scope of this bill and they will be addressed through future provisions. These include taxation provisions, specific rules and control procedures for operating gaming machines, approval processes and certification and technical standards for gaming machines and FATG terminals, the centralised monitoring system and the pre-commitment system.
This bill sets the legislative framework for electronic gaming products at the casino. Importantly, the protections in this bill mean that we are not going to see gaming
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video