Page 4863 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 27 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The reforms proposed through this bill are modest, with a small increase in funds for gambling harm reduction and a similarly small amount to go to the Chief Minister’s charitable fund to broaden the reach of the scheme to more community groups. The reforms also propose clearer criteria for claiming contributions. I understand that some of these details are still being worked out through the regulations, which are still open for public consultation.
I know there are some in the community who believe that that the central focus of the scheme should be on gambling harm minimisation, in recognition of where its funding comes from. As Mitch in Stories of Chance noted:
When the clubs talk about their contributions to the community that means nothing to a gambling addict. If you’ve lost thousands and thousands of dollars, what does that mean to you?
I think Mitch asks an important question and it is one I have reflected on in discussions with people who say to me, “But my child gets a subsidised football jumper.” That is welcome for that individual, but one cannot simply accept that and the many other things that are doled out without reflecting on the impact on the other side of the equation.
At the same time, I do acknowledge that the contributions from the scheme are significant and they are of great benefit to many people across our community. These changes seek to find a balance that continues to support sport and cultural activities, community activities and charity activities whilst also not accepting those funds at the expense of gambling harm to others. Finding that balance is difficult, and I think this needs to be an area we continue to look at, particularly as I hope we start to see club revenue sources diversify from a reliance on poker machines.
I also want to speak briefly on the changes in this bill to improve enforcement and transparency, including higher financial penalties as disciplinary action and the ability to enter into enforceable undertakings where breaches of the code of conduct are identified. If we are genuine about taking gambling harm seriously then there need to be serious penalties for those who breach the rules.
In particular I want to acknowledge Professor Laurie Brown, whose advocacy through this process has created this momentum for change. We often hear about the need for personal responsibility on these issues but this fails to acknowledge the addictive nature of gambling products. Personal responsibility has to be matched by the responsibility of industry to be open about the intentional addictive design of their machines and to respond by providing adequate protections for the people playing them.
We know that harms from gambling affect more than simply the gambler. Research estimates that each high-risk gambler affects six others on average, each moderate-risk gambler three others, and each low-risk gambler one other person. On that basis we can estimate that over 47,000 people in the ACT are affected by gambling harm at any one time. This is equivalent to 11.8 per cent of the total ACT population,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video