Page 392 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RAMSAY: I thank Ms Cheyne for the question. Certainly this government is demonstrating very clearly that we can reduce the number of gaming machine authorisations, we can achieve stronger harm minimisation and we can develop a stronger clubs sector all at the same time. That is because we know that our clubs are places that support their local communities through sport, through culture and through social connections, not primarily as places to gamble.
That is why last year we passed legislation to create an incentives packages for clubs, backed by a strong framework for reaching 4,000 gaming machine authorisations by 2020. I am pleased to say that all of the clubs that are required to surrender authorisations engaged with the government and took up the incentives. As of now there are only 4,012 gaming machine authorisations in the territory, down from 4,981 at April 2018. Every single club with 20 gaming machine authorisations or more participated in the program.
This government’s view is that reliance on gaming machines as a primary source of revenue is clearly not sustainable. The ACT Liberals spokesperson for poker machines, Mr Parton, may shrug his shoulders and disagree, as he does in public, but his comments on this policy again have made clear that he does not see the importance of reducing the number of poker machines in the territory at all. This is not about helping people eat fewer chocolates; this is not about losing a bet at the races. Our policy is clear and is about engaging constructively, reducing gambling harm and strengthening our clubs all at the same time.
MS CHEYNE: Attorney, how is the government able to achieve such a high level of participation by clubs in the incentives package?
MR RAMSAY: I thank Ms Cheyne for the supplementary question. From the outset, this government focused on transparency and good faith engagement with the clubs. We engaged Neville Stevens AO both to develop recommendations for incentives and also to help clubs make decisions about taking up a package. His work resulted in an independent report to government on how to achieve 4,000 authorisations and independent advice to clubs about how to engage.
An independent and transparent framework for this incentives package meant that clubs could make decisions with full information and with certainty. This government provided clubs with the exact number of authorisations that they would have to surrender last August, along with the dollar value of incentives for doing so voluntarily. We also published a clear time line for the process. Our legislation, introduced and passed last year, met those commitments precisely.
This government values its partnership with the clubs and with the community. We have worked closely with the industry, with community advocates, with unions and with individuals who have lived experience of gambling harm to develop these reforms. On the basis of our shared commitment to reducing gambling harm, and through our clear vision for supporting clubs, we enabled them to deal with us from a position of trust and confidence. The results have been, and will continue to be, fantastic for this community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video