Page 1663 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RAMSAY: Indeed, maybe not in other parts of Australia, but it is important for us to be clear about who does and does not make the decisions here, as opposed to other jurisdictions. I encourage Mr Parton to spend the time and look at the Public Health Act and note whose responsibility it is to make public health directions. They are not made by the Minister for Health. They are not made by the minister who has gaming policy or regulatory oversight. They are not made by cabinet. They are made by the Chief Health Officer. Why is that the case in the ACT? It is because, unlike in other jurisdictions, we have separated the political interference from the public health determination. That is fundamentally important.
I had the privilege of speaking with club presidents and their representatives earlier this week. I remind people that the ACT has stayed in tune with the national agreement about moving to the opening of gaming venues at stage 3. New South Wales did not stay in line with the national agreement. Things changed in that jurisdiction when the decision was made not by the Chief Health Officer but by a minister, and that is important for us to remember.
It is also important for members in this place to be clear and accurate about what we say in the public realm. It is outrageous for Mr Parton to smear the Chief Health Officer by describing this decision as an interesting interpretation of health advice.
The ACT government and ACT Labor acknowledge the very real harms associated with gambling, and from gaming machines in particular. My personal understanding of this harm has been strengthened through hearing from those with lived experience of gambling harm during the roundtables I have hosted over the past three years. I thank people who have shared those experiences with me over the last three years.
Minister Rattenbury referred earlier to Kate Seselja and Laurie Brown. I thank them, the people who prefer not to be named publicly and those I had the privilege of working alongside in my previous career, when I sat face to face with people who had experienced the impacts of gambling harm. They have talked about the impacts of gambling harm on them, on their relationships, on their families and on their broader community. They are real people. They are not alone, and we acknowledge them through the public health approach we have to gambling harm in the ACT.
We are looking beyond the concept of problem gambling by individual gamblers and we are taking a broader approach. We are more attuned at the moment to hearing about a public health approach in relation to the ongoing pandemic and we are taking a public health approach to the issue of gambling harm.
The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission sets this out in its new approach outline in Strategy for Gambling Harm Prevention in the ACT: A Public Health Approach, 2019-2024. The government enshrined these new responsibilities in the Gaming Machine Act 2004, and club directors must act, as far as practicable, in a way that reduces gambling harm. Where licensees do not meet their obligations under the legislation, the commissioner has expanded regulatory powers to facilitate compliance and accountability through effective, appropriate and transparent responses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video