Page 1667 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government, including those under the parliamentary agreement, and provides clarification to some of Mr Rattenbury’s data. The amendment calls for a consultative, evidence-based approach to any further reforms, noting that, for now, our clubs are focused on surviving the effects of the ongoing pandemic and that we need to let them settle into a new normal before we look at substantial further reform.
The cost of adaptive or new technology to implement bet limits, as put in Mr Rattenbury’s motion, will be a significant issue. It may well not be insurmountable but it needs proper exploration. I note that the estimates from the clubs and others with an interest in reform differ very widely and the cost and time frames of any reform will need to be based on the best, fullest, accurate evidence.
I mentioned that I had the opportunity earlier this week to host the most recent club presidents forum to discuss the current circumstances for our community clubs and their future. It was a helpful and productive meeting, as have been previous gatherings with clubs. The clubs specifically talked about the fact that this is a time for shaping a new future. More than one club talked warmly about their nimbleness in being able to adapt to the current and future circumstances, and I certainly affirmed that.
One specific matter I noted that we discussed was the potential right now to draw together some matters around a COVID-safe plan for gaming venues and further support for members by way of harm minimisation. As clubs have mentioned, they are currently able to provide a way of operating when they know exactly who is in any space within their premise at any time. Therefore, there is the chance for us now to work together on a stronger and more effective exclusion register. That is about working smarter in the area of gambling harm reduction.
My amendment is a productive way forward for the next steps in continuing to reduce harm caused by gambling, while acknowledging that the path must be consultative and not damage a sector that is hurting and which is a significant employer and supporter of many thousands of sporting, community and multicultural groups. The government affirm that we will work alongside the clubs to help them secure their future over the long term, to support their communities, to protect their patrons and to help them to continue to move away from the reliance on electronic gaming machines and to address gambling harm. We believe we can do this together. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (4.36): We will not be opposing Mr Ramsay’s amendment. Mr Ramsay’s amendment is quite sensible. I applaud—and voiced that during his speech—many of the things he had to say. I applaud the minister for engaging with the industry in the way that he did this week. I am sure that both sides in that particular room—not that it is about sides—came away having learnt things that they did not already know, and that is always of benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the sort of Labor amendment that you might expect to see within 90 days of an election, while the Indians are circling the wagon. If you get Labor in a room on their own, they can be quite sensible in the gaming space. If you get Minister Ramsay in a room with a group of club staff and officials, he pretty much just morphs into Mick Molloy, if you can imagine that. That is probably the most
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video