Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1957 ..

MS DUNDAS

This approach has already been adopted in Victoria, with some promising results.

Another option we seriously have to consider is the restriction on the number of machines allowed to be held at any one venue. The number of poker machines at some venues is particularly disturbing. You can find ACT venues with up to 400 poker machines. A venue with 400 poker machines, I would say, is not a community based club; it is a casino by another name. And in the last decade we have been setting up little casinos all over Canberra.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that, the more poker machines in a venue, the higher the average turnover each machine generates. There is also some evidence that problem gamblers are more likely to seek out larger clusters and that it's harder to identify problem gamblers the larger the number of machines that are there.

Other jurisdictions have put individual caps on the number of machines at a venue. The ACT should be exploring this as well and actively seeking to reduce the number of machines at our pokie palaces.

I believe that, in order to prevent any worsening of poker machine clusters in Canberra, we should temporarily suspend sections of the act that relate to the transfer of poker machine licenses and the alteration of licences to change the venue at which they are held. I believe that this is directly related to the operation of the cap on gaming machines.

The cap does have a number of potential side effects, particularly the increase in re-allocation of machines through transfers, as the number of new licenses is limited, and there has been an increasing community concern over the practice of club mergers, resulting in the transfer of machines from smaller clubs to larger ones. As the Productivity Commission report notes:

Re-allocation would tend to offset the cap on aggregate spending and might, by changing the nature of the venues, increase the risks of problem gambling.

It is essential that no further transfers take place until the future regulatory environment is decided, with appropriate safeguards against predatory behaviour. While the current transfer and alteration system requires the approval of the Gambling and Racing Commission, there is no discretion for the commission to reject approval, other than the sparse requirements in the act. If a transfer meets all criteria, then the commission cannot refuse the transfer or licence alteration.

I believe that the Gaming Machine Act should be amended temporarily until the fully formed regulatory system is enforced, and this will prevent the continued build-up of poker machines in large venues and deter the predatory practices of some club mergers. Failure to do so will only allow the pokie palaces to get bigger and cause more harm to our community.

Of course, the amendment that I had to this effect was ruled out of order-and I respect the Speaker's decision on that-but I also have another amendment that I will speak to in detail later.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .