Page 2639 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In 2002, the government implemented a mandatory code of practice for all ACT gambling licensees, incorporating a wide range of responsible gambling and harm minimisation initiatives. The code has undergone reviews and continues to be, in the view of community organisations such as Lifeline, a national leader in the field of harm minimisation for gambling patrons.
Some of the initiatives pursued through the code of practice include: restrictions on gambling advertising and promotions; restrictions on the maximum cash payouts licencees can make; restrictions on the cashing of cheques; mandatory staff training; self-exclusions and licensee-initiated exclusions; appointment of a trained gambling contact officer for each club; availability of information to patrons, including signage; odds of winning major jackpots and access to counselling services; restrictions on the location of ATMs; prohibition on the provision of credit or loans for gambling; prohibition on gambling for those under 18; restrictions preventing gaming machines from being operated for the five hours between 4 am and 9 am; prohibition on the use of $50 and $100 notes in gaming machines; restrictions on the number and type of gaming machines available in hotels and taverns; prohibition on gaming machines at the casino and a requirement that a social impact assessment, with public consultation, must be undertaken for any new gaming machine venues, for relocation of a gaming machine venue and for applications for additional gaming machines at existing venues.
As an industry, clubs generally accept their share of the social responsibility for gaming and do initiate appropriate measures to effectively combat the negative consequences that some people do unfortunately face. We know that the consequences are quite significant.
In conclusion, the club industry provides a valuable contribution to the community through the provision of social facilities for people to get together but, more importantly, as we have indicated, through the provision of community facilities. Without the revenue from gaming machines, it simply would not be possible for these community facilities to be available and for these clubs to continue to operate in the way that they are if poker machines were withdrawn or banned. The consequences for the club industry and, of course, for employment would be dire. None of the major clubs that have invested heavily, particularly in extensions, could actually survive to pay the significant loans that they have all taken.
The clubs undertake the task that they do in a responsible manner. They are well aware of issues around problem gambling and the difficulties that some of their patrons have in controlling their gambling activity. I do concede, as we all do, that this is a significant social issue. We work, and we work hard and advisedly to seek to deal with the implications of problem gambling for some people within this community. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (3.59): Studies on the impacts of gambling show that it can, and does, have a devastating impact on some people’s lives. But we also know that plenty of people enjoy putting a few dollars through the machine at the local club with no adverse impact on themselves or their family. As with alcohol use, the balance is a fine one. We are a free society and adults should be allowed to partake of legal pastimes without too much government intervention. However, as a society we also
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .