Page 5560 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in the space of nine years. That is certainly well beyond population growth and demonstrates, in our view, that current arrangements are not achieving satisfactory results. In addition, Lifeline has seen a 40 per cent increase in problem gambling clients, with 75 per cent of this increase being attributed to gaming machine patrons.
Another alarming statistic that the ACT Council of Social Services—ACTCOSS—included in their submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry is that ACT gamblers appeared to be younger than the national average. In the ACT, 25 per cent of what ACTCOSS described as regular gamblers were young adults aged 18 to 24 years compared to 17.8 per cent nationally. Between 26 and 36 per cent of problem gamblers in the ACT were aged less than 25. In addition, their average incomes were low, and approximately 30 per cent were on very low incomes or receiving some form of government benefit. The ACTCOSS view overall was that ACT problem gamblers represent a highly vulnerable group in terms of their age, income and proportion of their income directed to gambling.
ACTCOSS also reported that, in recent years, the contributions going to community sector organisations, including those to problem gambling, declined from $2.047 million in 2004-05 to $1.55 million in 2008-09. The federal government has now committed to a number of harm minimisation measures which have been discussed already in this debate and which will roll out over the next few years. The changes are significant and no doubt will go some way to addressing the problem and reducing the harms. I also imagine there are quite some debates to go on regarding exactly what the final outcomes of those initiatives will look like.
What we are dealing with today is what happens once the problem gambler leaves the venue—because many of the federal initiatives are directed at what might be called in-venue activities—and he or she and their families and friends, are forced to confront the reality of the inevitable losses sustained. The federal initiatives are entirely consistent with and would work very well with the scheme being proposed today.
Our gaming venues in the ACT allocate a sum of $407,516 out of a net profit of close to $100 million to pick up the pieces when the problem gambler leaves the venue. The Greens do not believe that this is adequate or acceptable if we are serious about tackling problem gambling. This bill provides a reasonable level of financial support for those charged with addressing problem gambling by requiring gaming licence holders to contribute 0.75 per cent of their gross gaming machine revenue to the problem gambling assistance fund administered by the Gambling and Racing Commission.
As has been touched on, we believe this will deliver around $1.3 million, an increase of close to $900,000 on what has previously been allocated. To effectively tackle the issue of problem gambling in the ACT we need to ensure there is an adequate and secure commitment to fund counselling support and other treatment services. Increased funding as proposed under this bill will also broaden the scope of services provided and ensure those with the skills to provide these services remain with the sector.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video