Page 5563 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Frankly, despite the efforts of those trying their best to address this issue, we are not doing enough. There is no shortage of evidence in the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into gambling released in February this year that problem gambling is a significant social cost in our society. Their estimate is that this cost across Australia amounts to at least $44.7 billion a year.
In the ACT, in the last financial year $407,516 was allocated by the clubs to address problem gambling, and I acknowledge those clubs that did contribute to Clubcare. The fact of the matter is that it is not sufficient to address the problem and it is simply not appropriate for an organisation to be charged with reducing something it is also benefiting from. It does not matter who it is, whether it is a poker machine licensee or a community group or any regulatory body. As a community, we do not accept persons with an interest in the outcome making a decision that affects them in these particular circumstances.
Mr Smyth has said that nobody out there in the clubs in any way supports this going forward. In the Canberra Times yesterday Mr House said, “We don’t have an in-principle objection to providing further funding to address problem gambling.” Obviously, there are some differences on particular points and we will be having further discussions around that. I repeat: Mr House said, “We don’t have an in-principle objection to providing further funding.” Maybe Mr Smyth would like to go back and read that newspaper article.
That is exactly what this bill is about—seeking additional funding at the source of the problem. Compared to the Australian average, gambling expenditure in the ACT is predominantly on gaming machines. Gaming machines are in clubs, pubs and taverns, and Australian gaming statistics show that gaming machine expenditure represents 83 per cent of the ACT gaming expenditure. The Australian average is 68 per cent.
Figures I have quoted when tabling this bill show that problem gamblers account for around 42 per cent of gaming machine revenue, as just mentioned by Mr Rattenbury—that is, $41 million of ACT gaming machine revenue came from problem gamblers, people who are addicted to gambling who do not make a rational choice about whether or not to put their money in the slot. It is hardly unreasonable that approximately $1.2 million goes to providing interventions, supports and services to problem gamblers and those people who are impacted.
Our present rate of providing problem gambling support out of the $407,000 allocated under the Clubcare arrangement 1ast year is $67.92 per head to assist over 6,000 gamblers. These are the problem gamblers who contribute $41 million of ACT gaming revenue. So $67.92, just under $70 per head, was available to help them and their families overcome this problem, and yet they put in $41 million. I think we all accept that this money does not go far in addressing the types of problems these people are suffering and that much more needs to be done.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken in relation to problem gambling and more research has been published since I tabled this bill. The findings from this research, like the other research undertaken in recent years, are not good.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video