Page 5981 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The harms from problem gambling are enormous not just to those suffering from those who are addicted but, as I said, families, friends, colleagues and the community generally. It is time we properly recognised this and acknowledged it clearly and openly. It is appropriate that there is a defined fund for problem gambling that sits completely outside the community contribution scheme that licence holders participate in. That is what the bill achieves and that is why the Greens will not support this amendment.
I acknowledge that the community contributions made by clubs are a very important part of the funding that goes out to support many sporting organisations, charities and so forth. Those efforts are to be applauded, but I really think in this case it should not be counted as part of that. I note that many clubs pay above the seven per cent community contribution. They may well decide to redirect to the fund that above percentage amount that they put in.
I wanted to comment on Mr Smyth’s point around people using a variety of different ways to gamble. It is not just gaming machines. As he said, there is racing, online gambling and so forth. I do not think that we can hold back on moving forward to ensure that there is a proper amount of money in the fund to incorporate all of those other areas. I would very much welcome Mr Smyth coming forward in the future with further amendments that incorporate those other parts of the gaming sector.
I acknowledge that online gaming is very much of concern to us. As policy makers and legislators, it is a significant and difficult issue that we will need to face into the future. As far as the other ones that are outlined by Mr Smyth are concerned, I am happy to look at any future amendments and reforms that he would like to propose for inclusion in a scheme such as this.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.25): I am intrigued that Ms Hunter would get up and say, “Let’s not hold back on moving forward.” There are some sensible amendments here. There is an amendment relating to an advisory board. It is an advisory board; it is not a decision maker. It is an advisory board—for those who cannot spell “advisory” as it appears in the amendment. It is about saying, “What will the effect of things be on your particular industry?” The commission will still make the decision. Indeed, it goes beyond just advice on problem gambling. It has two functions. The first is on matters relating to problem gambling and the second is on any other matters relating to the gaming and racing industry. That is why it has the composition. We need to understand these effects.
Often there is no acknowledgment—certainly in this place in this debate—that the majority of these venues do the best they can to look after problem gamblers. In fact, they are very good at identifying these people because they deal with them face to face. Ms Hunter says, “There are a variety of ways.” If there are a variety of ways then why is this new tax only limited to the clubs? Why is it not being applied to the other industries that clearly, from the ANU report, contribute to the problem?
Ms Hunter says that I stood up and waved the report around as though I was using it in some dishonest sort of way, but then she goes back and quotes the report. She says,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video