Page 282 - Week 01 - Thursday, 29 November 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
minimisation measure is a bad outcome. Common sense tells us that a problem gambler only needs one poker machine to lose all their money and the idea that we should not be doing something to help limit the losses of those who gamble in smaller venues I simply cannot agree with.
The prevalence of problem gambling in Canberra is well known thanks to the prevalence study undertaken about two years ago. We know that there is a real problem in our community and that it extends beyond those individuals themselves. It affects their family, friends and work colleagues as well. Problem gambling is a very complicated issue and it will need a whole range of measures put in place to address it and reduce the harms that it causes. Winding back on one of the few measures that we have in place is the wrong move and the Greens will not support it.
MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Disability, Children and Young People, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (11.42), in reply: The Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2012 addresses an error that was introduced during the debate on the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill in the Legislative Assembly on 23 August this year. Just in case we have not picked it up, it was an error introduced by Mr Smyth—so thank you for being so candid about that.
This bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 27 November 2012. An error in amendment 18, regarding the definition of small-scale relocation amendments, in effect provides that the Gambling and Racing Commission will have discretion to not require a full social impact assessment or a social impact statement for proposals to move up to 20 machines, rather than the 10 that was intended.
The error in amendment 29, regarding the number of machines a licensee may operate before being subject to the ATM withdrawal limit, in effect provides that the limit does not apply to a licensed premise if the licence authorises the operation of 10 or less gaming machines, rather than 20 or less machines as intended.
It is clear that the amendment was intended to ensure that the ATM withdrawal limit did not apply to smaller gaming venues. This bill puts in place the arrangements to which the Assembly had agreed during debate. I thank the Assembly for dealing with this matter in such a quick manner.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.44): As I mentioned earlier, I will be opposing this clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video