Page 1665 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


Another issue that needs to be considered as part of any poker machine reforms is increasing the transparency and accessibility of the social impact assessment process. For those who are not familiar with it, a social impact assessment allows for objective analysis of the economic and social impacts of introducing new or additional poker machines into local communities. If a club wants to buy more poker machines or if there is a new club to be established in a growing district of the city, the purpose of this analysis is to look in advance at the impact that such a move will have. Social impact assessments are subject to a six-week public consultation period following which the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission will make a formal assessment and decision.

However, I recently became aware that the process for members of the public to view and respond to social impact assessments is not accessible and is therefore not being utilised. Social impact assessments are important for assessing the impact of poker machines on local communities and yet it is extremely difficult for members of the local community to be aware of, and contribute to, these assessment processes. As it currently stands, the documents must be accessed in person at the Gambling and Racing Commission’s office. No copies of the materials can be taken away and, of course, the office is open only during business hours. Once a decision is made there is also no requirement for the commission to publish the reasons for its decision or to notify those who made submissions about the outcome. The whole process is hard to access and discourages community involvement.

Today I am calling for greater transparency in this area, and there are number of ways this could be achieved including, as a starting point, placing an electronic copy of each social impact assessment on the Gambling and Racing Commission’s website. While not perfect, the method for considering development applications is an example of a more transparent and accessible public consultation process. Applications for poker machines should be considered with a similar amount of scrutiny. I suspect that there is some element of history attached to this, that this is an old process that has not been updated. Now is the time to do so. All Canberrans should be able to contribute to important decisions that affect their communities.

Today’s motion calls on the government to take action on these two relatively straightforward changes. This should be the beginning of further reforms to tackle problem gambling in the ACT.

We would also like to see the introduction of the harm minimisation measures recommended by the Productivity Commission, including mandatory pre-commitments, $1 bets and limits on how much cash an individual can load into a machine. Currently, with no restrictions, people using poker machines where the maximum bet is $10 can lose up to $1,500 an hour. In contrast, a $1 maximum bet limit would limit hourly losses to around $120. This is a real harm minimisation measure that will protect people who are at risk of addictive gambling behaviour.

We know that poker machines are designed to manipulate people by associating sounds and lights with pleasure. Through repeated near misses and losses disguised as wins, poker machines trick players into thinking they are winning by creating positive


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video