Page 4960 - Week 13 - Thursday, 2 November 2017

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

---

It is highly likely that none of the current manufacturers will accept the job of developing such a system because those in the space tell me that is not something they are keen on developing. They tell me it would cost at least another half a million dollars. We are talking about starting this process $22,000,000 in the red. When you combine that starting point with a mandatory precommitment system which, experience shows, will just stop recreational gamblers from participating, and $2 maximum bets—a bet limit which is far under what clubs less than half a kilometre away are offering—when you do the maths does anyone believe we would see any development proceed here? That is all I have.

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (5.09): Briefly on Mr Ramsay’s amendment, it is no secret that that is not everything we wanted but, as I touched on earlier in line with what the Productivity Commission has told us, a $2 limit will certainly make some useful inroads into reducing harms. In terms of where we started this discussion this is a major breakthrough in harm minimisation and bet limits in the territory. The $2 limit is an 80 per cent reduction from the current limit. It cuts the maximum loss rate from $1,200 an hour to $240 an hour and it provides protection for those most vulnerable in the system. Combined with the mandatory precommitment, this will set the best standard for harm minimisation in Australia. That is something the ACT community can be proud of and it is something members in the chamber who will support this package can be proud of in terms of making serious steps when it comes to harm minimisation.

As we have discussed many times in this place before, there is no single solution to problem gambling, but you can take concrete steps. Mr Parton asked the question: what is the point? I have a couple of thoughts on that. The point is that we can make a difference for some of the most vulnerable in our community—people who have gambling addictions and problems that see them losing money they cannot afford to lose. To be honest, the better question is: why wouldn’t you do this? You have the chance, why wouldn’t you seek to make a concrete difference for some people in our community? That is the basis on which the Greens will support the amendment brought forward by Mr Ramsay, the attorney.

Question put:

That Mr Ramsay’s amendments to Mr Rattenbury’s proposed amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question resolved in the affirmative.

---

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