Alexander Marc: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7854] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity that I have had to comment on this bill. I want to make a few preliminary comments about the bill before I get into some of the changes that the select committee made to it and some of the changes that United Future would still like to see. No one would dispute that there is a need for an overhaul of the legislation. The present regime is not only confusing and spread thinly amongst too many Acts but also it has become obsolete and is no longer relevant. The law has become the business end of a donkey and fails to deal with the technological innovations and forms of gambling that now dominate the sector. 
 United Future is now pleased to see the consolidation of gaming statutes into a single integrated piece of legislation that entails a coordinated complementary industry-wide approach. Under this bill all forms of gambling are now consolidated into five classes to cover casinos gaming machines lotteries housie nights organised raffles and so on. As far as class 1 and class 2 gambling are concerned I have to say it is pleasing to see that we can now hold an office sweepstake on Melbourne Cup Day without the politically correct brigade preventing us from having the simple pleasure of placing a bet and enjoying ourselves at least once a year. 
The bill seeks to limit opportunities for crime and gambling and to ensure fairness and integrity in gaming. The bill also intends to maximise profits of gaming to the community as well as for the first time introduce an element of community involvement in the location of new gaming venues. Possibly the most contentious issue in the bill has been the future of the non-casino gaming industry. Concerns relating to the casino moratorium have been sidelined compared to the amount of interest and passion that the pokies seem to have generated. I suspect like most of my colleagues that we have been bombarded by lobby groups and representatives from associated sectors that rely on pokie money local government representatives sports groups pro-gaming lobbyists anti-gaming lobbyists people who want less pokie regulation and people who want fewer pokies. 
My colleague Judy Turner recently received a letter from a local organisation in her area expressing concern at the proposed tax increases on gaming profits—in this case from the local neighbourhood support group. This is hardly an isolated incident. Members of this House will no doubt have been flooded with letters from all sorts of community organisations that are now funded in part from gaming-machine profits. Let us be clear: United Future is in no way opposed to this. Money should go to such organisations. But is it not more than a bit disconcerting that organisations that provide some of the most basic services that one would expect in any First World society—emergency services like St John Ambulance emergency helicopters and air ambulances or research into lung disease and cancer—must now rely on profits from the gaming sector? The non-casino gaming-machine sector has grown rapidly over the last decade. Gaming machines have increased from 7700 in 1994 to 25221 as of this June. Today there are 129 societies and 579 clubs that together raised about $770 million last year. That figure represents approximately a 30 percent increase in only a year on the amount of money lost by gamblers and raised for the community. This increase has had an unfortunate social cost. 
The Committee on Problem Gambling Management a cross-sector body representative of all industry interests reports that in 2001 5000 new clients sought help for problem gambling the bulk of whom were addicted to pokie machines. More recently the problem gambling helpline has reported a 21 percent increase just in the number of callers prompting an extension to its services so as to be available 24 hours a day. We are pleased to see that counterbalancing that the bill does promote harm minimisation and ways of addressing problem gambling. It is all too easy for some just to condemn the machine operators and condemn society’s trusts and clubs as money-hungry operators known only for their uncaring infliction of gambling problems and dodgy financial practices. The industry is far from perfect—it admits as much itself. But several developments have reshaped the industry in major ways. There have been licensing changes by the Department of Internal Affairs. There has been the impact of foreknowledge of the upcoming provisions of this bill. There has been the provision of the voluntary code of practice by the Charity Gaming Association. Its members can account for about two-thirds of all machines and it has already meant a more accountable and transparent process than the doomsayers suggest. 
This bill is intended to ensure that these standards are enhanced and adhered to right across the sector. So instead of condemning the operators it might pay to keep in mind all those sporting community emergency service and cultural groups that benefit from the proceeds of the industry as we might otherwise suffer a lacuna in the fabric of our civil society. Certainly no Government could fill the void. It is my view that we must strike a reasonable balance between these two competing interests. We cannot ban gaming machines yet we must maintain a sensible and responsible approach to some of its more harmful effects. United Future has worked hard and will continue to work hard with the Government to that end. 
The Government Administration Committee made a number of changes to the bill some of them good and some that could have been a little better. We are pleased to see that the provisions of accountability and transparency between societies and pub operators have been reinforced. We applaud the extension of guidelines for territorial authorities to define the scope they and their communities have to play in determining the location of future gaming sites. I also note the work the committee did on ensuring accountability in the grants process as well as the new requirement for charities to publish how their grants are allocated. If a charity frivolously funds the local league club’s trips to play in Aussie it will soon become apparent. 
In summary United Future supports the second reading of this bill but further support will be conditional on changes brought in during the Committee stage. We definitely flag our concerns with regard to a fair and open process for determining the problem gambling levy; no centralisation of profits—money spent locally should be returned locally—and greater independence of the gaming commission. United Future considers that the committee acted unconstructively with regard to banknote acceptors without any opportunity for submissions at all. As a consequence we would like to see a common-sense approach to banknote acceptors and therefore push for its inclusion. There are a number of issues that we would still like to progress with the Government and we will be progressing them with the Government. We will have a look at the bill during the Committee stage to see what can be done and that will basically determine our future support for this bill. When the chips are down members can always bank on United Future to bring in common sense.