![]() |
Legislative
Council |
|
![]() |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
CASINO (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL
In committee. (Continued from 26 October. Page 258.)One White
Clause 5.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Democrats, I support this clause. I have argued for sometime that, while I opposed initially the introduction of gaming machines that, so long as they are with us, we do have the capacity to limit their capacity to do harm, that we can limit the harm done by them by variation in the games and in the way they operate, in a whole range of ways. That is what this clause does. I think it does ensure that the person is actively going to feed in coins which they have in their possession. Whilst there may be some talk about some smartcards that may at sometime in the future be able to do certain things, when they actually have those things we can come back and debate that. But to not support the clause on the suggestion that there might be a smartcard in the future that might minimise harm is neglecting the other risks in terms of the use of notes, the use of credit cards, and other things, potentially I suppose, in gaming machines. So I support this clause on the basis that so long as we have gaming machines there are some things we can do which are harm minimisation approaches, and I see this clause fitting into that category.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT:
This is about trying to help people to control impulses that they cannot control. The very act of having to go somewhere else to change a note—The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. You cannot control all impulses. The ideal situation for gaming machine operators is for a gambler to hook his net account up to the gaming machine and then be offered a series of choices quickly to which he will say, `Yes, I'll go for it'. That is the way gaming machines work. The fact that under this amendment you are required to use a coin at least creates a small chance that, if a person has used up their current supply of money and they want to continue playing, they will have to go and get another set of coins. So, it gives a person half a chance of not being impulsive.
The Hon. Nick Xenophon referred to many provisions in the other bill. We need all sorts of circuit-breakers and requirements so that when you have a big win you are not offered double or nothing. The machines should spit out the money and then you should have to physically put it back in if you want to continue gambling. There are many things that we can do about these games. Companies employ teams of psychologists to work out how best to get into the minds of these people who cannot control their impulses.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That is right. Theoretically, you can vote only once, but unfortunately with poker machines—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, Queensland is different. In relation to gaming machines, the psychologists have done a brilliant job. The very success of the 1¢ and 2¢ machines illustrates that. I am astonished that people who support gaming machines are not prepared to acknowledge that things have been done, that there has been further modification of gaming machines (even while they have been in this state) to make them more addictive than when they first arrived. There does not seem to be a commitment to say, `Okay, they are a form of entertainment and, yes, they can create jobs, but there are things we can do to allow those two things to happen and also enable us to minimise the harm.'
I am astonished that there has been virtually no support from the people who support gaming machines at least to acknowledge that harm does occur and to engage in genuine harm minimisation strategies other than a token gamblers' fund. I use the word `token', because nothing else has been done or attempted by the proponents of gaming machines.