 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 29 November. Page 672.)
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When last we considered a freeze I expressed the view that I do not believe that a cap in itself is of any special value other than if it is put in place to give us `thinking time'. I do not know what the consequences of changing the rules regarding gaming machines would be, but it would depend on what those changes were. You might decide to place restrictions not necessarily on the numbers of machines but on the games or a range of other things.
For a person to make an investment and have the rules change is always extraordinarily difficult. To be considering a change in rules, have new people come in and even more people affected by a change in rules I do not think is a good thing. A decision could be made for a reduction in numbers, but I do not really think so.
I opposed the initial introduction of gaming machines but, as I see it, they will be with us for some time to come. If we are to reduce the damage done by gaming machines, we will need an alteration to the game and the operation of the machines themselves. Those sorts of things have been discussed in this place in the past and I have raised them on previous occasions, in particular issues such as limiting the size of bets, the frequency of bets, modifying the game so they do not build up credits, and spitting out the coins regularly so you have to make a conscious decision to reinvest. There are a whole range of things that one might do to try to make the games less addictive.
I am not sure whether the suggestion has been put on the record in this place, but a Labor member in the other place suggested that, if the Treasurer's smiling face came up and said `Thank you' every time a person lost, thanking them for their kind donation, that would be a guaranteed way of making gaming machines less attractive. We may consider that as a worthwhile path to follow, although the hotels might complain because it would be driving away customers and not just slowing them down.
My view has always been that a cap in itself is of no special value other than if you are using it for a chance to reassess the situation, which is long overdue. People keep talking about it, but it does not happen. The Treasurer indicated in an earlier debate today that this is the real thing-that come February-March we will have a broad ranging debate and that we will come to grips with this. I welcome that, and I think that a temporary freeze, a temporary cap, whilst that debate goes on, makes sense.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have indicated on a number of occasions that I am prepared to support a cap as a temporary measure, which is what this amendment will achieve, to give us the breathing space to take a close look at the regulation of gambling and, in particular, methods of harm minimisation. It is interesting to see that the numbers in this place have changed on this matter: last time, we were very short of numbers, and now we are not. I noted in an earlier debate today that the government had the chance to have permanent school fees but actually ended up with a temporary fee arrangement. I just hope that a temporary freeze has not been exchanged for temporary fees. I must say that it does look a bit that way. I will look closely to see whether or not there is a genuine commitment, particularly by government members, on this issue or whether we will have what we have had on previous occasions, and that is window dressing.
