|
| Oral submission to the Government Administration Select Committee on the Responsible Gambling Bill I, like you, over the past four sitting days on the Responsible Gambling Bill, have listened to many submissions from almost every perspective imaginable. The recurring theme which has been almost universal has been that gaming machines are a valuable community resource and most submitters want what they perceive to be their share of those resources. ﾕ Existing recipients want continued access to grants; ﾕ Aspiring recipients want access to grants; ﾕ Major trusts want to preserve their position as cost effective, significant, community fund-raisers; ﾕ Hotel-based trusts want to continue their cost-effective contribution to the community with a very local focus; ﾕ Local Authorities want access to the proceeds, to administer sites, and get paid for doing it; ﾕ The TAB welcomes their access to gaming machine proceeds and machine operations; ﾕ Lotto is feeling the heat in terms of providing a competitive product; ﾕ The anti-gambling fraternity want restrictions on gaming but access to proceeds; ﾕ Anti-gambling lobbyists want more money for research and treatment which they believe they are well placed to deliver; ﾕ Operators have been looking for a fair deal, a level playing field; ﾕ There have been some submitters who have perhaps been at the wrong Select Committee; ﾕ And lastly, most submitters haven't read the Bill. I know each of you have read our submission so I don't propose to repeat it or indeed repeat what you have already heard. However I have a number of questions which the Association would like the Select Committee to consider as you prepare your recommendation on this Bill, to ensure that despite the disparate submissions by self interest groups, ourselves included, that a consistent, fair, reasonable and an Act which is good public policy, results. If you will bear with me, please consider the following questions: Questions for the Select Committee 2. Why are Lotto and racing punters treated as adults free to make responsible choices while gaming machine players need protection in terms of prize limits, limits on machine numbers and limits on machine locations? 3. Why is it that club members are deemed to be able to 'handle' 30 machines while the public in hotels and taverns are not considered to be able to 'handle' more than 9 on new sites, and 18 on existing sites? 4. What is the rationale of gaming machine proceeds being used for stake money for horse racing but not for motor racing, golf tournaments etc? 5. Why are clubs permitted to spend all their proceeds from gaming machines on and for their members who generate the funds, while such a return to the hotel patrons who similarly generate gaming proceeds are specifically excluded? 6. Where is the evidence that electronic monitoring will actually increase the total money paid out when machine bankings and machine readings are already manually monitored and independently audited by DIA and any shortfall made up by the site operator? 7. Why is it that gaming machine sites require community consent while Lotto and TAB outlets do not? 8. Will communities who veto gaming machines in their area also be excluded from applying for grants from other areas? 9. Where is the evidence that a quadruple increase in the problem gambling levy is required 'after' the passage of the Responsible Gambling Bill which is designed to limit any increase in problem gambling? 10. What has the increase in gaming machine duty, by $30 million to $120 million, over the last twelve months, been spent on and why has this not been used to address problem gambling issues, given that at its introduction gaming duty was to compensate for the social cost of gambling? 11. If there has been such an increase in problem gambling, why has this 'windfall increase in gaming duty' not been applied to address the problem now rather than wait for the $30m increase in the problem gambling levy over 3 years? 12. Why is it that a suspension or cancellation of a liquor licence by the Liquor Licensing Authority can be appealed to the High Court but a similar suspension or cancellation of a gaming licence can not? 13. Why is it that the return to players for Lotto is 60%; racing 78%; and gaming machines 88%, and does this reflect the relative popularity of the different forms of gaming? 14. Why is promoting community fund raising through Lotto and racing products permitted and seen as acceptable while promoting fund raising through gaming machines is not? Conclusion I'm happy to answer any questions. Bruce H Robertson |
|
