Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are in the midst of an extraordinary expansion in legalised gambling. However, to suggest that we can adequately address the issue of problem gambling by placing a national cap on electronic gaming machines, although very well intentioned, is misguided and perhaps even counterproductive. Australians, it has been said, will bet on two flies crawling up a wall. We are the only nation that suspends our national parliament to watch a horse race, and today Australians have more opportunities to gamble than ever before.

The internet has changed the face of gambling, for everyone with an iPhone in effect carries a mobile casino in their pocket, and anyone can be playing online poker or placing a bet within seconds, with a few taps of their phone, anywhere. You simply cannot cap the internet. Today, for those that enjoy a punt on the gallops, the trots or the dogs, there is no such thing as a last race. You can bet on races 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with race meetings held across the world. It is not only horses and dogs; you can bet on just about every sporting event on the planet. You can bet on beauty pageants. You can bet on the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest and you can bet on the TV show The Voice. There are even countless betting opportunities for political junkies. I can bet on whether the Speaker will return before the next election—where the odds have the 'no' at a short priced favourite of $1.20. Sportsbet are even taking bets on whether Labor will achieve their forecast budget surplus for 2012-13. Given Labor's track record, it is not a surprise that Sportsbet have the government failing to achieve a surplus a very short priced favourite, paying just $1.40.

While there have been discussions about bans on live betting—that is, where events are in progress—what event is more alive in our country at the moment than the Labor leadership tussle? This is also something you can bet online on. Currently, Centrebet is taking bets on 'anyone other than Julia' to lead the Labor Party at the next election, paying just $1.30. And there can be no greater example of how divided and dysfunctional this government has become than having a bet which pays $2.30 on the person described by his own side as 'a psychopath with a giant ego' as the favourite to lead Labor at the next election. I also note with interest that Sportsbet have my learned friend the member for Grayndler paying the very generous odds of 100 to one.

These examples are not to trivialise the issue of problem gambling; this is a very serious issue. But with so many gambling opportunities available today, to suggest a national cap on electronic gaming machines is simply misguided. So what should we do ? I suggest there is an alternative approach. First, we should recognise that gambling is a genuine source of entertainment for many people and then we should ask ourselves what consumer protections and informational disclosures should be provided to gamblers, in exactly the same manner as we do with consumers in other sectors of the economy.

This is what Professor Kurt Eggert argues in a paper titled Truth in gaming: toward consumer protection in the gambling industry.Professor Eggertnotes that poker machines are inherently misleading in design. In fact, the 1984 patent which forms the basis of the modern day poker machine states:

It is important to make a machine that is perceived to present greater chances of payoff than it actually has within the legal limitations that the games of chance must operate in.

Put simply, the patent behind our modern poker machines admits that our poker machines are misleading in design. The design of our modern electronic poker machine is the equivalent of a loaded dice or a stacked deck of cards. Unlike traditional forms of gambling such as blackjack or roulette, the odds of winning are not inherent in the structure of the game and can be manipulated by the owners of those machines without the consumer being any wiser. Electronic gambling machines are one of the few sectors of the economy where there is a complete absence of price competition.

Professor Eggert recommends that the best way to reduce the incidence of problem gambling is to address that complete absence of price disclosure for poker machines. If we were really serious about addressing the issues of problem gambling, we should be following the recommendations of Professor Eggert to ensure that prices are disclosed to consumers of gambling and are not allowed to be maintained under the current hidden veil of secrecy.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context