Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I present the committee's report, incorporating additional comments, entitled The prevention and treatment of problem gambling, together with the evidence received by the committee.

The committee received 60 submissions and heard from many witnesses. On the committee's behalf I thank all of those who assisted the inquiry, in particular those people who have battled gambling addiction and who bravely came forward to help us try to find a solution. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat, which did a fine job organising the inquiry and wading through an enormous amount of material.

In the first part of the report the committee's main findings centre on the need to increase the focus on the prevention of problem gambling and, in particular, the problem we have in Australia with the lack of balanced messaging on gambling and the excessive focus on personal responsibility.

The committee heard that the message of 'responsible gambling' reinforces the view that it is up to individuals to gamble responsibly and that, if they do not, there must be something wrong with them. The problem is that this can shame people into silence and create a barrier to seeking help, which may be one reason that so few people actually do seek help for a gambling problem—in fact, only eight to 17 per cent tend to seek help and, when they do so, it is only as a last resort, because they have reached crisis point. To remedy this, the committee makes a number of suggestions to improve the effectiveness of messaging, including better crafted messages, better targeted messages and tactics like changing messages frequently so they do not become stale.

The committee also heard about the need for the industry to take greater responsibility for the dangers of gambling products. For instance, in the area of staff training, the committee was concerned to hear that, despite showing obvious signs of problematic gambling in venues, none of the former problem gamblers who spoke to the committee had been approached by staff. This appears to be an admission that the current training, focused on staff interventions, is simply not working.

Although they are helpful for some gamblers, the committee also heard of the limitations and mixed experiences of self-exclusion programs. The committee heard that some programs are complex, that they require photos to be taken and that there may be a need to reapply after a period of time. Moreover, people cannot self-exclude from all venues at one time, so they may only need to travel a short distance to be able to gamble at another venue. No wonder the committee sees merit in state-wide self-exclusion programs.

The committee heard from a number of treatment providers in clinical and non-clinical settings as well as support groups and was able to consider a range of possible improvements to the current system from the perspective of those working in the sector. For instance, the committee is attracted to the concept of integrated treatment services to deal with the complications with comorbid conditions, to the need to integrate awareness of gambling addiction across the wider health profession to ensure better referral pathways and to improvements to qualifications and training.

Finally, as with its previous inquiries, gambling research and data collection was highlighted to the committee. Areas requiring attention include: a much better evidence base and the importance of independent research and transparency of funding.

There are two chapters of additional comments. There is one by me in which I outline my concerns with the current state of gambling reform and the very real likelihood of no reform because of the Greens' unwillingness to compromise. Again I call on the Greens to understand the importance of establishing the precedent of the value of this to future and more substantial reform, and again I call on the government to table its reforms and to use the parliament as the place to argue for them and to fight for support, as it seems it is prepared to do with the wheat bill.

There is also a chapter by Senators Xenophon, Di Natale, Madigan and me outlining areas where we think the committee report does not go far enough—in particular, the need for a legislated duty of care. Frankly, despite all the claims from the industry about staff training and wanting to assist problem gamblers, the committee heard repeatedly from problem gamblers who gambled at the same venues for extended periods—sometimes years—and who were known to staff but never approached about their excessive gambling. Putting a legal onus on venues to protect such people would, we believe, go a long way to cleaning up an industry more beholden to its commercial self-interest than to the public interest. I commend the report to the House.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

See this speech in context