Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. Can I say that, from the outset, the coalition acknowledges that gambling is a major problem for some Australians, and that is why we on this side of the House support measures that will effectively tackle problem gambling and help to address and prevent gambling addiction. But any response to gambling problems must recognise that many Australians gamble responsibly. Indeed, the majority of Australians who have a gamble—whether they gamble on the poker machines or go to a casino or a club or have a wager at the races—gamble responsibly. In addition to that, many Australians also rely on the sector for their jobs.

Let me make it entirely clear that the coalition supports voluntary precommitment, as do all the states in Australia. Labor's approach depends on who they have done a political deal with and, it seems like, on the day of the week. The government's proposed legislative package has a sordid history. It had its origins in the political deal the Prime Minister did with the member for Denison to keep the keys to the Lodge; then there was the betrayal of the member for Denison and now the usual capitulation by the once-proud Labor Party to the Greens. We have seen it all before and, unfortunately for the Australian people, we are seeing it again tonight.

The coalition is deeply concerned about the lack of time the government has permitted for proper consultation and review of this legislation. We are concerned because we have seen before the damage that is caused by rushed legislation, the messes left in the wake of ramming bills through the parliament and the inevitable need to go back and fix the problems the government itself created.

Above all else, we add our voice to the calls of many others that legislation of such alleged significance for addressing gambling problems in our communities deserves much greater scrutiny and community consultation. That is why we believe that a more thorough inquiry should have been undertaken, and that is why we have tried in the other place, in the Senate, to have this bill referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration.

The reality is that despite all of the complexity, and despite the clear fact that the states and territories will be compelled to play a key role in this new duplication of regulation, the government has steamrolled ahead with no consultation with the other sectors of government. Of even more concern is the fact that the government has wilfully ignored all the warnings from the agencies and organisations who are the experts in this area.

As to the industry itself, the thousands of business owners and clubs involved in the hospitality sector have not only been ignored; they have been entirely locked out. There can be no clearer example of just what lengths this government will go to in order to cling to political survival and their Green lifeline.

These bills would see a further extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions. Gambling within Australia, for the past century, has always constitutionally been within state responsibilities. We truly believe that merely creating regulatory duplication and legislating in an area that falls within state responsibilities will do nothing to help problem gamblers.

The government has also sought to gloss over what will be a significant impost on clubs and pubs throughout Australia—that is, the cost of the implementation of this legislation. For the smaller venues in rural and regional Australia—areas the Labor government would know nothing about, given that they do not seem to represent any of them—these new laws will have a direct impact on financial viability and, in turn, on employment in many parts of Australia. Manufacturers and operators of machines have also warned of the dangers of widespread noncompliance and about the fact that the government's own time frames are quite simply unachievable.

To give an example of this, we have had promises and indications that there would be a trial in the ACT. From the very outset, the trial in the ACT has been problematic. Why? First of all, it was because the clubs in the ACT had not signed up to the trial. They had not signed up to the trial because the government had not come to the party in terms of actually providing the detail about what that trial would involve.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

In addition to that—and I appreciate the member for Hindmarsh—

See this speech in context