Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I come to the detailed content of this bill, I would like to take up some issues raised by the member for Blair, who spoke before me. At the beginning of his speech he lectured this place about delivering budget surpluses, and he talked about consequences. I think it is important that we do not forget that the member for Blair was part of a government that promised the Australian people on literally hundreds of occasions that they would deliver a budget surplus, yet they actually delivered the largest deficits we have ever seen. As we come into government we inherit hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt. So, if there are consequences for what you do in this place, I think it is incumbent upon us as members to be honest with the Australian people, and the member for Blair was part of a government that promised one thing hundreds of times and delivered the largest deficits we have seen as a nation.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 is a multifaceted instrument addressing a range of significant social, welfare and workplace reforms. These changes are indicative of the coalition's plans not only to return Australia to economic prosperity but to restore a better supported, more functional and cohesive society, a nation where fiscal and social capital is spent wisely and not wasted as we saw with the previous, Labor government's penchant for tipping hundreds of billions of dollars into partly formed thought bubbles such as overpriced school halls and pink batts.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill announces this government's intention to apply sober perspective in its approach to problem gambling. The coalition does not for a moment back away from the contention that gambling is a major issue for some Australians, with those individuals and their families racked by trauma, upheaval and hardship of every description. But, at the same time, any response to gambling must recognise that many Australians gamble responsibly. Hardworking Australians trying to get ahead also rely on the sector for jobs, and legislation as it currently stands will place many venues under financial and regulatory stress.

In my electorate, these businesses include the Caboolture Sports Club, which has grown from humble origins to become the region's premier community club, last year being named Brisbane north's best club for the second time. The club opened its doors in 1997 after six local sporting groups representing softball, touch football, cricket, dog obedience, soccer and rugby union formed a single incorporation and raised the necessary finance. Since then the club has undergone rapid sporting and general membership growth. It boasts superb bistros, bars, shows and events, and the new gambling room features 275 of the newest gambling machines. However, Caboolture Sports Club proudly remains a not-for-profit organisation driven by rusted-on core values aimed at enhancing the community. The club each year gives more than $1 million in both cash and in-kind support to a variety of local service groups, sporting clubs, individuals, and charities. The Caboolture Sports Club takes responsible gambling seriously, with staff trained in the responsible service of gambling working in tandem with trained customer liaison officers who are on hand at all times to discuss help services available to their patrons.

This government is strongly of the view that counselling and research into problem gambling must be supported—not only in pursuit of effective help services for the gamblers but to better root out the causes of this social ill. This road map towards responsible gambling has been our consistent direction. It is a path with too much riding on it to be politicised. But duplicitous political expediency is exactly what underscored the previous Labor government's game of 'deal or no deal' with the Independent member for Denison. After the 2010 election, former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard agreed to legislate the member's proposals on mandatory precommitment technology for poker machines in exchange for his support. His backing was required for Labor to hang on to the office of Prime Minister.

Then, in a dramatic turn of events, the honourable member ripped up his contract to back the minority government when Ms Gillard refused to proceed with the policy lock, stock and barrel—yet another of the discarded pledges that littered the Rudd-Gillard era. 'We should be able to trust our politicians to keep their word,' the member for Denison said. 'Frankly, a deal is a deal.' The reason former Prime Minister Gillard covered herself in dishonour by walking away from her agreement of convenience was her realisation that mandatory precommitment was untenable in the eyes of industry experts and, for that matter, most Australians. Mandatory precommitment—forcing gamblers to subscribe to daily betting limits—is tantamount to a 'licence to play'.

Aside from its draconian application, it has been unmasked as an utterly flawed policy. Since the introduction of mandatory precommitment in Norway in 2009, the number of compulsive gamblers has almost doubled, with many of them shifting from poker machines to other forms of betting such as online gambling.

The coalition government's considered approach to gambling addiction is targeted at reducing the problems, not fanning them. We will not be enacting mandatory precommitment of electronic gambling machines. But we do support a national voluntary precommitment program as part of a broader plan to assist problem gamblers. We will work with clubs and gaming venues on a realistic timetable for the introduction of venue based, voluntary precommitment.

Another glaring inadequacy in the watered down version of mandatory precommitment that Labor retreated to was that it was thrust on the national agenda without adequate consultation with the state and territory governments that actually carry the primary jurisdictional responsibility for gambling and also receive the revenue. Now we are left with a national regulatory system rubbing uncomfortably against those of the states and territories.

But under the amendments in this bill the government will remove from the National Gambling Reform Act references to a proposed precommitment trial in the ACT and further cut duplication by restoring state and territory control over withdrawal limits on automatic teller machines in gaming venues. In slashing red tape, the coalition is determined to install an overarching best-practice gambling policy that will deliver real, meaningful and measurable support for problem gamblers.

The National Gambling Regulator established by Labor, notwithstanding the fact that every state and territory has gambling regulators, will be repealed under this bill. The levies which were to support its functions will also be scrapped. Our amendments to the National Gambling Reform Act reinforce our election commitment to remove unnecessary regulatory duplication and to work with industry, state and territory governments, academia and the community to sustain responsible gambling.

It is critical that any effective policy response to problem gambling be trained in all its forms—not just poker machines—or we run the risk, as we have seen in Norway, of chronic gamblers substituting one form of betting for another form. Funds freed from the shutdown of the National Gambling Regulator will be diverted into additional counselling and treatment services for Australians who have problems with their gambling and need understanding, genuine help and support.

This bill also proposes reforms to paid parental leave, or PPL, that will cut business a big break on the compliance burden they have suffered under the previous Labor government's scheme. Put simply, small businesses will no longer be required to do the government's hard yards on administering paid parental leave. The reform is not only significant, but emblematic of the coalition's drive to eliminate red tape and administrative costs that are costing the Australian economy at least $1 billion a year.

Currently, employers are forced to act as unpaid pay clerks after receiving an employee's paid parental leave entitlement from Centrelink. This system is unnecessarily complex and forces small businesses to bear the costs of the extra workload and of restructuring their payroll and accounting systems. Employers will still be able to opt in to manage PPL for their workers if both parties agree to do so. But, unless so specified, these changes will see parents paid their leave directly by the Department of Human Services from 1 March next year. This government knows that employers do not need extra paperwork, and they certainly do not need the cash-flow problems that have arisen as a result of the bureaucratic quagmire that Labor created with its parental leave scheme.

In fact, on top of the world's largest carbon tax, the departed Labor government instituted more than 40 other new or increased taxes and 21,000 new regulations. Local small businesses need the confidence to grow, invest and create jobs. But they cannot do this while being punitively taxed and regulated. The reason we still have people entering small business is that they desire autonomy and flexibility; they want to be the masters of their own fate. They certainly do not have human resources departments to cope with mountains of senseless paperwork. The more you stifle small business, the more you strike at innovation and creativity; you choke the potential of small businesses to become the big businesses of the future. That is why the coalition are steadfastly sticking to our program of dismantling unwarranted and excessive regulation. We know just how much it will help our local businesses to breathe and grow again.

These amendments to the administration of paid parental leave in this bill are an important antecedent to this government's new landmark paid parental leave scheme due to be given effect from 1 July 2015. Mothers will be provided with 26 weeks leave based on their actual wage instead of the current scheme paying 18 weeks at the national minimum wage. It means that more women will be eligible for PPL, that payments will be made over a longer period and that the overwhelming majority of women will receive a higher payment because it is based on real earnings, not an indiscriminate minimum wage. Those earning the average full-time salary for women will be more than $21,000 better off.

We are fast approaching a crossroads. Our ageing population and the rising associated costs of health, aged care and welfare pose an intergenerational challenge of epic proportions. Women entering the workforce triggered the biggest productivity gain of the past 30 years. Today, there is no equivalent labour force impetus lying untapped. But over the longer term this government's paid parental leave scheme can only help defend Treasury coffers from the buffeting that is coming with demographic change. The coalition's scheme has been designed to keep women in the workforce. If more people are in better jobs, earning higher real wages, then—remarkably!—they pay more tax. Effectively, our PPL scheme is a productivity increasing measure.

Finally, I would like to briefly turn the House's attention to a matter close to my heart—the implementation of a genuine National Disability Insurance Scheme. This bill imparts a layer of security for some of our most vulnerable. It introduces measures that ensure the funding for reasonable and necessary support under a participant's support plan can only be used for the purpose of purchasing support. In effect, the amendments make NDIS amounts protected. They prevent third parties from recovering debts through garnisheeing NDIS participants' bank accounts that are kept for the sole purpose of managing their support funding. The coalition has an unflinching support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We will deliver the announced spending on the scheme and honour the agreements in place between the Commonwealth and the states and territories for its full rollout.

As I have said before in this place, improving disability policy was one of the prime motivators for my getting into politics. I have a close friend, Pat, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. I worked as his participation assistant. I have seen first hand the obstacles and roadblocks thrown up by an overly bureaucratic disability system, one that is focused on process instead of outcome. Australia's late, great Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies envisaged a society made all the richer by its obligations to the most vulnerable. He said:

The purpose of all measures of social security is not only to provide citizens with some reasonable protection against misfortune but also to reconcile that provision with their proud independence and dignity as democratic citizens. The time has gone when social justice should even appear to take the form of social charity.

It is this spirit that the National Disability Insurance Scheme should capture, ensuring every Australian has equal opportunity to live a better, more dignified and more productive life. We all deserve our shot at the brightest possible future irrespective of circumstances. That is what the National Disability Insurance Scheme will deliver.

See this speech in context