Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the Speaker may be aware, I didn't get an opportunity to speak on this bill. I will try and confine my remarks to the amendments that's being proposed by the member for Banks—a sensible amendment—but I think it's also important that I give some context, as the author of the report which led to the bill being drafted in the first place.

I want to acknowledge the government for picking up this report. I was the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services that undertook the review into this issue because, as you would be aware, you can go to the track, but you can't gamble there using your credit card. If you put your credit card into an ATM at the track, at the TAB, at an RSL or at a surf club, you cannot use your credit card. That is for very good reason. State and territory governments acknowledge that a great deal of harm can be done when people use credit facilities to gamble.

The committee heard some very concerning, alarming evidence in its inquiry. Approximately $25 billion a year is lost by Australians when they gamble. If people want to gamble with their own money, that's a matter for them, of course. But when they gamble with borrowed money, particularly using a credit card, then they're paying north of 20 per cent interest on that credit card. Once upon a time, when you gambled and lost all your money, you walked out. But now you can use a credit card and you can keep going down; you can keep sinking and you can keep getting further into debt.

I have to say that, in terms of the evidence we received, the pushback that I got from the banking sector was just unbelievable, as was the pushback from the gambling sector. Anybody would think you were dealing with big tobacco in the eighties and nineties. They did not acknowledge that this was a problem. In fact, the peak body, Responsible Wagering Australia, changed their position, with a 180-degree turn in relation to the use of credit cards for gambling, the day before they were due to give evidence before the inquiry. So at least they came to their senses, but they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming.

And the banks were worse. The banks told me there was nothing that they could do. They were very cognisant of the damage that was being done in the community, but they refused to lift a finger. I think that that is a great shame. Shame on the banks, and shame on the Banking Association for doing very, very little. I congratulate the government for picking up on this issue, because it is an important issue.

The amendment that's proposed by the member for Banks is a very sensible amendment, and I would call upon the government to consider the amendment very closely. The amendment would remove the ability for the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, the ability for a member of the public to use some other form of currency. The amendment is to remove that power. The power that's currently contained within the bill is too broad. It's an overreach, effectively, by the government. The opposition calls upon the government to remove that position. No minister should have the ability to effectively do what the government is empowering the minister to do in this instance. It's overreach. It's quite a folly, in my view.

If the government wants to do this, it should come back and do it by way of a parliamentary amendment, if and when the opportunity arises. The minister, irrespective of who's sitting in that seat, should never have the ability to just make their own decision on this. It should go through the appropriate parliamentary processes.

See this speech in context