Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to move this motion tonight. In researching my speech, I had a look through the AHA’s magazine. I noticed that one of the newest electronic gaming machines advertised in there has a handbag hook listed as one of its selling points. This handbag hook is an indicator of how important game design is to the industry and how important it is to the debate on problem gambling. The hook did not appear by accident; it is the product of consumer research and industry innovation. It shows that this industry is very focused on its customer, very focused on what makes the customer stay or go from a gaming machine. I have no idea about the effect of this handbag hook on problem gambling. It may have no effect at all.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a service.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be a service, as the member for Braddon says, but it might also make the customer stay at the machine a bit longer, helping to create or exacerbate a problem.

The Tasmanian Gaming Commission report of 2008 found, on page 6, that machine producers are known to invest heavily in R&D to make their machines more profitable for venue operators. Features are developed and refined to attract gamblers to the machines and keep them engaged with the machines. Vulnerable gamblers are captured by these specifically designed features. This report bells the cat, because the design of these machines is at the heart of the problems they create for the community. And, make no mistake, they create a great deal of harm to problem gamblers: loss of income, debt, family breakdown, low productivity at work, theft, bankruptcy, suicide—all results of these machines. The Statewide Gambling Therapy Service in my electorate has collected statistics on the people they treat. Numbers seeking treatment have increased from 23 to 134 per year over the past three years. Thirty-six people who were treated last year were spending over $1,500 a week on their addiction prior to their treatment, and the majority of clients were spending more than $500 a week. The median figure for the losses of these gamblers was $30,000 before they sought treatment. Behind all of those figures are personal stories of addiction, loss, shame and deep regret, and all of those people have taken the personal responsibility of getting treatment.

Meanwhile, I think parliaments across Australia—governments and oppositions alike—fail to take into account evidence that has been found in many reports that the design of gaming machines is directly related to problem gambling. I do not think we should sit on our hands. We should act on areas of design like reinforcement schedules, spin rates, the appearance of the near miss, multiple-line betting, reducing maximum bet levels, the presence of note acceptors, clear displays of losses as well as wins, visual and sound effects, the design of venues and even small things like the handbag hook. All these design features need to be up for examination to find a comprehensive set of protections for the community. Even the industry’s own research, the 2001 report by Blaszczynski, Sharpe and Walker, stated on page 11:

The present study found evidence to support the view that the reduction of maximum bet size from $10 to $1 on electronic gaming machines would be a potentially effective harm minimisation strategy for a small proportion of players.

I am informed that on some machines you can play $9 per spin by betting on multiple lines and that the average spin rate on these machines is three seconds, so you can lose $180 per minute, or $10,000 an hour. So this recommendation made by the industry’s own commissioned research is very important, but unfortunately it has been ignored, as so many reports around the country have been ignored. There have been reports from South Australia, and in Tasmania there has been a lot of research throughout the industry over the years. Every day we ignore these reports and the effects of machine design, people are placed at financial and emotional risk.

One cannot predict the future. Politicians rarely make guarantees. The one thing I can guarantee to this House is that somewhere in my electorate tonight someone will leave a gaming venue feeling ashamed, desperate and remorseful, all because of addiction to these machines. They have a responsibility to get help, but we have a responsibility to get the industry’s hooks out of their handbags.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Electronic gambling is a scourge, as all gambling is a scourge that is bad for families and takes advantage of human frailty. I therefore welcome the motion brought forward by the member for Wakefield, which addresses the issue of problem gambling, the proliferation of electronic gaming machines in communities and the way these machines are designed. The motion also raises the inadequate legislation and regulation of these electronic gaming machines and the inadequate treatment services available, as well as calling upon state governments and the gambling industry to work together to limit the harm caused to problem gamblers by these electronic gaming machines.

Gambling is the best example of the genie being let out of the bottle. It is like the Ebola virus, with serious financial mortality for those who are afflicted with gambling addiction. The great thing for my state of Western Australia is that successive state governments have rejected the proliferation of gaming machines beyond Burswood casino. Consequently the state of Western Australia has never relied on the revenue generated by gambling machines in licensed clubs across the state, and long may that be the case. I am certain that under the Barnett Liberal government there will not be any change to that policy.

With regard to electronic gaming machines—which I think of as, as we used to call them, poker machines—there are, sadly, a lot of people in this country who make an all too regular pilgrimage to put money into the machines in many places around the country, including the casino in Perth. They primarily do so in the many licensed clubs in the other states around the country. In response to this criticism, licensed clubs talk about how much money they have put back into the community, and there is no doubt that junior sport has benefited from the money that has flowed. But I ask: at what cost? Junior sport in the eastern states should not be built on the financial wreckage of the families brought down by gambling and human weakness.

A telling statistic comes from the 1999 productivity study into gambling, which suggests that 43 per cent of the revenue from gambling comes from problem gamblers. I recall that many years ago, on a visit to the Wrest Point casino in Hobart, I put $20 on the chocolate wheel and promptly lost it. I felt bad, and I will recall that incident for the rest of my life. I therefore have never gambled again, and clearly I am not an addicted gambler, but many are. It also seems to be the case that so many of these people cannot afford to lose their money. I put this down to two things: an addiction to gambling coupled with the so often misplaced belief in luck. More people in this country should come to the stark realisation that there is no such thing as luck. Achievement is based on hard work and the taking of opportunities. No benefit is going to fall in one’s lap as a result of luck; benefits come about only because of the specific action taken by the individual. In considering this motion I am torn between my fundamental belief in the principle of personal responsibility and the need for government action to take away the risk posed by these electronic gambling machines.

That brings me to what must be done. It does not look like any of the state governments are going to take action on this issue, but there are some things that could be done. Firstly, they could withdraw the licences for all gaming machines outside casinos. If not, they could take ATMs out of casinos, licensed premises and clubs. They could also remove EFTPOS and credit card machines out of anywhere apart from the restaurant facilities in these places. With that, they could make sure that none of the electronic gaming machines accept banknotes. These measures are about harm elimination, not harm reduction. But these are the harder measures, whereas some form of tax imposed on the industry or treatment programs and other reactions to the outcomes of problem gambling just deal with the symptoms, not the underlying issue.

So far I have talked about the actions available to state governments, but I return to the responsibility of individuals. Never having been addicted to anything, I just do not understand it. Perhaps it is easy for someone like me to just say: walk away and turn your back on that path of self-destruction—that is, gambling. Yes, it takes strength of character, but action should not come down to government alone. Acceptance of responsibility is important for individual problem gamblers. Gambling causes financial cost and loss of employment, and sometimes it turns a person towards crime. It can even cost a person their family. These are the costs that await problem gamblers. Gambling is a national problem that affects families. Money is being made and government revenue is being generated, but it is the families of problem gamblers who are without doubt the big losers. They are suffering because their family members are gambling. The gambler should firstly look in a mirror and confront their own responsibilities, but governments should not make it so easy for these people to be parted from their money either.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Wakefield for raising this very important issue and I thank other members for their contributions. We certainly have a culture of gambling in this country. If you look back at The Man from Snowy River line, ‘There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,’ there is certainly a culture of gambling in our country. We have always enjoyed a punt on the horses or a game of two-up on Anzac Day at various venues around the community. As gaming machines come into casinos, less of the floor is taken up by the old style of games and more of the floor is occupied by poker machines.

I certainly welcome this motion from the member for Wakefield because it is a mature debate that the country needs to have. We do not want it to be the elephant in the room, where we ignore the fact that there are people within our society who do have a problem with gambling. These electronic machines have taken gambling to a new level. The member for Wakefield alluded to the amount of money that can be lost in a very short period of time. There are clubs throughout Australia that are working diligently on trying to address the issues that face problem gamblers within their organisations. However, more still has to be done.

The Australian Hotels Association has a lot of responsibility falling back onto it for a raft of different reasons. It is an organisation that was established in 1839. Many of the challenges that it faces have to do with the essence of Australian culture, whether that is to do with gambling, smoking regulations or the global financial crisis, as well as the impact that alcohol and illicit drugs make. As the private sector pulls back on sponsorship during the global financial crisis, it will be the clubs that will step up and sponsor organisations. However, they still have a responsibility to continue to work closely with government to protect people who find themselves in a position where they are affected by gambling. Some 6,800 hotels in Australia employ 188,000 people, with a total spend of $12 billion to $13 billion a year. It is not an issue that we can sweep under the carpet; it is an issue that needs to be discussed.

I welcome the fact that the Productivity Commission will be making findings. There have been something like 260 public submissions already and I encourage people to continue to put submissions forward so that we can have a whole-of-nation approach. It is up to the federal government to work with the state and territory governments in order to address the problems that are facing problem gamblers. I commend the Palmerston Sports Club, the Northern Territory government, the Casuarina All Sports Club, Tracy Village Social and Sports Club and Charles Darwin University to name but a few organisations within my electorate that have decided to put submissions forward in relation to this.

One of the disturbing things that I found while researching for this contribution tonight was in a submission made by the National, State and Territory Councils of Social Service. We all had a vision, I suppose, of the lady with the blue-rinse hair sitting in front of a poker machine. Certainly, when I was a golf course superintendent on the Murray River there were a lot of those types of people, but increasingly this is a problem that is affecting young people. You only need to go into a casino nowadays to see that the age of the people who are playing the machines has come down dramatically. There are a lot of young people, people at risk, people with disabilities and certainly people from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that are affected by this. The number of young people that you see is quite unbelievable. I think it is really important that our society addresses quickly the poker machine problem that is starting to occur amongst our young people. We certainly need to have a debate about the issue.

The community services in Darwin do a lot of work in this area and they find that there are spin-off effects from gambling. There are the effects on the person with the gambling problem and also the neglect of family, the overlooking of social and cultural obligations, family breakdown and the spin-off effects of people losing their jobs. We certainly need to have a debate on this issue in this country. I look forward to the Productivity Commission’s final report. I commend the member for bringing it to the attention of the House.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this motion before the House and giving members the opportunity to reflect on gambling within our communities. The topic is of particular interest to my electorate of Swan, which contains the Burswood casino, one of the largest casinos and gambling centres in WA. I also have in my electorate two horseracing tracks, Belmont Park and Ascot, and the Cannington Greyhounds. I guess you could call it the gambling electorate of Western Australia.

I will try to bring a Western Australian perspective to today’s debate—obviously, following up on the member for Cowan’s contribution. Statistics show that Western Australia has the lowest gambling rate in Australia. In 2006-07 the average Australian adult spend $1,131 on gambling. However, in Western Australia the average per adult expenditure on gambling was $630, by far the lowest in all states and territories. In terms of gambling turnover, Western Australians contributed just 2.9 per cent of all gambling turnover across Australia. With just 10 per cent of the population, that is a remarkable figure. The 10 per cent figure also reminds me of the remarkable figure of the enormous amounts of exports from our great state—close to 40 per cent of all Australian exports. And at times Western Australia is considered a cowboy state, although we do have a really low gambling rate!

Gaming policy has traditionally been a responsibility of the states, and part of the reason for our low gambling rates has been WA’s long-term gambling licensing legislation. WA has placed restrictions on gaming ever since 1892, when the Western Australian Police Act made gambling illegal. Many Western Australians will remember the illegal gambling places in Northbridge that went under the policy radar until about the mid-eighties. Very few obeyed the laws and, over time, legislation was introduced to carefully manage gambling and ensure that the proceeds benefited the community. For example, the 1932 Lotteries Control Act led to permits for lotteries and in 1972 the Lotteries Commission granted bingo permits for religious or charitable organisations. Perhaps crucially, though, a report of the Royal Commission into gambling in 1974 strongly recommended against the introduction of poker machines. Successive governments have maintained this policy.

This was a contentious decision and in the ensuing years many argued passionately for and against the ban. Luckily, those against have prevailed. However, introduction of the Casino (Burswood Island Agreement) Act in 1995 represented a compromise. WA legalised slot machines in only one place—Burswood. As a result of the semi-ban Western Australia today has just 523 pokies, compared with 45,000 in Queensland. Members will be well aware of the evidence linking pokies and problem gamblers, and I think it is fair to draw a correlation between the two. I support a continuation of the pokies ban in WA, even though the WA government is foregoing tax revenues in excess of $300 million by maintaining the ban.

We have to strike a balance between defending individual rights to gamble and protecting individuals and communities from the problems that gambling causes. I think in WA we have got that balance right, but we can do better. Having said this, there remain serious examples of problem gambling in WA, and I am aware of people in my electorate who have suffered. I have two family members who have fallen victim to gambling addictions in Victoria.

The member for Wakefield has gone into the problems associated with gambling in detail, and I do not need to repeat them here. He addressed these issues with a compassion which I applaud. The Productivity Commission estimate that problem gamblers lose around $3.5 billion annually, or an average of $12,000 each, and that there are around 1,600 gambling related divorces annually and between 35 and 60 suicides.

In WA I know the state government runs free counselling services to help address this problem. As members of parliament, we must continue to support these programs. At the same time, it is important to continue to ensure WA’s tradition of investing gambling proceeds back into communities. Burswood Casino does contribute to worthwhile community projects. I recognise its contribution to St Vincent de Paul’s winter appeal and its $500,000 contribution towards the Victorian bushfire victims, helping these families and communities rebuild their lives. A levy on the pokies has led to $15 million of much needed investment in the Swan River.

In conclusion, the Western Australian experience shows that electronic gambling machines can be used in a way that recognises community needs and benefits local communities. If we contain the use of the machines, the temptation is reduced for problem gamblers and the machines are less accessible than those that exist in sporting clubs or other venues on the east coast. At the end of the day, I understand personal responsibility but the primary issue here is to minimise the gambling environment, support those who have fallen under its spell and help them recover from the damage gambling addictions cause to families in our communities. At a federal level, we also have a responsibility to oversee this industry. I acknowledge the good work done by previous parliaments, particularly in passing the Interactive Gambling Bill 2001. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to support the motion by the member for Wakefield. I commend him for bringing it to House and commend the contributions by all the other speakers here today. I would like to add my concern about the impact that electronic gaming machines have on some members of our community. It is estimated that there are over 290,000 problem gamblers here in Australia and over two million Australians are affected in some way by problem gambling. The member for Wakefield mentioned that there was probably someone in his electorate tonight leaving a place having been affected by problem gambling. I would say that there is probably someone in all of our electorates tonight who is leaving a place having been affected by problem gambling.

Previous to working as a member of parliament, I used to work as a psychologist. I saw firsthand some of the terrible effects when someone becomes addicted to gambling. What struck me more than any economic detriment was the psychological detriment that occurred to these people, whether it was intense shame, intense embarrassment or depression. For the families as well there were severe trust issues that occurred. It really did tear some families apart. So this has a particular importance to me, and I am pleased that the motion recognises the inadequacy of some of the consumer protections in place at the moment.

The member for Wakefield rightly pointed to the area of consumer protection when it comes to the design of electronic gaming machines. There are many elements of these machines that make them incredibly reinforcing to the player, including the music, the pictures, the physical features—the handbag hook has been mentioned—the payout schedules, the amount of payout and the amount that you can bet. All these are designed to encourage patrons to stay longer than they intended to. In addition, it has been acknowledged that the surrounding environment also gets people to keep on playing these machines.

Research suggests that gamblers, especially those who play more than once a week, find it difficult to stop playing once the session has commenced. This was made evident to me by the sharp decline in gambling revenue that occurs—it has been acknowledged in South Australia and by the Productivity Commission in 2001—when smoking bans occur. That got me thinking: what actually is happening here?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The member will have leave to continue speaking when private members’ business is resumed.