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

Madam Deputy Speaker Rishworth, I know this is an issue that is close to your heart as well, and you have expressed your concerns on problem gambling many times before in the House. This is a very important motion, and I think it does add to the debate. The government has its own set of reforms and methods of tackling problem gambling, but I do think the member for Lyne should be commended for bringing this matter to the House and bringing it up for discussion. I think there are many interesting points in it, and I have to say that I personally have talked about such things, in my maiden speech and many other times after that, because I think the addiction to poker machines is a particularly virulent social evil in our community. It is often unseen and unrecognised. We need to tackle it. The national parliament needs to tackle it. We need to tackle it in the same way—as the previous speakers talked about—we tackle tobacco, which was a big donator and a very influential industry that threw its weight around in this building. We need to tackle problem gambling and the poker machine industry in the same way we tackled the tobacco industry, and that is by a series of bipartisan reforms over a decade or so to try and curb the virulent nature of the problems they cause.

The member for Lyne is to be congratulated. I think he, as always, has provided us with much to think about. The points on taxation are quite important. It is very hard for state governments. One of our former Liberal premiers in South Australia said that it was his greatest regret that he did not do anything about poker machines. Of course he could not. If he got rid of poker machines, which hospital was he going to close? For some state premiers, that is literally the revenue implication of poker machine reform. I think these are important issues for us to discuss and look at.

The government, through Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Macklin—who are very committed to this issue—put in place a number of reforms. All poker machines manufactured by the end of next year must be capable of supporting precommitment. All poker machines must be part of a state-linked voluntary precommitment system by 2016, excepting eligible smaller venues, which have more time. Poker machines must have electronic warnings and must display cost of play by 2016. There will be a $250 daily withdrawal limit set at ATMs in gaming venues by 2013.

These are significant reforms and, if you had talked about them at the start of our reform, they would have been seen as being a very, very ambitious gambling package. Of course, now that the parliament is talking about these things, they do seem workmanlike and practical, whereas some of the solutions that are advocated by Senator Xenophon and Mr Wilkie are more ambitious. I have personally advocated more ambitious restraints in the poker machine industry generally.

I think the government have put forward a pretty significant package. We wait to see what the opposition intend to do about it. As usual they have been a bit slippery about their policy commitments. I suspect that, at the end of the day, they will back the pokies industry. They will back the big end of town the way they always do. There will be a few cursory comments about local clubs and the like, but they will not acknowledge the damage done by these machines and they will not acknowledge that it is the big end of town. Of course, we know what is behind it all for the coalition—that is, the significant donations that are made by entities.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

Well, by entities. I am more than happy to acknowledge those donations. Perhaps what we need is a bipartisan focus not to take the money. Then people would be able to judge our actions on their policy merits. I think, frankly, taking money from industries which hurt people is not good for any political party and I would not advocate that anybody do it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very easy as an Independent to take the moral high ground on gambling issues with some simple propositions, as the member for Lyne has outlined in this motion. But it is frequently more complex than what the Independents would have you believe. As the member for Lyne would be only too aware, poker machine licences are allocated by state governments and not by the federal government. So, if the member for Lyne wants to reduce the number of poker machines—and I will get onto that point in a minute—then I do not think that creating a new bureaucracy at the COAG level is the way to go. I would rather suggest that the member for Lyne take it up in his own state, with the state government of New South Wales and, indeed, he could even go directly to clubs in his electorate and ask them to be the first demonstration cases and reduce the number of poker machines. I do not support this motion for some of the reasons I have outlined. I would support a reduction in poker machine numbers in Australia, but this needs to happen on a state-by-state basis. In my own state of Victoria I think we made a mistake in the early 1990s by allowing the proliferation of poker machines in every club and pub across the state. In hindsight, we probably should have kept poker machines to a few key destinations, such as the casino, so that it became a recreational destination rather than a part of people's everyday lives.

Of course, we cannot turn the clock back on this. The state governments could reduce the number of licences over time as they expire. I think that the state governments should explore this possibility and the federal government could have some contribution towards that end. From the federal perspective, we should be taking some sensible actions to curb problem gambling. But in my view there is no easy solution. As part of the coalition's gambling task force, we have been looking at various steps that we can take including precommitment technology, extra counselling assistance and slowing down spin rates. But I am not convinced that any one of those alone would solve the problem.

Let me touch on the online environment, which is also spelt out in this motion. This is only a small portion of the total gambling industry at present. But it is growing rapidly and will be the source of problems in the future. I am concerned that we are normalising gambling in our daily lives through the ready access of gambling on our iPhones and iPads. How to think about and deal with this is a difficult balance for Liberals. On the one hand we support individual responsibility and individual freedoms, while on the other hand we need to think about those people who are more vulnerable and the impact their decisions can have on the lives of others.

I therefore suggest three measures which should be taken in relation to online gambling. First, I do not believe that online gambling companies should be able to offer credit to their customers for the purposes of betting. I have spoken at length on this in the House. My views were informed by an unemployed constituent who was given $80,000 in credit by sportsbet.com.au; I do not think this should be allowed and I have made that point very clear previously. Second, I think that advertising should be limited. Online gaming is a legal product for adults and it is a source of recreational activity for many. But it is a product for adults only, and there should be some sensible restrictions on advertising where children are typically watching. Finally, I think governments should be putting in place some regulations to stop in-play betting and microbetting. If we go down this path and there is a proliferation of in-play and microbetting, that will lead to corruption in our sport, as we have seen in other countries.

I do not think for a moment that the three measures that I have outlined will be the panacea and stop all gambling in the online environment or the poker machine environment. But they should assist and hopefully they will provide the right balance between allowing people to enjoy a punt and putting reasonable protections in place.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be speaking on this motion and I commend the member for Lyne for bringing it to the House. I am also particularly pleased to be talking after my colleague the member for Wakefield, who is, by my recollection, one of only three members of the entire parliament who in their first speech to parliament said that they were committed to addressing problem gambling, particularly poker machine addiction. There must be something in the water in South Australia.

Twenty-one thousand dollars a year is a lot of money to lose through problem gambling. About half a million Australians are putting that much money in poker machines or losing it on the track each year. You can imagine that if it were happening to any other group of Australians we would hear a clamorous uproar from those on the other side of the House saying that the government should step in and do something about this, and that we do not, and that there is only one reason we do not, and that is that we are concerned about dislodging some vested interests in this particular area.

The Gillard government's position has always been that we want to do something to address problem gambling. We commissioned and welcomed the Productivity Commission report into problem gambling. We have put in place a program to implement, on an evidence based method, the principal recommendation of the Productivity Commission, and that is that mandatory precommitment be installed on poker machines in poker machine venues around the country. One of the things that the Productivity Commission was keen to emphasise in its report was that if we are going to do this then we have to get the platform right. Getting the platform right involves trialling it and ensuring that the technology is in place and that the social systems—the human systems that support that network—are right before we rush out to roll it out all around the country. So the trial in the ACT of the precommitment technology is entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission—that is to say, get it right before we impose an obligation and roll it out to the rest of the country.

At the same time we are putting in place a requirement that every poker machine that is manufactured in the future is able to support the precommitment technology. This is a matter that has often been lost in a lot of the debate that followed the Prime Minister's announcement of February this year. There has been a lot of talk that Labor's announcement was somehow a backflip on our approach to poker machine regulation. It certainly is not. It is a commitment to doing it and doing it right.

At the same time the Prime Minister announced the $250 daily withdrawal limit from ATMs in gaming venues—of course excluding casinos—something that I support. Of course there is a need to put in place some sensible exclusions in particular suburbs or towns where clubs are the only source of an ATM. There have been discussions around that issue. In addition, we are putting electronic warnings and cost-of-play displays on poker machines by 2016, funding an additional 50 new financial counsellors to work with problem gamblers, strengthening self-exclusion arrangements and improving the staff training arrangements in poker machine venues. Together, these represent some of the biggest reforms that have been taken on by any federal government in this particular area. Therefore, they should enjoy our support.

Further, the government recognises that gambling online and sports bets are a growing concern. I agree with the member for Aston on this particular point and the member for Wakefield, who I know is also very passionate about this. That is why we have put in place a ban on the promotion of live odds during sports coverage, extended precommitment to online betting services, cracked down on online sports betting companies offering credit, introduced stricter limits on betting inducements and further increased the powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce these new rules.

Given the comments from the member for Aston, I expect his wholehearted support for all of these government initiatives. I also understand that the Prime Minister has referred the member for Lyne's proposals to the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments Select Council on Gambling Reform. We are committed to doing something about problem gambling. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in the midst of an extraordinary expansion in legalised gambling. However, to suggest that we can adequately address the issue of problem gambling by placing a national cap on electronic gaming machines, although very well intentioned, is misguided and perhaps even counterproductive. Australians, it has been said, will bet on two flies crawling up a wall. We are the only nation that suspends our national parliament to watch a horse race, and today Australians have more opportunities to gamble than ever before.

The internet has changed the face of gambling, for everyone with an iPhone in effect carries a mobile casino in their pocket, and anyone can be playing online poker or placing a bet within seconds, with a few taps of their phone, anywhere. You simply cannot cap the internet. Today, for those that enjoy a punt on the gallops, the trots or the dogs, there is no such thing as a last race. You can bet on races 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with race meetings held across the world. It is not only horses and dogs; you can bet on just about every sporting event on the planet. You can bet on beauty pageants. You can bet on the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest and you can bet on the TV show The Voice. There are even countless betting opportunities for political junkies. I can bet on whether the Speaker will return before the next election—where the odds have the 'no' at a short priced favourite of $1.20. Sportsbet are even taking bets on whether Labor will achieve their forecast budget surplus for 2012-13. Given Labor's track record, it is not a surprise that Sportsbet have the government failing to achieve a surplus a very short priced favourite, paying just $1.40.

While there have been discussions about bans on live betting—that is, where events are in progress—what event is more alive in our country at the moment than the Labor leadership tussle? This is also something you can bet online on. Currently, Centrebet is taking bets on 'anyone other than Julia' to lead the Labor Party at the next election, paying just $1.30. And there can be no greater example of how divided and dysfunctional this government has become than having a bet which pays $2.30 on the person described by his own side as 'a psychopath with a giant ego' as the favourite to lead Labor at the next election. I also note with interest that Sportsbet have my learned friend the member for Grayndler paying the very generous odds of 100 to one.

These examples are not to trivialise the issue of problem gambling; this is a very serious issue. But with so many gambling opportunities available today, to suggest a national cap on electronic gaming machines is simply misguided. So what should we do ? I suggest there is an alternative approach. First, we should recognise that gambling is a genuine source of entertainment for many people and then we should ask ourselves what consumer protections and informational disclosures should be provided to gamblers, in exactly the same manner as we do with consumers in other sectors of the economy.

This is what Professor Kurt Eggert argues in a paper titled Truth in gaming: toward consumer protection in the gambling industry.Professor Eggertnotes that poker machines are inherently misleading in design. In fact, the 1984 patent which forms the basis of the modern day poker machine states:

It is important to make a machine that is perceived to present greater chances of payoff than it actually has within the legal limitations that the games of chance must operate in.

Put simply, the patent behind our modern poker machines admits that our poker machines are misleading in design. The design of our modern electronic poker machine is the equivalent of a loaded dice or a stacked deck of cards. Unlike traditional forms of gambling such as blackjack or roulette, the odds of winning are not inherent in the structure of the game and can be manipulated by the owners of those machines without the consumer being any wiser. Electronic gambling machines are one of the few sectors of the economy where there is a complete absence of price competition.

Professor Eggert recommends that the best way to reduce the incidence of problem gambling is to address that complete absence of price disclosure for poker machines. If we were really serious about addressing the issues of problem gambling, we should be following the recommendations of Professor Eggert to ensure that prices are disclosed to consumers of gambling and are not allowed to be maintained under the current hidden veil of secrecy.

Debate adjourned.