Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012 and the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012 together with evidence received by the committee. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Thank you. On 21 January this year the Prime Minister announced a package of poker machine reforms, and the bill which the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform has now inquired into reflects that announcement.

In essence, the bill requires—and the committee supports—that all poker machines in Australia be fitted with pre-commitment technology and dynamic warning displays and for virtually all ATMs in poker machine venues to have a $250 daily withdrawal limit. Regarding precommitment, the legislation specifies that all new machines must have the technology from the end of 2013 and that the remainder of the national fleet must be progressively retrofitted. Venues with more than 20 machines have until the end of 2016, venues with 11 to 20 machines have until 2020 and venues with 10 or fewer machines can change over their machines in the normal replacement cycle.

Crucially, while the use of the precommitment system is to be voluntary, machines and/or systems must be capable of preventing unregistered play. In other words, they must be capable of mandatory precommitment at the flick of a switch. To further strengthen this arrangement, the committee suggests players should be able to set their limits away from venues and poker machines, that decreases to the limit a person can lose should take effect immediately and that transaction statements be provided on request and regularly to help people keep track of their losses.

The committee also recommends that the Productivity Commission's review of the implementation of this legislation include the ban on biometrics, the issue of linking precommitment to loyalty schemes, whether or not there are grounds for further exemptions or extended deadlines for smaller venues in regional and remote areas, and the issue of including EFTPOS transactions in the $250 per day ATM withdrawal limit.

The pokies industry has expressed concern about the one-size-fits-all time lines and conditions placed on the states and territories in the bill. But this concern is unwarranted, because the bill is not prescriptive and solutions can be determined on a state-by-state basis from a broad range of technical options. In any case, there are a number of precommitment systems already running in Australia, giving the committee confidence the industry can meet the time lines.

Industry is also concerned about the cost. The poker machine industry is not being asked to replace all its machines overnight as it would have us believe; in fact, the conversion of most machines is more than four years away, as is the deadline for jurisdictions to have installed or upgraded their networks.

In any case, let us put all this in perspective and remember the Productivity Commission found that in 2008-09, national expenditure on poker machines was $11.9 billion. How much of this was lost by problem gamblers? The answer is some $5 billion. That is right: some $5 billion was lost by problem gamblers on the pokies in just one year. Yet the industry says the spending of just a fraction of one year's loss spread across a number of years is unacceptable. Frankly, I do not know how some of them sleep at night.

The bill also establishes $250 daily withdrawal limits on ATMs in gaming machine premises other than casinos. The ATM Industry Reference Group wants this amount increased plus a 12-month lead-in time. While the committee cannot support the increase limit, it does agree more time is warranted and recommends an end 2013 deadline.

While the committee welcomes the establishment of the Australian Gambling Research Centre within the Australian Institute of Family Studies, I wish to correct the impression that this fully delivers on the recommendation made in the committee's earlier reports. What is needed is a genuinely independent, fully transparent centre with the strongest possible research credentials. Only time will tell if the Australian Gambling Research Centre has what is needed and whether or not governments are genuinely committed to fund it.

The bill is much less than what might have been, and the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform's report includes a number of dissenting and additional comments. Nonetheless, the bill is a significant first step towards meaningful poker machine reform in Australia and it has the support of the committee majority. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who assisted the inquiry. I would also like to thank the deputy chair and the committee secretariat for, again, doing a fine job in sometimes difficult circumstances. I commend the report to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, it is a pleasure to speak on the tabling of the committee's fourth report that covers the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills. The government takes seriously the need to act to make poker machines safer. We need to help protect problem gamblers, whose addiction is hurting not only themselves but their families and others. The bills intend to reduce the harm caused by poker machines. They are based on the evidence and recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

In May 2011 the Council of Australian Governments Select Council on Gambling Reform agreed to support the required infrastructure for precommitment technology in all jurisdictions in every gaming venue. The committee heard that an extensive consultation process with industry and community stakeholders occurred in early 2012 after the exposure draft was released. In addition, consultation on specific issues was undertaken by the department, the minister and her office outside the formal consultation period. Precommitment is a tool that poker machine players can use to set a budget and limits around their play, and the system can assist them to remain within those limits. The system is voluntary and its use is free for players.

The bill requires that all gaming machines in larger venues are part of a state-wide precommitment system by the end of 2016 so that those who choose to set limits can ensure they apply wherever they play. We recognise that small pubs and clubs, many in our regional areas, just are not the same as the big gaming venues in the city. The bill gives longer time frames for small venues to make the changes, and more than half of all venues nationally have more time. The bill establishes minimum requirements for the system, but states and territories will be able to impose stronger measures. The committee makes a number of suggestions in its report for enhanced functionality to assist players, based on evidence from previous inquiries.

While concerns were expressed to the committee about implementation, the committee heard that the bill is not prescriptive regarding precommitment technology. The bill sets parameters, and the technical solutions to meet those parameters can be determined by each state and territory. This recognises that states and territories have different monitoring systems in place and allows them to choose from the range of technical options available. Technology options range from network options to machine based options. Multiple systems are also possible.

Allowing jurisdictions to determine their own systems encourages innovation by industry. I also note there are already a number of precommitment systems operating in Australia which may be compliant with the legislation. The government has been working to minimise the cost to industry and minimise the regulatory burdens. Regarding the time lines for venues, there has been consultation with industry as well as independent work around that aspect which found that the initial time line and extended time line for smaller venues are achievable. Mindful of the concerns expressed around smaller venues, the committee recommended that the Productivity Commission review this aspect when conducting its review of implementation, to take an evidence-based approach to whether any additional time should be provided to very small and regional and remote venues. The committee called for an education campaign, and it is the government's intention to implement a campaign, in collaboration with the regulator, industry and other key stakeholders. Education within gaming venues will be an important component of initiatives to support the introduction of the gambling reforms.

The bill introduces complementary reforms to further support problem gamblers. There is a $250 per day ATM withdrawal limit for gaming machine premises other than casinos and exempted premises in smaller communities where access to cash is not readily available from non-gaming outlets. Taking into consideration the self-imposed moratorium throughout the Christmas-New Year period and technical issues, the committee did not oppose extending to the end of 2013 the time frame of May 2013 to achieve this measure.

The bill also establishes the Australian Gambling Research Centre within the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which will start in July 2013. It will help address the current lack of robust evidence and consistent data available to inform problem-gambling policy development. The centre will receive ongoing funding from the government of $1.5 million per annum.

This is the first time the Commonwealth has legislated to help problem gamblers and their families. Recognising that there is no single solution to address problem gambling, the measures outlined in the bill form part of a suite of measures announced by the government on 21 January this year. I would also like to note in this context, separately from the recommendations of the report, the ACT trial of mandatory precommitment will be independently reviewed by the Productivity Commission upon completion.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Denison for very capably chairing the committee and for running this inquiry very smoothly. I thank the committee members for their contributions and I thank the witnesses who provided evidence to the committee. I also wish to express my sincere appreciation of the excellent and dedicated support given by Lin Beverley from the secretariat—often on weekends and often late at night. I commend the report to the House.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak to the report from the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform tabled this morning. I must say I am particularly surprised to hear the comments from the deputy chair. Today represents the tabling of a report which could only be described as woeful. I am not commenting on the report itself but on the process. Based on one day of hearings, we have a report being tabled on new legislation that is being introduced by the government and supported by the member Denison that will adversely affect an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people.

Before the deputy chair leaves the chamber, I would highlight the deputy chair's comments about industry consultation and the time frames involved in the rollout of voluntary precommitment that the government is implementing. Apparently industry says that it is possible to do so within the time frames outlined in the draft legislation that the report alludes to. How completely wrong. For the deputy chair to come into the chamber and say that industry believes this is achievable is highly misleading because the deputy chair knows full well the evidence that coalition members heard, the evidence the chair heard and the evidence the deputy chair heard.

The advice from industry was that there will be mass noncompliance. They were their words: mass noncompliance. Industry made it clear that this was effectively a kiss of death, not because of voluntary precommitment but because of the time frames involved. This government is running headlong into trying to achieve its result for no other purpose than it happens to suit the member for Denison.

The member for Denison is a sincere man. I believe that he sincerely holds the views that he holds. I think that he does not particularly care about the impact this is going to have on industry—that is my view. I believe it is his view that in the balance between impact on industry and impact on problem gamblers, he would rather side with the problem gamblers—and so be it.

The impact of this draft legislation will be profound. It will cost jobs. It will result in mass noncompliance. The committee's report does not address these facts. There is only one group that the department consulted with that says the time frame is achievable. From industry consultation and from stakeholder consultation, it is not possible for this time frame to be complied with. Mass noncompliance will be the consequence and job losses will be the consequence—and to hell with the impact of that, say the majority of the committee. Not so the coalition. We support voluntary precommitment. The government was out there saying it wanted mandatory precommitment because that was a part of the deal that was done before the Prime Minister turned her back on the member for Denison and double-dealed him on this—as she did the Australian public on climate change but that is another debate for another day. When the Prime Minister did that, the reason we were out there then saying we should have voluntary precommitment was that we understood there is no silver bullet. There is no panacea to problem gambling in the same way there is no panacea to alcoholism or to those that face morbid obesity; yet for some reason the majority of this committee took the view that they have got the solutions. Well, it is simply not going to result in any meaningful outcome. In fact, it is going to threaten livelihoods and threaten the industry.

In addition to that, the draft legislation does outline mandatory withdrawal limits on ATM machines within licensed venues. We have tried to be constructive as coalition members and to work with the majority with respect to the amount of money that can be withdrawn. The amount of money that was first recommended by the Productivity Commission will be indexed.

In addition, I think there is a greater principle at stake here—that is, government policy which says to people who do not have a gambling problem, which is of course the vast majority of recreational poker machine users as well as the vast majority of the Australian population, that there is a limit on how much of their own money they can access from an ATM based on its location. The government has now deemed it okay to say how much of your own money you can withdraw from a machine based on the location. Safeguards already exist of course and problem gamblers can be excluded from using ATMs in licensed venues. They can have lower daily withdrawal limits—arrangements they can choose to enter into with their bank provider, in the same way that they might choose to have voluntary precommitment. Notwithstanding that, when it comes to ATMs the government is happy to mandate behaviour that it believes is appropriate.

My final point is about the most insidious issue. It is a point that is not really addressed in the majority report. It is absolutely the case that this is shaping up to be the precursor to a biometric system of identification across the Australian population, especially for those who want to use poker machines. There are members on the committee who I understand hold the view that in order to achieve the compliance required under this draft legislation and to achieve state based regulation around voluntary precommitment, a database will be needed at each of the state regulators that monitors players' activities. In the absence of a biometric system, such a database would be useless. It would not be possible to monitor players' activities if you do not know who the player is. Believe it or not, some problem gamblers may resort to using two, three, four or five cards, and this is why it has to be linked back to identity. The chairman and I have had this debate before and, based on views and comments on the public record, I know that that is absolutely where this is going. This is the first door. For that reason, coalition members do not support the majority report and why we have lodged a dissenting report.