Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having worked for many years in the area of looking after the social impacts of gambling, I never thought I would be standing here in the national parliament speaking against a bill that ostensibly sets out to aid those who are affected by problem gambling. The reality is that the federal government has made such an inordinate hash of this hastily prepared and ill-conceived legislation that it is almost impossible for the average Australian to look at the National Gambling Reform Bill and think that it will achieve anything and do anything other than waste a whole lot of money.

This is a highly complex issue and it deserves a whole lot more time than it has been given this month. This legislation was released on 1 November, and there was one week for a committee to take submissions and another week for it to consider them. This is a very rushed approach and it reflects a government that has lost all policy direction. There is plenty of history here with the member for Denison and the deal for Labor to become the government. The Prime Minister was going to do as much as she could to keep the vote of this one individual, and the moment this individual became irrelevant to the numbers for this government the deal was off. It was Senator Xenophon who said it just makes you wonder whether you can take the words of this Prime Minister with any level of trust at all. The reality is that, now the member for Denison's requirements are not those of the government, he is being cast aside.

What we have left is this emptied out carapace of a bill that has in it all the ugliest elements of government control and overregulation, together with the very obvious element that by remaining completely voluntary it is almost impossible to see how compelling the industry to spend money will have any impact on the problem whatsoever. We have the worst of both worlds—the completely overburdening regulation for those who operate gaming machines, and the reality that by being a voluntary system a large number of our problem gamblers will simply not choose to participate.

Let us wind back a little. We know there are about 15,000 problem gamblers in the country; we know also that gaming is a massive part of the local economy. We all come from different parts of Australia and we know the important contribution that clubs, and in smaller towns small pubs, make to local economies. Obviously everyone here wants a balance. Instead, what we have is, as I have said, hasty and ill-conceived legislation that burdens every gaming operator with these requirements to operate the software in their systems by 2016 or, for those with fewer than 20 machines, by 2020. They are expected to have these changes made to their machines at a very rapid rate, and for many of these clubs it is virtually unaffordable, so we are right to be deeply concerned. Keep in mind that the economy is not good; keep in mind that clubs that were profitable as recently as two years ago are now genuinely struggling. Keep in mind that for the average club that has enormous overheads to cover, these gaming machines are the only things keeping them afloat.

A small club cannot call in a few volunteers to help them through—they have to raise the revenue somewhere just to keep afloat and keep doing the good work they do. Every dollar they lose when they pay what I call 'the government's gambling tax' to the government in the form of a gambling regulator—'Oh no', I hear everyone sigh; yes, another regulator—is a dollar that does not go to community organisations in the local neighbourhoods of these clubs. That is the dollar that is taken away by the government.

Let me focus on three issues in the 10 minutes I have. The first is the proposal last year for a mandatory precommitment trial here in the ACT. Second, I want to look at some of the technical problems with the bill as it has been proposed. Third, because I have a regional and remote focus, I want to look at how this legislation would affect small communities around this great nation. I refer first to the ACT trial. I can remember a hastily cobbled together conference involving Jenny Macklin, Katie Gallagher and of course the head of Clubs ACT. This was the first jurisdiction to agree to a proposed trial of mandatory precommitment technology. I do not think the individual members of Clubs ACT were even told of the decision. We had one individual, who I will not name in this place—they probably have half an eye on their ALP membership and half on the running for the Senate one day—arranging a deal so that just in case the Prime Minister had to wiggle out of this one with a precommitment trial somewhere, the ACT would back her up. Suddenly the coffers of the federal government opened up and it committed to every club that any financial loss as a result of mandatory precommitment would be compensated by the Commonwealth government. How much would that be? Of course they did not know, but the Commonwealth government was being fully exposed to those costs. Those clubs included the Ainslie Football Club, the Raiders football club, Eastlake, the Woden Valley Rugby League club, the Southern Cross Club and the Burns Club—all different configurations of clubs coming together and asking 'What on earth are we doing here? We have mandatory precommitment in the ACT so that anyone who is not terribly keen on that idea drives to Queanbeyan and those who are not too keen about that just drive to the next town and gamble on the pokies there.' There were ridiculous distortions across a jurisdictional boundary, but this was not about fixing the problem—it was about a get out of jail card for the Prime Minister so she could appease the member for Denison.

Of course it all went pear shaped. The clubs were in complete distress. I recall that Ainslie Football Club had already written up a $600,000 annual loss for the previous financial year, and I have grave concerns that the loss could be three times as much this financial year. This club was in no position to have mandatory precommitment foisted upon it, but of course, together with every ACT club, that was exactly what was going to happen to it. That is assuming that the government even intended to carry out this trial at all. No, it was a stopgap measure just in case they had to. It was a political solution to the problem of staying in government. This, like so many government commitments, just evaporated away because, in the end, they were not painted into a corner and forced to do it. So you know what? Of course, this government simply did not do it, and the proposed ACT trial never happened.

Let us move on from these grubby political deals and look at the technical complexity of walking into a club with between 20 and 200 machines, giving them a time line to change over their machines and then telling them they are going to have to pay for it. Let us remember that over 91c in the dollar is returned to the gamer; there is a small amount taken by the state government and a very, very small proportion that is retained by the operator of these machines. They are, in many cases, barely viable. What this government does not realise when it comes up these grand plans for national regulation is that it is usually the smallest and most vulnerable clubs that are the most affected. In many cases, the big guys are okay, but it is the small clubs that simply cannot wear the burden of an additional requirement like this one from the federal government.

The plan sounds okay, doesn't it? We have all got a card, and you cannot go anywhere without using the card. You can sign up for the card if you want to. If you do not want to, you simply have no card. Therein lies the first big flaw. I have no problem with voluntary precommitment. But, if it is going to be mandatory for every club, casino and pub in the nation to wire up their systems, they would want to be getting a decent return on that massive, massive cost. The reality is that this is a federal government that has no money to spend, no will to give. Before you knew it—that is right—they were dreaming up yet another tax so that the operators themselves paid for all of these costs. These are free and independent operators being lumbered with another regulatory requirement. This is the Gillard government's dream of a massively regulated sector.

In the end—I have to keep going back to the precommitment scheme being utterly voluntary—there is almost nothing one can do to engage a problem gambler who does not want to be part of that precommitment. We have listened to the Gaming Technologies Association, who said that you simply could not amortise those sorts of requirements into the operations of many, many clubs in the years that were provided. But this is a government that has not listened. If you go out to the small towns where there are very low numbers of machines, the great challenge for these smaller operators is to keep getting new machines. Players get bored with old machines, and, when you are a very small operator, replacing those machines regularly with new ones comes at an extraordinary cost. So, when you lay another regulatory burden on them, they simply will not be able to turn over their machines as often, and gamers will seek out the new machines, going to larger venues with more games, more flashing lights, and more hyperlinked machines that are even more addictive. It is the small providers who lose out. Of course, that point has been completely lost in this government's rush towards legislation.

This is a government that has not listened to what people are saying about this area. It has turned gaming into a political pawn. It only played the piece and moved it forward when it looked like it might lose government. That is the great tragedy. This is yet another commitment that was made in order to get the support of an Independent member so that Labor could sit on the government side of the chamber. This is an example of where the government was given the opportunity to fix a problem, the scourge that is problem gambling; instead, we are left with horrible overregulation; ultimately, a voluntary system that everyone opts out of; and a completely unacceptable time line for the businesses who, in the end, will wear the burden of this regulation.

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

I rise to also speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and the two other bills before us. I say at the outset that I am not a huge fan of pokies. In fact, I have great difficulty with them because of their social consequences, their impact on many people within our society, and I want to touch on that tonight. But I also want to touch on why I do not think this particular package of bills is the right set of measures to deal with the social problems that poker machines cause. I have four main concerns, and I will use this opportunity tonight to outline them.

Poker machines are part of Australian life today. We know from the Productivity Commission inquiry that there are some 600,000 Australians who play pokies regularly—that is, they play at least once a week—and the vast majority of those people do so safely. They enjoy doing it. They like the fun involved and sometimes the camaraderie involved. They like going down to their local club, pub or casino to have a punt, and that is all very well. Personally, I do not get into it, but that has nothing to do with it. These people do enjoy it; and, in some respects, who are we to say that they cannot enjoy that?

But we also know that there is an insidious side to pokies, and that is that they can be highly addictive. The research says that, the Productivity Commission has articulated that, and we know that that addiction leads to massive problems for a great many people. In fact, about 15 per cent of the 600,000 people who play regularly have very serious problems and, indeed, are defined by the Productivity Commission as problem gamblers, having an addiction to it. That addiction can not only destroy their individual lives but also have a very significant impact on their family's lives and the lives of others who are around them.

I am part of the Coalition Taskforce on Gambling Reform, and we have been looking into some of these questions. We have had submissions from various stakeholders who tell us stories of some of the damage that gambling has done to families across the country. It is a very serious issue. We also know that the cost impact of the damage which poker machines cause is estimated to be about $4.7 billion per annum, according to the Productivity Commission. So it is a huge cost to our community from a social perspective and it can have very damaging impacts on individuals and their family and friends.

As part of the work of the gambling reform task force, we have looked at, considered and heard submissions on a number of possible ways to address some of these issues. We have had submissions in relation to the spin rates, in relation to precommitment technology and in relation to limiting the size of the bets. I have said previously that I think it was a mistake, in my own state of Victoria, to allow the proliferation of poker machines into many, many clubs and pubs across the state. Possibly we should have just kept poker machines in a smaller number of larger centres rather than having that proliferation. But it is very difficult to roll that back now.

The problem with this policy area, particularly for Liberals, is that there is a fundamental clash of values at stake. On one hand we strongly believe in individual liberty and that people should have the right to do as they please—to gamble if they want to gamble, to spend their money on that rather than on something else if that is what they choose and that is what they want to do. We believe in the right of businesses to be able to offer products, services and entertainments to the community; it should be up to them. On the other hand, we know of the immense social consequences that can have for that small proportion of people. We have to balance those two things out. I personally think that the balancing is out of whack at the moment in Australia and that further measures need to be put in place. But the question is: what measures should be put in place? And who should put in place those measures? That is what it comes down to.

From the federal perspective there is always pressure on us to be seen to be doing something in a particular area when an issue arises. There is pressure on all members of parliament: you must go and do something, even if that issue actually resides at a council level or a state level. We see it in many instances. We see it in environmental regulations, we see it in schools, we see it in TAFEs and we see it elsewhere, in traditionally state or local council areas, where there is enormous pressure on us to do things on top of those other levels. Sometimes it is very worthwhile to do it, but at other times it just duplicates the activity and just creates more bureaucracy. In the environmental space, for example, it has done exactly that. By having the federal government involved in all the environmental approvals, we have actually added a layer of complexity and bureaucracy and are not getting better environmental outcomes. In fact, sometimes we are getting worse ones, but great delays occur as a result.

So we must be very careful not to impinge on traditionally state or local council areas when we put forward legislation. That is one of the reasons I have a concern about this package. It creates a massive bureaucracy in Canberra to largely replicate what state governments are already doing. As I mentioned, we have seen that in other portfolios. We know that the state governments have largely been in control of the operation and licensing of poker machines, in particular—the poker machine manufacturing licences and the hotel licences et cetera. Rather than working cooperatively with the states to try to get them to initiate some improvements, which I think would have been better, this set of bills tries to duplicate a lot of what the states are doing.

Perhaps the case could be made that the states are not doing enough and that therefore the federal government needs to intervene over the top and create this additional bureaucracy. But in this instance the key measure contained within this bill is for precommitment technology. Indeed, we know that every state and territory at the moment is moving towards asking machine manufacturers to install precommitment technology. In fact, many of the industry players themselves are doing that. So the case has not been made as to why we need to create this super-regulator over the top of the state regulations in order to fulfil that objective of precommitment technology, because it actually is already occurring at the state level.

My second concern with this package of legislation is the time line for the implementation of the measures and therefore the cost associated with them. The legislation requires that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 must be capable of supporting precommitment technology and that all machines must be capable of supporting precommitment technology by 2016. We understand that this simply cannot practically be implemented within that time frame. We have been advised by the Gaming Technologies Association, which is the sole body of industry technical expertise in Australia, that the time lines simply cannot be met. So the government is asking us to pass a package requiring that certain dates be met but which the technology providers are saying is impossible. Further, one of the problems is that there is no clear definition of what precommitment actually means. The Gaming Technologies Association states:

While everyone is talking about pre-commitment, no one in government can explain what that means in practice for the design of the gaming machine and its software.

So we have an issue there about rushed implementation, which cannot be done, based on what we have been advised. In addition, there are no detailed specifications as to what is actually required to be implemented for those machines. And it is not just us saying that; in fact, the Productivity Commission warned against rushing the uniform approach that is within this legislation. Rather, they suggested a staged approach, involving partial precommitment and then a trial of full precommitment. That is what should have been done, rather than, as in this legislation, putting a mandated system across the board in a very short period of time.

This gets to my third concern with the package, and that is that there is little evidence that the system being proposed will work and in fact a trial should have been done first before mandating a particular result. Bear in mind that, according to the Australian Hotels Association, implementing what this package is suggesting will cost about a billion dollars in New South Wales and Queensland alone. That is a huge sum of money. Maybe that would be worth it, but we simply do not know and what we should be doing is testing it first. Let us have the trial first, let us find out what the results are. If we introduce voluntary precommitment, how many people are likely to take it up? What is the impact? Does it reduce problem gambling or do people just go to other forms of gambling if we make it more difficult for them at the poker machine level? That is the whole point of a trial. We should have them. The initial approach was indeed to have a trial of voluntary precommitment here in the ACT. It was supposed to be going ahead. We were supposed to have a trial for 12 to 24 months. We were supposed to be able to evaluate that trial and then come out with policy. This is jumping the gun. We are imposing a multibillion dollar cost on an industry when we do not actually have any evidence that that cost will produce anything. That is one of the core critiques of this package.

My final concern with the package is that it actually does not contain the most effective measure to tackle problem gambling—that is, the provision of additional counselling and support services. We know from the research, and we have heard this on the coalition's gambling task force, that that actually is what is required to assist people who have addictions. They do need greater structured support and they do need greater counselling services to be able to deal with their addiction. That is what we know works today. Yet this package, ostensibly to address problem gambling, does not contain that. That is my fourth concern with this package.

Like on so many occasions, the government's intent with package may be fine. They have an intent to try to address the instances of problem gambling in our community. I think that intent is an admirable one. However, this package gives me no confidence that it will actually address the problem at hand. Rather, I think it will be imposing a very expensive solution on an industry when there is no evidence that it will work. I think it will be a rushed implementation for the industry. They have said it cannot actually be delivered within that time line and it does not actually contain the core thing that we know works now—that is, additional counselling and support services for the people who are suffering.

Let me repeat: gambling is a problem in our community. Yes, we need to do more to support those people who are having serious problems. However, I do not think this package before us is the package we should be approving . Rather, the government should be consulting further, trialling a number of different solutions and then implementing some serious measures following those trials.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are discussing the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills today in the parliament. It must be of some interest and some confusion to those who are listening to work through just what is being proposed to the parliament, or in fact foisted upon this parliament, in what should be a matter of considered and thoughtful policy development. These bills in general require that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 be capable of supporting precommitment declarations or requirements that are issued for the sector. It also aims to ensure that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system. This is proposed to be an integrated system, with software and systems available to transfer precommitment levels between venues, and where electronic warnings would appear alerting the user that they are approaching their precommitment levels. That all needs to be good to go by 2016. Smaller venues are being given some slight dispensation on that time frame.

The bill also seeks to impose a limit of $250 a day on ATM withdrawals from gaming venues other than casinos. The bill aims to set up the framework for this precommitment system in order to ensure that gaming machines are compliant with that ambition. It is interesting that this is off the back of a trial that has not actually been concluded—a trial that is in its early days, with no opportunity to draw on any learning or insight that might arise and no evidence base from which to push forward with an expansion of the application of the concepts that are being road-tested in Canberra. It is often remarked that one of the best boosts for Queanbeyan is the fact that this is a trial in Canberra.

These bills also put in place a range of monitoring and investigation capabilities to ensure that compliance with the new requirements can be carried forward. It seeks to set up a regulator to perform these functions and puts in place some enforcement measures, civil penalty orders, infringement notices, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and compliance notices similar to what you see in the competition and consumer law. Also, a new bureaucracy being set up, the federal gambling regulator, and the bills provide for the charging of fees for services—in fact, two new levies to support the package of measures. It is effectively the machinery to create a tax to implement a policy that has not been proven to be effective, based on a trial that has not been concluded to deal with the problem that is not well defined. Other than that it a good piece of policy. But that is the problem: it is not a good piece of policy.

The coalition are particularly concerned about problem gambling and that is why we take an evidence based approach. To the great credit of my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, the shadow minister for family services, we have released a quality discussion paper about gambling reform. This tries to identify the causal factors for the disease that a small percentage in our population have—that is, a gambling problem. So this is not like tobacco, where there is no safe level of consumption. There is a safe level of consumption for gambling, and most people involved in this activity do so in a safe and responsible way. However, there are some who do not.

The point that is made clear, and the point that I hear loud and clear from service providers in my community working with people who have a gambling problem, is that it is not a technology specific issue. It is a disease that plays out in a range of gambling options and gambling technologies. So simply going after one technology—in this case, poker machines—as some kind of antidote to all the gambling temptations that are out there for people who have the disease of a gambling problem highlights how inappropriate and ineffective the measures we are debating today are likely to be.

It has been put to me—and in fact it is a view I subscribe to—that poker machines are probably the most supervised, regulated, observed, controlled and contained kind of gambling that you could have. You have to be dressed. You have to be sober. You are observed. You are using technology that has constraints on its operations. There is a great deal of public interest. There are licensed venues. There are responsibilities and expectations on people to oversee responsible gambling. There are limits on the opportunity with the licensing that surrounds the venues that carry this equipment. This sector of the gambling industry is the most regulated, observed and controlled there is. Yet today we are discussing the Commonwealth reaching further into a sector that is overwhelmingly the responsibility of states and territories while it simply goes, 'La, la, la, la,' and looks away from every other form of gambling that equally occurs to a person with a problem gambling condition.

Let me give you an example. We have seen a burgeoning growth in online, internet gambling—gambling on your phone. You cannot watch an over at the cricket without hearing an ad for an online betting agency. You cannot watch a sports show without it. You cannot even watch a news channel without it. It is popping up everywhere. The point I made as long as five years ago is that in many cases that technology has none of the scrutiny that the poker machine industry is subjected to—none of it. You do not even have to be dressed to do it. You can lose your shirt without putting one on. You can lose your house without even leaving it.

That is an area of gambling that is directly the responsibility of the Commonwealth, yet we do not see any meaningful contribution from this government about something directly within its control. It is known to be the fastest growing area of gambling, reported by two investors in the gaming and gambling sector as being 'the place' where you put your money. It is an area where in the United States, particularly on college campuses and the like, we already see an enormous problem—one that is likely to be coming our way, one that can be managed and addressed if you turn your mind to it. Instead, this government decides to have another go at poker machines.

I have a pecuniary interest to declare: poker machines bore me witless, I am sorry to say. I find little charm in a poker machine. But I know some people enjoy them and for them it is an entertainment option and for many it is a part of the way they relax. That is fine. I also have another pecuniary interest: I did gamble on Melbourne Cup day. I took the wise counsel of my wife, who heard from one of her patients that they were onto a sure thing. Last time I looked, the horse was still running. I did my dough. It was a fun flutter, one day a year, so I am not heavily engaged in gambling.

So I step back from it and watch what is happening. I listen to the dedicated service providers in my community who say, 'Bruce, it's like alcohol—if it's not one type of beer or spirits, they will find it somewhere else.' This is what I keep hearing about gambling, problem gambling and how we need to tackle it. That is why this excellent paper my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews has produced, launched by the opposition leader, says you have to take a person centric focus to problem gambling. It is the person who has the challenge, the disease. That is the issue we need to turn our minds to addressing, not a particular mode of gambling, not one style of technology, not one part of the broad range of opportunities for those people at risk to get themselves into trouble and do further harm at a personal, financial and often a family level.

That is what is so troubling about this debate today. The Commonwealth is venturing into a space which is already very carefully regulated by the states and territories, trying to make this the Commonwealth's business when the business that is the Commonwealth's is seemingly too hard, too difficult for the government to turn its mind to addressing. But we have seen this before. Remember former Prime Minister Rudd, before he took the gamble and lost on his numbers. He had the war on gambling—same thing. It was all about poker machines, all about Canberra telling the state and territory governments what they should be doing without looking at its own patch, its own responsibility and the opportunities to address this within a particularly fast growing area of gambling and gaming.

So here we are with a policy that has not been tested because the trial has not been concluded, involving technology we have already heard cannot possibly be rolled out within the time frames prescribed in this legislation, imposing a governance arrangement over the top of the states and territories which looks to systems integration that has not even been put in place. We are requiring an investment in precommitment technology even though the government has not concluded its voluntary trial nor sought to see what opportunities there are with those already providing poker machines and how they might expand their own systems, technologies and loyalty schemes to pick up such an idea. Not able to implement these commitments in time, the government then creates a new bureaucracy with new taxes to pay for it to impose new penalties on businesses, particularly punishing for smaller locations and premises, knowing that the time frames, according to those who provide the technology, are simply unachievable. What is going on here?

I did mention the other day that, depending on who you listen to, you get a very different story. This is a classic multichannel narrowcast message exercise by the government. Those Labor MPs who have built their community credentials of the back of leagues clubs and other clubs that derive their revenue and fund their outreach into the community through poker machine activity—and there are a number—are saying: 'Don't worry, we haven't pulled the trigger on precommitment. Yes, we are putting all the architecture in place, all the legal requirements, but you are not obliged to do much. Just spend the money to load up all of this architecture, but we haven't pulled the trigger. So incur all the costs but don't get too upset. This isn't such a big deal.' That is one message that is going out.

You then hear Nick Xenophon, a colleague in the other place, and Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, saying this is the most watered-down cop-out they have ever seen. They have said this is a complete whitewash because it does not activate much. Then you have the government boasting that, for the community that are very keen to see a crackdown on poker machines, this is a landmark historic reform. Well, which one is it?

I think it is probably: load the gun, put all the machinery in place and impose all the obligations, with more regulation, more cost, more red tape, more bureaucracy and more of the Commonwealth getting into the lives of people who have no problem or no concern. Then, if this government is re-elected—and what a frightful thought that is for so many people in the small business community that I talk with day in, day out—you will see a nannyesque lack of concern for individual scope to make good decisions and the government will just put this on everybody like a ton of bricks. But in the meantime you will hear that narrowcast message out into the Labor seats, where they see this as a great imposition on their personal liberties. They see this form of gambling as a leisure activity for which they do not require the Commonwealth hanging over their shoulders.

Our view is that this is poorly conceived and poorly executed, in indecent haste, an unnecessary legislative frolic that has not got the benefit of the findings and learnings from the trial. Why have a trial if you are not going to take on board the learnings? It looks like so many other areas of policy where I get told by community members and stakeholders that the government's consultation processes are just a nonsense—that they are just there to tick a box, to make it look like people have been consulted, when the government have already decided what they are going to do. They simply go through the exercise of telling people what they are going to do, in the hope someone will come back and agree with them. Then the government will say: 'Look, look: someone agrees with us.' That is not evidence based policy; that is policy based evidence, where you decide what you are going to do and then you hope someone comes along to back up what you have already determined.

That has got to be what the trial is about. Why else would you legislate with such indecent haste, with all of the risks and concerns that have been communicated, if you are completely different to what the outcomes and learnings and findings might be from the trial? Why would you push on, when those responsible for rolling out the technology say it cannot be dealt with in the time that is prescribed? Why would you punish smaller clubs with less capacity to bring about this change, which, according to some on the government benches, they might never activate? Why would you ignore the central proposition that is embraced in the coalition's approach—that it is the person with the problem gambling disease that we should be working with? We understand the temptations and the pressures and the thought processes and get alongside those people, mindful that just further regulating a form of gambling that already is the most regulated of any in the country will not take away the temptation that leads to financial harm and hardship. That is why these bills should be rejected. (Time expired)

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. The issue of problem gambling is one that I feel tremendously strongly about and know deserves the devotion of considerable time and thought by all who sit in this chamber. But it requires more than time and thought; it requires planning and a response that will bring about outcomes for those that need to have the cycle of addiction broken and for the families that are directly impacted by the behaviour of those that have an addiction to gambling. My own professional background as a social worker for some 25 years, prior to entering parliament, has given me firsthand experience of the terrible burden that gambling addiction places on both individuals and families. I have no doubts regarding the profound impact it has on many lives. The government, however, historically and according to the evidence before me in this bill, fail to understand or even stretch themselves to discover the highly complex nature of problem gambling. This fundamental inability to engage with the issue extends to an inability to understand the causes behind problem gambling and a determination to allocate blame unjustly to industry sectors that employ hundreds of thousands of Australians and provide critical support to thousands of community groups and organisations.

In August 2011, the shadow minister for families, housing and human services, Kevin Andrews, and I met with a large group of concerned local people in my electorate and held a consultative community forum. There was standing room only in the venue, and those who attended felt very passionately about gambling reform and the possible introduction of any measures aimed at the clubs industry. Together we explored the various perspectives found amongst members of the community, and, without much probing, a very clear consensus emerged. Everyone who attended agreed that gambling addiction was a terrible problem. As I have stated, this problem has significant implications for many, including people in the electorate of Macquarie, and as Australians it is our duty to do whatever we can to assist those who suffer from any form of addiction.

Having acknowledged this issue, however, it is also critical to appropriately direct active responsibility for practically addressing problem gambling. The clubs sector provides essential civic services and is often at the forefront of local and national efforts to address problem gambling. In the electorate of Macquarie, there are 21 clubs, which employ in excess of 500 people, providing revenue that is directly absorbed into local areas and charities and community initiatives, as well as invaluable support for many volunteer community organisations and sporting clubs. In 2010, these clubs donated more than $5 million to community groups and organisations, many of which would not have been able to engage in major activities or even exist without this support.

The Richmond Club, for example, sponsored the Hawkesbury Martial Arts club last year. Eight members of the martial arts squad were selected to represent Australia at the 2011 USA Karate Federation Junior Olympics. The team then went on to win 13 medals. A representative of the martial arts club told members of the community and me that without the assistance of the Richmond Club this would not have been possible.

This kind of support by community clubs is at risk with the introduction of this legislation. Given the strength of feeling expressed at this forum and the clear concern expressed by members of my local community, I had hoped that the government would take the significance with which Australians view any problem-gambling-related regulation of the clubs sector seriously and would subject any proposed legislation to exhaustive and careful review. At this point, it appears that we are stuck in a bit of a Groundhog Day situation, because once again I must rise to say that this government is attempting to push important legislation with significant implications for thousands of Australians through this House without appropriate review or consideration.

The coalition supports voluntary precommitment, as do all states in Australia. Given this, why is this government stepping over a fairly clear constitutional line, into a regulatory area that is a state and territory responsibility, to legislate on voluntary precommitment? States and the territories license clubs and poker machines. As the shadow minister for families, housing and human services has stated, the Constitution does not provide for Commonwealth regulation of this area. This is an area that is clearly a state and territory responsibility, yet this government has taken it upon itself to interfere and aggressively seek to legislate where it has no business to do so and, given the receptive attitude of the states to voluntary precommitment, no reason to do so.

The states and the territories are exploring the implementation of voluntary precommitment schemes. Indeed, the clubs industry is investing in voluntary precommitment. The entire focus and purpose of this legislation, the introduction of voluntary precommitment, is already the subject of proposals and movement in the states, the territories and the industry itself. Yet this government is attempting to insert the Commonwealth into an area which is not within its legislative remit or its area of function and responsibility, as set out in the Constitution of this nation, to replicate the exact measures already being undertaken by the appropriate levels of government and industry across Australia.

If the states and territories had refused to commit to or even explore voluntary precommitment, one could see the justification in the government taking this action and proposing the legislation we are now debating. However, given that the states and territories are doing this, why, one wonders, would the government take the course of action apparent in the pursuit of this bill? I concur with the member for Menzies that finding the answer to this question is not difficult. The bizarre pursuit of pointless legislation is intrinsically connected to the political deal struck with the Greens and the member for Denison, although at this stage I wonder whether the member for Denison has found that agreement as fulfilling as he had hoped.

In the electorate of Macquarie, there is a rehabilitation centre that works with young men aged from 18 to 35 to break the cycle of addictions. Many of them have addictions to gambling. The federal government has cut $400,000 from its funding. If the federal government were serious about breaking the cycle of addiction in individuals and families, that funding—funding that would focus on solutions and introducing and supporting programs that work to break the cycle of addiction, not just for individuals but for their families—would be restored rather than this legislation being introduced.

Based on my own professional experience, I can attest that the best ways to tackle problem gambling do not lie in targeting business or simply looking at poker machines and certainly do not lie in a bizarre replication of legislation already developing in appropriate channels and levels of government. Instead, real and effective solutions to problem gambling lie in recognizing the tremendously complex nature of addiction, realizing first that an individual's excessive indulgence in a pastime managed appropriately and responsibly by the vast majority of Australians is not solely linked to the ability of Australian adults to access this pastime. This recognition must also extend to an exploration of the connection between problem gambling and a large raft of many social and economic problems, including social isolation, depression, alcoholism and family breakdown.

The organisation I spoke of earlier that has seen its funding cut, ONE80TC, has an understanding of this. It has a program that provides people with a capacity not just to break the cycle but to develop new behaviour, new relationships and opportunities not only to reach their potential but to restore the family and the relationships that have been impacted by their negative behaviour.

Secondly, it must be realized that solutions to the very significant issue of problem gambling will only be effective if found across the community, within many organizations, as I have already mentioned, working with employers, health services, industry and the Australian public. Access to the services found at all levels of society that help Australians deal with the multitude of issues that contribute to the development of problem gambling is the only truly effective way of combating addiction. Effective prevention is key to the ongoing success and extent of any long-term solutions. For those who have already developed problems, counselling and rehabilitation programs and support services, in conjunction with voluntary precommitment, are the solutions.

The coalition is totally committed to addressing problem gambling, but the real commitment of this government to tackling addiction is debatable. Why have all its efforts not been poured into exploring effective whole-of-community solutions and programs that are already working and that would both prevent and treat addiction, but instead simply been directed to the lazy and somewhat bizarre replication of regulatory measures that are being developed elsewhere and at the appropriate levels of government?

Labor seem to be obsessed with fighting ideological battles on behalf of the Greens, who continue to prop them up in government. This bill helps no-one, least of all the most vulnerable people who live with problem gambling through their own or a loved one's addiction. For this reason, the coalition opposes this bill.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and cognate bills. There are a few points that I would like to make. The first is that the coalition acknowledges that gambling is a major problem for some Australians and we do support measures that will effectively tackle problem gambling and help address and prevent gambling addiction. We understand that it is a serious issue and we understand the damage that a gambling addiction can do. But we have to make sure that in addressing this problem we are doing so not for political expediency and not so that we can say we have done something but so that we address the very issue.

The first thing that we need to address is that problem gambling does not occur just with poker machines. It occurs in other areas as well. As a matter of fact, my own family has personal experience of a member of the broader family having a gambling problem. I have heard and seen firsthand the problems that can occur. Importantly, that was able to be addressed and the person involved has been able to deal with the problem that he had—but it was not a poker machine addiction. We need to understand that tackling problem gambling requires a proper, measured and focused response that does not look at just one form of gambling but tackles the underlying problem of gambling addiction.

Fundamentally, problem gambling can only be tackled by providing problem gamblers with counselling and support services, and that costs some money. That means that the government has to put some resources into trying to address the problem. The coalition will look at approaches that provide additional, better equipped and more effective counselling and support services for problem gambling, because we understand how important this is in addressing the issue. We also support, specifically when it comes to poker machines, voluntary precommitment programs. We would like to see this extended to all gaming venues. But decisions that have such significant implications should be the result of detailed and careful consideration and should not involve a quick deal between members in this place.

One of the curious things that I fail to understand in the rush to all of a sudden bring this legislation into this place and have it debated and voted on this week is that we were debating this issue a year ago. Yet, all of a sudden, everything went quiet. Nothing occurred in this space. As we approach next year, an election year, all of a sudden—bang!—legislation is produced and rushed through committee processes and will be rushed through the parliament this week. There has been no proper explanation as to why that should be happening—none whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I think it has left many members on this side confused as to the government's real reasons behind introducing this legislation and rushing it through this place. Has another deal been done? Has another handshake agreement been done? Will that be honoured or will it be walked away from in a short period of time? I suppose, as we hear from members in this place, we will find that out. But it does seem strange that we have a big debate around this issue, we hear nothing and then all of a sudden a bill is rushed into this place.

The coalition has six areas of concern with the legislation before us. The first goes to the fact that what we are seeing is over-reach by the Commonwealth into the states and territories. There has been no proper explanation given as to why this should occur. For instance, in my state of Victoria, we already have voluntary precommitment. So why is the government looking to extend its powers and over-reach into what is a clear policy delineation which says that these matters are matters for the states? That has not been fully explained. I can see no proper reason why the Commonwealth wants to extend its influence over the states and territories in this regard other than that it seems to be hell-bent on dictating policy from Canberra. When the government has done that, it has proved inadequate. Every time it has over-reached we have seen public policy failure after public policy failure. Yet here it is wanting to do it again.

There are fundamental reasons why we will see public policy failure as a result. The first is that industry have not been given time to effectively prepare for the government's decisions. We have seen the consequences when industry have not been given the proper time, have not been consulted and have not had discussions on what this government has in mind; it leads to widespread concerns within industry. It is not a satisfactory response, because this government, at least after five years in office, should know better and should understand that proper, functioning policy that works in the interests of all Australians requires proper process. It requires planning and it requires an understanding of what the implementation implications will be. Yet we are not seeing this with the government's approach to this bill, and that is a real shame, particularly when, for this bill to be meaningful, it is going to require the cooperation through COAG of the states and territories. Yet we have not seen the government use the COAG process properly to see this outcome occur. If we are to get proper voluntary precommitment established in all the states and territories then using a cooperative approach and having them on board I would have thought would have been a very good first step.

The second issue of concern with this legislation comes around the time frame for implementation and the costs of implementation. The bill seeks to propose uniform time lines and conditions on all states and territories. The evidence suggests the consequences of this arbitrary approach will be extensive compliance costs and administrative burdens, because one of the issues we have is that some states and territories are further ahead in implementing than others. Government has not taken this into consideration.

The government has relied on the Productivity Commission in saying that this is how it has framed its policy approach in this area, but in truth the Productivity Commission has stated that realistically most state and territory governments could not quickly implement a genuinely binding precommitment system. Full-scale implementation and advanced interfaces with the gambler would also require all machines to have card readers or other player identification devices and software upgrades—a costly measure if required to be done quickly. Yet that does not seem to have been taken on board, and that is an issue that I think the government is going to find will haunt it because I would imagine that industry, faced with these compliance and implementation costs, is going to have a few words to say to the government on this issue. The problem is that, down the track, that also might lead—and there is some evidence to suggest this—to the risk of non-compliance. So driving through this legislation could actually start driving non-compliance—and there is evidence along those lines from the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia.

There are also issues concerning the use of ATMs and how the government is approaching this. The coalition realises that this is going to put significant costs on the industry, and we have supported industry calls for an extension of not less than 12 months to the lead time for the commencement date of the proposed daily ATM withdrawal limit. This has been a long-held view of the ATM Industry Reference Group—really since this debate began in 2007, when we saw, for the first time, the Commonwealth say, 'We are going to try and encroach on the states and territories in this area.'

The other issue that we have is that, once again, there will be a disproportionate negative impact on smaller venues, those in regional and rural areas and premises suffering economic stress. So we just see this as a carte blanche approach—an approach which just blankets everyone, and treats everyone the same. This is one of the reasons that legislating from Canberra into the realms of the states and territories is not a smart idea, because it leads to Canberra saying, 'One size fits all,' and yet we have seen that it does not.

You would think that this government would have learned its lesson about this through every one-size-fits-all approach that it has tried, especially when it has been encroaching on state powers. We saw this with the pink batts insulation scheme: the Commonwealth department of environment was never designed and put there to roll out a pink batts program. And what were the consequences? Deaths, fires, and a massive bill to the Australian taxpayer. And what did we see? A repair bill of $120 million for remedial work.

That is what happens when, from Canberra, the Commonwealth starts overreaching into areas that they just should not be in. This is one serious area of concern, and especially for regional and rural areas, because the cost-of-living pressures and cost-of-doing-business pressures that have increased under this government have put enormous pressure on communities and venues, and yet here they are, just carte blanche, putting another cost on them—and not with any proper consultation; just saying, 'You will wear this.' That is not the way that you implement good policy. That is not specifically targeting problem gamblers. That is just saying, 'This one-size-fits-all approach is the way we will go.' It is not going to prove to be effective.

So we have serious concerns and reservations on this bill, and in summing up I will just go through them. Firstly, it does not specifically target all problem gamblers; it targets problem gamblers in one area. Secondly, there is an extension of Commonwealth influence but this is a states and territories issue and you should work cooperatively with them and get them to implement the policies and to roll them out. Thirdly, there is a lack of time given to industry to deal with the consequences of this legislation, and there are costs to industry in dealing with this legislation which you are just telling them that they are going to have to wear. Fourthly, there is going to be a negative impact on employment. Fifthly, there is going to be hardship felt in rural and regional areas beyond what the Commonwealth has considered, which potentially could also lead to widespread non-compliance. Sixthly, there are concerns with the way that you are rushing in the implementation associated with the use of ATMs.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to follow the member for Wannon's eloquent explanation of how the reforms in this bill will adversely impact rural and regional Australia. He is an expert on such parts of Australia, and his words are a prescient warning to the government and all of those intending to vote in favour of this bill that it will have consequences for all parts of this country. I will talk the culture of clubs in our great state of New South Wales, which is the premier state of Australia, and particularly about clubs in Western Sydney. Registered clubs have formed the nucleus of communities in Western Sydney ever since I grew up there, and they had been doing so for a long time before I was born.

The problem with the perversion of the public policy process—I might say the perfidious perversion of the public policy process—represented by this bill is that when you put in place badly designed and ill-thought-out legislation such as this on the basis of a promise to an independent you adversely affect the civic society in Western Sydney and places like it around the country, particularly places in New South Wales. The member for Denison, whose speech on this bill I was here for earlier, fails to understand the reality of the culture that has grown up in Sydney and in New South Wales in general. I note the presence of the member for Robertson, and I think it is very good that the member for Robertson is here to defend clubs in her electorate against this bad legislation. I am sure that she is here to do so, because she knows that clubs in her electorate, like clubs in Western Sydney, are saying that the minimum compliance costs of this legislation will be unreal.

Just this week in the papers in Penrith—which is in the electorate of Lindsay, a prominent part of Sydney—it was stated that, by 2016, Western Sydney clubs will have to find up to $123 million, the sum demanded of the clubs by the federal government in this legislation. This $123 million has to be found somewhere. Are wages going to be cut? Are jobs going to be cut? Are direct grants to community groups going to be cut? The member for Robertson would understand that such direct grants constitute a vital flow of funds to so many voluntary groups in her electorate, as they do in Western Sydney. The $123 million will be used to convert gaming machines so that they can be used in mandatory precommitment schemes, and the use of the money in this way is going to mean a great loss of funds to clubs in Western Sydney. In the article in the Penrith press, which was published on 27 November 2012, the local member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, said:

… he was disappointed to see the gambling industry peddling these alarmist claims about the government's sensible response to problem gambling.

He went on to say:

'I met with and listened to the concerns of local clubs and I made sure their views were well represented in Canberra.'

When I look at the design of this legislation, I cannot imagine a more disingenuous statement from a person who is the Assistant Treasurer of the country than that he has represented the view of clubs in Western Sydney. I encourage any of the members in this place to go and visit the CEOs, the general managers, the club boards and the people who run the clubs in Lindsay or any electorate in Western Sydney—Castle Hill RSL, which is in my electorate, would be a prime example—and ask them their views on what will come out of this legislation. You will hear exactly the opposite of what the Assistant Treasurer said in his own local papers. The clubs are not making spurious claims; they are not, contrary to what the Assistant Treasurer says, 'peddling alarmist claims'. The clubs have to find $123 million somewhere. That is a lot of money when you are running a business, when the margins are small and when the club industry is already hurting from changes that have occurred at state level.

There are a lot of clubs in the electorate of Lindsay—Club Paceway, the Dunheved Golf Club, the Emu Plains Sporting & Recreation Club, the Henry Lawson Club, the Nepean Rowing Club, the Penrith Bowling & Recreation Club, the Penrith Golf & Recreation Club, the Penrith RSL, the St Marys Band Club, the St Marys RSL & Ex-Serviceman's Club, St Marys Rugby League Club and the Hubertus Country Club Ltd. The number of clubs in Lindsay says a lot about the culture of Western Sydney. Penrith, Parramatta, where I grew up, my electorate of Mitchell and Western Sydney in general have clubs all through them. Clubs are nuclei for the community. As a person who grew up in Sydney, I would much rather that young people go to registered clubs and enjoy a drink and catch up with friends than that they go to nightclubs or other places which do not take a similar level of care and do not put anything back into the community. Registered clubs across Sydney put back into the community. That is the point that the government has failed to understand in the design and proposed implementation of this legislation.

The government does not address online gambling. Online gambling companies—whether it be Betfair, which is advertising heavily at the moment, or others—are all registered offshore. All of the profits go offshore. The online gambling industry is not like the club industry, from which much of the money made goes back into the community through direct grants, through taxes and other charges and through employment. Yet the government is absolutely silent on the subject of online gambling. We saw with the alcopops legislation that, when the government acted in one small space to deal with the trend of the day in order to look like it was doing something significant, the settings changed and people moved to other forms of alcohol. Similarly, this legislation will force people to move to other forms of gambling, and government members know it. If you say, 'You can only do $1 on the pokies,' people will go to online gambling and other forms of gambling where they are not monitored, where they do not have access to the right programs, where there is no form of help and where there is no return to the Australian taxpayer or the local community. I know why the member for Denison does not understand this: he comes from an electorate in Tasmania which is already heavily subsidised by the New South Wales taxpayer dollar. He has not only failed to take the time to understand that he is living in a bubble sustained by New South Wales taxpayers but also failed to take the time to understand that clubs are a very important part of the make-up of Western Sydney.

This direct assault on clubs in Western Sydney and New South Wales will have a direct detrimental effect on community life and activity and the coherence of our population in Sydney, not to the benefit of anyone. By focusing just on poker machines as a problem, the member for Denison, who is living in this idealistic and unrealistic world, is deliberately not opening his eyes to the realities. We know there are people who do have problems with poker machines, they do need to get the right help and we do need to design policy that is evidence based, well thought out and rational—but we do not find that in this legislation.

It has been well stated by my colleagues, but the coalition do support voluntary precommitment—'voluntary' being the key word. The government is in love with mandatory forms of policy, imposing, penalising and doing whatever it can to create disincentives; whereas we are all about incentives. Voluntary precommitment is a good thing for us to trial and something worth doing as part of a variety of tools to address the issues related to problem gambling. But cracking down on clubs in New South Wales, who form the nucleus of these communities and the many groups that rely on them, is not going to achieve the desired benefits against the cost. That is where this government fails to do a proper analysis, as always. Many players in the industry, including Clubs Australia, made submissions to the inquiry—and I have a copy here. They expressed their concerns directly about what is wrong with the legislation before us. I will get to some of those in a moment.

There are other concerns. Traditionally, this has been a state issue, and it is still a state issue. The fact that the Commonwealth is seeking to create an extra power over gambling is, to me, unnecessary. Given that the Commonwealth through this legislation will have to rely on the COAG process and use every state and territory in the design and implementation of these measures, and that the mandatory time frames that have been included are so unrealistic, is quite scandalous. It is hugely problematic that there will be rates of noncompliance and that then, of course, this hasty and ill-conceived approach will lead to penalties being applied to registered clubs. The Clubs Australia submission points out that the three-year implementation time frame for venues with more than 20 poker machines is not achievable. It is not something that clubs can absorb in their compliance costs and it is likely to result in widespread noncompliance, especially with smaller clubs and entities. If we know that now—and we do know that—and if we accept that just in Western Sydney the clubs will have to find $123 million from somewhere just to make these changes, we ought to take time and rationally design legislation that targets the problem that we are trying to fix: problem gambling. That is not what is going on here today.

I guess we do not see members from Western Sydney electorates on the government side—the member for Lindsay, the member for Parramatta and others—come in here and decry registered clubs in New South Wales because they know they have a significant problem. I stood as the coalition's representative at the Blacktown Workers Club in front of 1,000 people with Michelle Rowland, the member Greenway. These people—these good, quality Australian people who, through voluntary associations, love the life of their local club—were seriously registering a protest with the member Greenway about all these proposals, including mandatory precommitment. They were sending a signal that (1) they did not want the government imposing unnecessary regulation on them when most of them do not have gambling problems, that (2) they understood that those with gambling problems do need help but that (3) they do not want the government to interfere with the registered clubs' system in New South Wales, which provides the lifeblood for so much genuine community activity. That is what those 1,000 people were saying, and some of them were not saying it politely. Some of them were very forthright, but I understand why those 1,000 people at the Blacktown Workers Club were so forthright. What I do not understand was why the member for Greenway did not listen. I do not understand why the Assistant Treasurer, in his local newspaper, the Penrith Press, says the views of his local clubs are well represented in Canberra, when clearly they are not in this legislation.

Members in Western Sydney of all sides ought to come into this place and send this legislation back to the government to say, 'Do not pass such a bill that will damage the life of registered clubs in the Western Sydney community and Sydney in general. Come back to us with something that is evidence based, is rational, makes sense and will have actually have an impact on problem gambling in Australia.' I note the member for Macarthur has just joined us in the chamber. I am sure he is going to regale us with tales of how clubs in Western Sydney are the lifeblood of his community as well. He is a member who knows his trade, understands his community and realises that registered clubs are the lifeblood of those communities.

It is very important that the government gets the signal on this, and I encourage Clubs Australia and all of these registered clubs around Australia to register their protest more vociferously. This shabby backroom deal between the member for Denison, Senator Xenophon and the government reeks of bad public policy. The member for Denison, who came into this chamber earlier today and said, 'Anybody against this is corrupt and in the pocket of the gambling industry,' could not be more wrong about the motivation of people on this side of the chamber in relation to this issue. I can record for this House that I have never taken a cent from any gambling industry and do not intend to. Further, I am a person who grew up in Western Sydney and understands that this legislation will seriously and deleteriously impact those clubs and our system.

If you want to benefit online gambling—and these companies are all registered overseas, with every cent going to offshore organisations at the expense of local clubs, who have to put back into their football clubs, local communities, sports associations, charities and voluntary groups and pay tax and employ people and do all the good things that they do—let's penalise the Australian outfits to the benefit of offshore interests. Well, I am not up for it and I know members on this side are not up for it. Government members representing Western Sydney ought to have the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and to their government and say, 'Our communities will not wear this pathetic attempt at public policy.'

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Mitchell, I have great concerns about the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills. I will speak about the impact of this legislation on behalf of all the clubs across Macarthur and on behalf of the employees, club members, schools, sporting groups and charities they support. There are 17 local clubs in MacArthur, with more than 130,000 club members. Our local clubs support more than 750 employees, making them one of the biggest employers in the region, the south-west of Sydney.

Every year there are 4.4 million visitors to our local clubs. Many of these are families from my electorate—including my own family—who enjoy the friendly atmosphere, great entertainment and affordable meals offered by our local clubs. I personally believe that the Labor government's attack on our local clubs is an absolute disgrace. I am looking forward to hearing what Labor members from Western Sydney have to say about this legislation. It is un-Australian.

The reforms are going to cost our local clubs at least $24 million to set up and at least $30 million in lost revenue. If the government gets their way on mandatory precommitment, a number of clubs in Campbelltown will not survive the huge set-up costs and the lost revenue. Even if they survive, this is money which would otherwise have been invested into our local community in Macarthur. Clubs in Macarthur currently pledge large amounts of funding to local sporting groups, community organisations and schools in our region. They provide jobs for young people and scholarships for local university students. One club in my electorate provides more than $37,000 each month in food discounts for local families—people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. There are large tracts of public housing in my electorate. These people will be affected by these changes.

Our community receives millions of dollars from our local clubs. The Campbelltown Catholic Club has donated $1 million every year for the past five years to Catholic and public schools in Macarthur. In total, it has donated more than $20 million to local schools and charities since 1990. This includes more than $100,000 to Youth Solutions, more than $190,000 to Lifeline Macarthur, more than $250,000 to St Vincent de Paul, and the same to Youth Off The Streets. These organisations will suffer as a result of this legislation. They rely on these donations to stay alive. I will name just a few more. Mater Dei, a local school for children with disability, has received more than $650,000 from the Catholic Club. Our parishes and local charities have received more than $1.6 million and our Catholic schools more than $11.3 million from the Catholic Club—and that is just to name a few organisations that have received help from just one of the clubs in my electorate.

Wests Leagues Club, Leumeah, is also a big supporter of our local sporting groups, schools and charities. They spend more than $1 million each year on 22—yes, 22!—local sporting teams and the Wests Tigers. This includes $450,000 a year on subsidised registration for local teams, uniform subsidies, training and insurance—letting disadvantaged kids play the sport of their choice. The general manager of the club, Tony Mathew, has told me that a big concern is that they still have no detail about how the government's voluntary precommitment system will actually work. His club already has a precommitment system in place. So why should they have to pay again for an alternative system with new card readers and machines? We are talking about an enormous amount of investment, yet the club has been given no detail about how the system will work or what they will need to do.

Without a strong club movement, funding for our local community will be lost and local jobs will be lost—and for what? Local clubs in my electorate are already doing their bit to support problem gamblers through counselling and support services. Yes, gambling is a serious problem for some people, but the vast majority of people in Macarthur gamble responsibly. This attack on our clubs will not help the problem gamblers. Instead of putting restrictions on our right to have a punt, the government should be helping the problem gamblers by offering them real solutions, such as support programs and counselling. They should be increasing funding for these programs, as the Liberal government in New South Wales has done. But this government has a different idea and wants to rush through this legislation—legislation on which there has been very little consultation with the states or the industry.

The bills we are considering require that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 be capable of supporting precommitment. They also require that all gaming machines be part of a state-wide precommitment system and display electronic warnings by 2016, with longer implementation time lines for small venues. The legislation also imposes a $250-a-day ATM withdrawal limit for gaming venues other than casinos.

I find it interesting that casinos are not included in this ATM withdrawal limit. Could this have something to do with the effect this would have on tourism in the member for Denison's own patch? He has a casino in his electorate. Why are problem gamblers in casinos different from problem gamblers in pubs and hotels? This is legislation to suit one individual and it is still poor legislation. Why does the member want to apply this legislation to pubs and clubs but not to casinos in his own electorate? Does he think that problem gamblers do not go to casinos? What is the excuse? You can take $250 out of an ATM at a pub or a club, but you can take any amount out at a casino. What is the difference between a problem gambler at a casino and a problem gambler at a club or pub? This is just another example of the government developing policies to suit the crossbenchers and the Greens.

The member for Denison has implied that people who are part of the club and hotel industry are dodgy and prey on vulnerable people in our society. This is an absolute disgrace! I know for a fact that the people who work in the clubs across Macarthur genuinely care about others and make a significant contribution to those most in need.

According to Clubs Australia, the 2016 deadline for clubs with 21 or more poker machines is completely unrealistic given the massive cost of replacing or upgrading existing machines to offer voluntary precommitment. Of the 17 clubs in Macarthur, 13 have 21 or more machines, which means they have to have voluntary precommitment on 100 per cent of their machines by 2016. This can only be done at a cost of $38.4 million. Of this, $16.7 million is unplanned expenditure. Given clubs are not-for-profit organisations, this additional spend can only be sourced by cutting jobs, cutting community donations or borrowing from the banks.

For clubs where the possibilities for savings from such measures are insufficient, the likely result is closure. This legislation treats clubs with more than 21 poker machines in the same way it treats Star Casino. If a club has 24 pokies—as does the Campbelltown City Bowling Club, for example—this legislation assumes it has the financial capacity to replace its entire fleet of pokies in four years time. Due to financial constraints, the existing machines at this club have not been replaced for eight years. So how can it be expected to replace 100 per cent of their machines over the next four years?

Clubs in Macarthur already provide support for problem gamblers and in New South Wales we have seen the prevalence of problem gambling drop by half since 2006. Our local clubs are all members of the ClubSafe program, which provides a free problem gambling counselling service for all patrons. Our clubs in Macarthur already have voluntary precommitment programs in place for problem gamblers. This is a real solution to a very real problem, and one that delivers results for problem gamblers in Campbelltown and Macarthur.

Aside from this government's failure to offer real support for problem gamblers another concern of mine is the lack of consultation with the industry regarding this bill. Clubs Australia has called for several amendments to the bill to ensure that voluntary precommitment can be rolled out across the country in a way that does not undermine the financial viability of the club industry. Many clubs have already installed voluntary precommitment. Clubs Australia believes that those venues that have already done so should not be required to replace their systems with a new version of voluntary precommitment. This would allow venues to implement voluntary precommitment on a venue-based rather than state-wide system. Clubs Australia is also concerned that the bill gives most clubs three years to implement these changes even though the Productivity Commission recommended that voluntary pre-commitment be implemented over six years, recognising the challenge to afford the technology.

In terms of the supervisory levy that will be charged on venues for the costs of regulation, Clubs Australia wants the total levy capped for industry at $5 million per year, with at least a 50 per cent contribution from the federal government. This equates to a maximum charge of $25 per machine per annum. In regard to the $250 daily withdrawal limits from ATMs, advice from the ATM Industry Reference Group indicates a significant number of people generally withdraw cash at levels above $250, so Clubs Australia is proposing an increase in the limit to $400 per day. The ATM suppliers for clubs and pubs advise that they need a minimum of 12 months to implement withdrawal limits across the 5,000 ATMs affected by the change. Clubs Australia has also called for the release of a full cost-benefit analysis of the bill's proposals, as well as a regulatory impact statement. As yet neither of these have been done.

It is clear to me that there has been very little consultation with the industry on this so-called reform. Labor has indicated it intends to rush the bill through this week and this has compounded industry concerns about the lack of consultation and the unforeseen consequences of the legislation. The coalition believes the government's national gaming reform legislation is far from perfect and can be characterised by its lack of appreciation for the concerns of state and territory governments, its decision to ignore important technical advice and suggested improvements from key industry participants, and a failure to provide much needed clarity and flexibility in the proposed legislative measures. The Productivity Commission itself stated that the issue of addressing problem gambling is a complex task for public policy, and that coverage and design of regulation require particular care to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs and that account is taken of what is often imperfect evidence.

The coalition understands that gambling is a major problem for some Australians. That is why we support measures to effectively tackle problem gambling and help address and prevent gambling addiction. We support voluntary precommitment programs and would like to see them extended to all gaming venues. Tackling problem gambling requires a measured response that does not just look at poker machines but tackles the underlying problem of gambling addiction in all avenues. Problem gamblers do not just use poker machines—what about horse racing, sports bets and online gambling? Today's paper reported on a lady problem gambler who lost $8 million on online gambling. There are no reforms here that suggest that this precommitment system is going to help her. She got online and lost $8 million of her employer's money.

This is why the coalition is pushing for a more measured response, one that sees voluntary precommitment programs extended to all gaming venues and that provides problem gamblers with the counselling and support services they need. For a mandatory precommitment system to be effective, it needs to be shown that it will actually reduce or prevent problem gambling. There is no evidence that this is the case. The government needs to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the final mandatory precommitment scheme before any decision is made on its implementation.

It is a big concern that the government is not planning a trial of its scheme. The coalition has identified six areas of concern with the government's legislation, they being: the extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions; the lack of time given to the industry to effectively prepare for the implementation of the new measures; the cost of implementation; the negative impact on industry and employment especially in smaller venues and those premises already experiencing financial hardship; the risk of widespread non-compliance; and the matters associated with the use of ATMs.

The government's bills set out enforcement measures, including civil penalty orders, infringement notices, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and compliance notices. This means Labor will have to establish yet another new bureaucracy, a federal gambling regulator. The bills provide that the regulator may charge fees for services, and they also establish two levies to support this package of measures. This will effectively create a new tax. The supervisory levy will be determined by regulations. The purpose of the supervisory levy is to recover the costs to the Commonwealth of administering these bills, which all relate to gambling and thus all fall within the domain of the states. Gambling has traditionally fallen within state government responsibility and every state government supports voluntary precommitment. The states are now criticising the government for moving into their legislative space.

I oppose this legislation having in mind my local clubs and the problem gamblers in my electorate who need counselling and support. I have always been a big supporter of our local clubs in Macarthur because I can see the great things they do for our community. My family and I have enjoyed visiting our local clubs for many meals over the past 30 years, as do hundreds of families each week across Macarthur. I think these reforms will change our local clubs as we know them and stop vital funding to many community groups and organisations without helping problem gamblers at all. That is why I oppose this legislation. Problem gamblers need counselling and support services to kick their addiction—not this ridiculous legislation that does nothing but hurt our local clubs who put so much back into our local communities.

If I am a problem gambler and I walk into a club, and I know I am a problem gambler, I will set my limits too high—so the system does not work for problem gamblers. They need counselling. If they set their own limits, the system will struggle. As I said, there are no limits with online gambling, and you can bet on credit. There will be a huge impact on our communities, because clubs donate money to charities and other organisations in Macarthur. It will have a huge impact. This is not the system for problem gamblers—it will not work. We will have flawed legislation where the member for Denison will pick and choose what pubs and clubs do and what casinos do. If you are a problem gambler you can go to the casino and take out as much money as you want, but if you go to a pub or club you can only take out $250. Why is it different when you go into a casino? It is another aspect of this legislation where the member for Denison is obviously looking after his own backyard—tourism and casinos in his local electorate. He has been able to pick and choose what he wants to put in the legislation so there is the least impact on his electorate.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to briefly voice my opposition to this National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. My views on this are well and truly on the record, but I do want to reinforce my position.

I do not play poker machines—and, quite frankly, to me, this bill is not about poker machines. This bill is about small communities. In my electorate of Parkes, more often than not, the social hub and meeting place for small rural communities is the local club, many of which have poker machines. These places are not great gambling dens. There might be 10, 20, 30 or so machines around the club and they get played sometimes only a couple of nights a week. The returns from these machines pay for things like the greenkeeper on the golf course, someone to maintain the bowling green and sponsorship for the local football club, including football guernseys, sporting equipment and things like that. They are places where our returned servicemen can gather to socialise and communicate and have fellowship. They are places where residents of these towns can go to have a relatively reasonably priced meal and enjoy some company in their own community. Unfortunately, this bill was concocted for a political purpose, not a social purpose. It is a bill that was concocted to mollify the member for Denison, even though he has lowered his expectations somewhat, but even this watered-down bill will still have a detrimental effect on the clubs and pubs in my electorate.

Another issue with this bill is associated with the ATM withdrawal limit of $250. In many country towns and villages, financial services have largely vacated the field and, more often than not, the only avenue for cash is the ATM at the local bowling club or the pub. If there is a $250 withdrawal limit, it will have an impact on how these people go about their lives. Quite often, pensioners, who are paid their benefits electronically now, rely on the ATMs in these venues to get their weekly money out for their expenses. Local people earning wages are paid electronically, and they rely on these ATMs for cash. The $250 withdrawal limit will have a serious, detrimental effect on how these people conduct their business.

I will not take up any more of the House's time, but I will summarise by saying that, when legislation is introduced for a political result rather than to try and deal with a social ill, the outcomes will always be negative. I oppose this bill. I will be voting against this bill and I certainly hope that the majority of the House do the same.

Debate adjourned.