Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to give some context to this matter as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform from its inception. Andrew Wilkie MP, the member for Denison, was in my office on the day that he negotiated with the Gillard government to have a package of measures on gambling law reform. I correct Senator Fifield not to admonish him but just to set the historical record straight. What Andrew Wilkie wanted was $1 bets and $120 maximum hourly losses, as recommended by the Productivity Commission in its key report, which came out on 23 June 2010—and I think there were a number of other events on that day that preoccupied the nation. That was Mr Willkie's first choice. The government did not budge; it would not make that concession on that reform.

The fallback position was to implement a scheme of mandatory precommitment by May 2014, and of course with various transitional arrangements. That was always the second-best option; let's make that clear. But the Productivity Commission made it clear that having mandatory precommitment could make a real difference to the people that are hurt by poker machine gambling in this country, with 40 per cent of poker machine losses—a $12 billion loss—coming from problem gamblers, nearly $5 billion. There are 95,000 people losing $21,000 a year on average and another quarter of a million people who are already showing the signs of full-blown addiction.

This legislation in its current form, as a result of the government's backflip on the legislation, is an incredibly watered down version of what was being proposed. But it is fair to say, as Senator Collins, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, has pointed out, that there have been two inquiries in relation to this legislation. Those inquiries have been comprehensive. Those inquiries have looked at the provisions of this legislation. Those inquiries have included members of the coalition. So I really question the utility of having it go to another committee in these circumstances.

I have grave reservations about this package of legislation but it is important to understand that it would be unfair to say there has been no due process to look at it. Therefore I have difficulty in accepting the opposition's position. In the circumstances, on this occasion I support the government's position because there already has been a process for inquiry and report into these bills.