Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I don't think I blame players at all, Senator Xenophon. I will take the interjection, but I cannot see what I said that sounds as though I am blaming players. I do concede that there is a strong element of self-responsibility for any individual in our community and that every individual has choices. Some people make good choices and some people make bad choices, but that is not to deny the reality of gambling addiction. I do not think they are mutually exclusive points to make in this debate. Obviously counselling is important and support services are important, and the coalition is committed to addressing problem gambling. But what we are not interested in is dealing with an issue such as gambling on an ideological basis. As I have said before, I do not think duplicating regulation with the states is necessarily an answer.

But let me be clear again. The coalition does support voluntary precommitment. The states support voluntary precommitment. The territories support voluntary precommitment. The sector—the industry—also supports voluntary precommitment. But, as I mentioned before, Labor have already tried to legislate mandatory precommitment. They tried, but they failed.

In my opening remarks I warned of the dangers of rushing this sort of legislation, as is occurring today. The dangers of doing that were on display in the other place a mere few hours ago, where, moments after this bill passed the House, the government sought to bring the bill back to the House because they had discovered that there were 20 or so amendments that they had realised, at the death knock, were needed to fix the legislation which had already passed the House. I cannot say that that gives me a high level of confidence as to the efficacy of this bill in achieving its stated objectives. It is a worry. I wish that this chamber had taken the opportunity that the opposition sought to provide for this legislation to be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for further scrutiny.

The manufacturers say that the time lines are unrealistic and that there are serious technical deficiencies. Industry has voiced concerns that the time lines will force mass compliance. Again, as I have said before, rural and regional venues will struggle to finance and cope with the costs that government seek to force upon them.

The government's objective is really mandatory precommitment. They want the technology in place but they tell venues that it will not be switched on. On the other hand they tell advocates of mandatory precommitment that machines will be mandatory-ready. The government is trying to play both sides.

Let me take a moment to highlight just one issue—that being the government's approach to their trial in the ACT, and whether that trial and the compensation measures in place will pump money into Labor clubs in the ACT and where that money might end up. As I have said before, the trial in the ACT has been delayed. The clubs say that it is proving difficult. If the government cannot even properly plan the regulation of a trial then it is reasonable to wonder how the government might endeavour to regulate an entire industry across the nation.

The Labor Party do not understand how positive an impact clubs have in Australia and particularly, as I have said, the importance of them in New South Wales and Queensland. The clubs do good work. They are run by good people and they make an important contribution. But I come back again to the need to look at the causes of problem gambling. We are committed to doing what can reasonably and responsibly and effectively be done to help problem gamblers and to prevent problem gambling.

As I reach the end of my time in this debate it is important for me to reflect on the numbers of people who are employed in the gaming industry. We know it is a major employer with around 67,000 staff directly involved in gaming activities, a further 105,000 nongaming staff are employed in casinos, hotels and clubs that offer gaming and almost 50,000 are employed in the racing industry.

It is also important in closing to put the issue of gaming in perspective. Approximately four per cent of Australians gamble weekly and approximately 15 per cent of that group are problem gamblers. The Productivity Commission estimates that less than one per cent of the population, all up, are problem gamblers. That is not, for one minute, to diminish the significant impact of problem gambling in the lives of those individuals or the effects on their families. Not for one second do I or anyone in the opposition seek to do that, but I do think it is important to have the context of this issue carefully presented.

In summary, the coalition has identified six areas of concern with the government's legislation: the extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions; the lack of time given to industry to prepare effectively for implementation of the new measures; the cost of implementation; the negative impacts on industry and employment, especially on smaller venues, those in rural and regional areas and those premises already experiencing financial hardship; the risk of widespread noncompliance; and a number of matters associated with the use of ATMs.

As I conclude I want to acknowledge the sincerity of Senator Xenophon in these matters. While we may have different conclusions as to the best way to tackle the issue of problem gambling, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the long interest that Senator Xenophon has taken in these issues—not just here in the Australian Senate, but also beforehand in the South Australian parliament. I do not know, but he might be the world's first person elected on an anti-pokies platform. He may enlighten us about that.

What causes concern to those of us on this side of the House is that the government have absolutely no consistency in relation to issues of gaming and gambling. Senator Xenophon does, but the government do not. Their position changes depending on their fortunes in the House of Representatives. They did obtain an extra vote in the form of Mr Slipper, and that seemed to have a dramatic effect on their view. We will be opposing this legislation.