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

It is very timely to debate the Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2012 [2013] today, a bill that I and my colleagues Senator Di Natale and Senator Madigan introduced, because the issues at the heart of this bill will not go away, despite the attempts of the former government to sideline this issue and despite the attempts of the current government to bury this issue. They will not go away for reasons that will become apparent. There are literally many hundreds of thousands of Australians in this country today who are suffering because of addiction to poker machines.

Given that the government have begun the process of dismantling the national gambling regulator and repealing the previous government's reforms, this bill is particularly timely. Let me make this quite clear: when the former government's legislation on gambling reform was put up, I did not support the then government's legislation because I did not believe it went far enough. Also, I did not want to be seen to be sanctioning a fundamental broken promise on their part, because the Gillard government actually reneged, in a deeply cynical way, on the written agreement that it had struck with Andrew Wilkie, the member for Denison. I did not want to be party to that very cynical manoeuvring on the part of the former government. I must emphasise that Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, acted in good faith.

The current government have made it quite clear that there is no chance of a better scheme or any other scheme at all being put in place. They want to dismantle the minimalist gambling reforms. Under those circumstances, I do not want to be party to making a situation much worse but also endorsing what the current government are planning to do and that is to move away from the concept of federal regulation of the gambling industry. The last best hope to deal with this industry, to deal with the damage caused by poker machines, is through a national approach. There is no doubt that, under the Constitution, there is power to deal with these issues in a way that is effective—using the corporations power, taxation power and banking and telecommunications powers. That is the best way of doing it.

The fight for gambling reform has been long and hard and this government's most recent moves indicate that the battle is far from over. The 2010 Productivity Commission report into problem gambling highlighted in harsh detail how much damage it causes to our community and how attempts at state based regulation had failed. I do not understand why this government cannot see that the states, who are happy to milk the pokies cash cow to fill their coffers, simply cannot be left in charge of regulation. It is truly a case of Dracula minding the blood bank and it is ordinary Australians who are getting sucked dry. Gambling losses have gone from over $7 billion to $19 billion over a couple of decades, well outstripping the rate of inflation, with poker machines devouring about $13 billion of that. The No. 1 jackpot junkies in Australia are the state governments, who reap over $5 billion a year in gambling taxes year in, year out.

About 250,000 adults in Australia are estimated to have experienced significant harms from gambling in the last 12 months. Based on the available evidence, the Productivity Commission has found that there are between 80,000 and 160,000 Australian adults suffering significant problems from their gambling, with a further 230,000 to 350,000 experiencing moderate risks that make them vulnerable to a full-blown gambling addiction. In other words, there is a significant cohort of people who, if they have not been hooked on poker machines, are well on the way to going down that path. We are dealing with a dangerous product. Let us put this in perspective. It is not some moralistic argument; it is about people being harmed. It is about consumer protection and the ethics of state governments drawing so much of their money from harm from gambling addiction.

Up to 85 per cent of Australians who have a gambling problem have a problem because of poker machines. For each one of these problem gamblers, on average, another seven people are affected—family, friends and work mates. Problem gamblers account for about a third of overall gambling expenditure in Australia—that is, in the billions of dollars. We are talking about $5 billion coming from problem gamblers, with over 40 per cent of poker machine losses coming from problem gamblers. In other words, about $5 billion a year spent on poker machines comes from people who are hooked on poker machines. Those problem gamblers are more likely to gamble on poker machines than gamble by any other form, although a swing towards online sports betting is emerging.

Last year I was very happy to do a press conference with the then opposition leader Tony Abbott, now Prime Minister, in relation to online gambling. I sincerely welcome Mr Abbott's commitment to tackling online gambling and the impact it can have on individuals, particularly younger people in our community. So the laudable intentions of the coalition in relation to online gambling expressed last year represent a real contrast with what the government is now planning to do on poker machine addiction.

Poker machine addiction leads to higher crime levels and suicide. The access to and intensity of machines makes them more addictive than other forms of gambling and lives are torn apart across the country every day because of gambling addiction. Senators Di Natale and Madigan would well know of the research undertaken out of Victoria, and you have some outstanding researchers there, such as Dr Charles Livingstone, who have pointed to the links between the level of crime and problem gambling. Studies have been done by agencies in Victoria and staggering statistics have emerged, such as that something like one in five people presenting to hospital emergency departments after attempting suicide were there because of gambling addiction. These are staggering figures.

The Productivity Commission conducted two inquiries into gambling: the first in 1999 and the second in 2010. The 1999 report concluded that the states should improve their regulation dramatically to address problem gambling. It was in that 1999 report where we saw for the first time how bad the problem was. It was spelt out in a way that was irrefutable. It was an incredibly thorough report, as was the 2010 report. For the first time we had a body of evidence—the gold standard of research that showed how serious a problem it was. We are the No. 1 problem gamblers in the world for per capita gambling losses. The 2010 report found the states had not followed through and that the problem had continued to rise. It is proof that the states cannot be trusted to regulate these dangerous products. I implore this government to consider the evidence before it and to make the effort to understand the huge impact poker machines have on our community.

This is not an ideological issue. This is not about the left of politics and the right of politics; there is a broad cross-section of individuals who are concerned about this. This defies any ideology. This is about giving a damn about your community and about individuals who are hurt by gambling addiction. The previous government was scared off reform by the vested interests of the poker machine lobby. I fear that this government has fallen prey to the same scare tactics.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Di Natale says they are worse and no doubt he can expand on that. I cannot understand how the government can expect the states to regulate effectively when they have no history of doing so.

The aim of this bill is to implement one of the key findings of the 2010 Productivity Commission report to create meaningful, effective poker machine reform. Currently, gamblers can lose up to $1,200 an hour when poker machines are played at their maximum intensity. The commission recommended that maximum bets be reduced to $1 per spin, which would reduce the maximum hourly losses to something like $120 per hour—still a significant amount but also a significant reduction in what is possible now. This step is in line with the commission's findings that problem gamblers are far more likely to be the ones playing machines at their maximum rates than recreational gamblers. In fact, the research shows that something like 88 per cent of recreational gamblers and 80 per cent of gamblers overall do not bet more than $1 per spin anyway. Where is the inconvenience to the recreational gambler with such a sensible, considered reform as set out by the Productivity Commission? This measure will not impact recreational gamblers but instead will help problem gamblers to reduce their spending and allow for earlier intervention.

At the end of last year, the then outgoing Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, who was involved in both gambling inquiries, reiterated the commission's views on $1 bets as stated at the dangerous consumptions forum at Deakin University on 29 May last year. He made it clear that $1 bets satisfied 'good public policy' because it 'predominantly targeted the problem gamblers without having too much collateral effect on the average recreational gambler'. Further, Mr Banks said it should be implemented without a trial. I repeat that: it should be implemented without a trial. In other words, this is something we need to do now. There should be no more excuses from either the coalition or the opposition in relation to this.

I note that the previous government dismissed the idea of $1 bets due to the cost of implementation. At the time, then Minister Macklin stated it would be in the order of $1.5 billion. I remember quite clearly the work that Senator Di Natale did in questioning that. He can elaborate on this, but the information that Senator Di Natale got was basically back-of-the-envelope stuff—a grotty, torn envelope—because none of the figures seemed to make any sense. The previous government accepted whatever the industry said. How objective or evidence based is it for a piece of important public policy when you just take what the vested interests of the industry tell you?

The then government never admitted where the figures came from. They refused to release their modelling or any further information, although documents I requested under FOI indicated that this figure likely came from the industry. Interestingly, not long after then Minister Macklin made this announcement Victoria reduced its maximum bet limit from $10 to $5, without spending billions of dollars.

I hope he does not mind me saying this, but I spoke with my good friend and fellow campaigner on this issue, the Reverend Tim Costello, just last night. His fear is that states, now emboldened by what this government is doing, are now actually rolling back reforms and, as I understand it, Queensland is looking at a return to $10 maximum bets from $5 maximum bets. That is the consequence of the federal government's measures.

The real cost of implementation would be less than $350 million over a number of years, which pales into insignificance when you consider the Productivity Commission's estimates of the cost of problem gambling. I think that Senators Di Natale and Madigan would agree that it is a pretty minimal figure. This bill also contains provisions to limit the amount of jackpots to $500 and the amount of money that can be loaded onto a machine at any one time to $20. These measures are also in line with Productivity Commission recommendations. The reason poker machines are so addictive is the volatility. It is because of that random reinforcement. If you make the machines less volatile they are less addictive, and having a smaller jackpot is crucial to that. When you consider that the fruit machines in the United Kingdom have much lower jackpots than $500, this is not an unreasonable course to take.

The bill also provides for regulations to be made relating to machine spin rates. This will allow governments to further reduce the intensity of machines by slowing the rate of play. This measure is particularly important, given that Australia has some of the highest intensity machines in the world. The commission also pointed out that intensity is a significant contributor to addiction. I also note that this bill was originally introduced in 2012, and as such the commencement provisions need to be amended if the bill is to progress.

The reforms contained in this bill are a better alternative to the ones that are currently in place. Voluntary precommitment, central to the previous government's reforms, is simply not as effective as the measures in this bill. Problem gambling is an addiction. It is not as simple as a matter of choice or willpower. It is also incredibly offensive to suggest that problem gamblers could stop if they wanted to or that it is about choice. I cannot think of anyone who would choose to lose everything they have or who would not want to stop if they could. Just a few days ago I saw—and I will be very careful not to identify this family—the children of a woman who took her life recently in the most horrible of circumstances because of her gambling addiction. That family deserves answers. That family and every other family who is at risk of problem gambling deserve a real solution—and a real solution is contained in this bill.

People who suffer from poker machine addiction, or those at risk of suffering from it, need to have meaningful and effective measures in place to help them control their gambling. In the most basic sense, the problem with voluntary precommitment is that, no matter how many loss limits a gambler sets or how much the system restricts their activity, there is nothing to stop them pulling their precommitment card out of the machine and continuing to play outside the system. It might, theoretically, help some gamblers—but not the ones who really need the help. However, I believe that having voluntary precommitment in place is at least a sign that more needs to be done and symbolic of the need for federal regulation. But it will not help the majority.

Three years ago a study into precommitment that was prepared for the Nova Scotia Gaming Foundation in Canada reported that voluntary schemes consistently and miserably failed because they relied on the willpower of players—that is, players had to have the willpower not to keep playing outside the system when they reached their limit. Further, the study found that high-risk players were less likely to take up precommitment options and would continue to play unless they were locked out of the system completely when they reached their limit.

I know some people are arguing that we should not be forcing people to set limits and then shutting them out of what is ostensibly meant to be a form of entertainment. So I ask: in what other form of so-called entertainment can you lose $1,200 an hour? Rather, this so-called entertainment has been one of the biggest drivers of crime apart from illicit drug use, a significant cause of suicide, a significant cause of family breakdown and a significant cause of depression and other mental illnesses.

We need to make machines less addictive. We need to implement the provisions of this bill. And that is what this bill intends to do—a bill supported by my colleagues Senator Di Natale and Senator Madigan. We all come from different political perspectives, but we all understand the need for real action on this, because the community has been let down by the major parties in relation to this. We need also to consider the study commissioned by the Victorian Department of Justice in 2009, which found that more than 12,000 Victorians contemplate suicide every year because of their poker machine addiction. The study also found that 6,000 Victorians contemplate breaking the law because of their addiction. Translate that figure across the country and you are talking about tens of thousands of Australians who are either contemplating suicide or contemplating breaking the law.

There is an enormous amount of evidence about the harm these machines cause. This is a dangerous product. Another six-month study at a major Victorian hospital found that one in five suicidal patients was a problem gambler. I will not quote all the evidence; there is too much, both from Australia and from overseas. This issue has been a political football for too long, and the ones who are getting kicked around are the most vulnerable in our society. I note that this is an issue that Senator Di Natale and his party will not give up on and that Senator Madigan and his party will not give up on. We cannot give up, because the cost is too high for too many people. This is the beginning of a new battle, and it is one we cannot afford to lose.