John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2012 [2013], and I point out that the purpose of the bill is to reduce the harm caused by problem gambling by regulating the operations of poker machines through limiting the rate of loss of players. The bill aims to put in place machine capability by 1 January 2013; a $20 load-up limit for gaming machines, both in terms of accepting banknotes and in terms of accepting additional credits where the credits are already $20 or more, by 1 January 2017 for larger venues and by 1 January 2019 for smaller venues; and a $1 maximum bet limit per spin on gaming machines and limited linked jackpots and machine jackpots greater than $500.

This bill did go to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, and the committee recommended that the bill not be passed. With respect to Senators Di Natale, Xenophon and Madigan, I share their concern. In the country town I live in, Inverell, some years back a lady had an addiction to poker machines. She did do the wrong thing, and she ended up going to jail because of that addiction. It is a very serious problem. Coming from a family of bookmakers—my grandfather was a bookmaker and had betting shops back in the early 1900s in South Australia, and my late father, Reg Williams, was a bookmaker—I have seen firsthand the problem of gambling. But I will start by saying that the coalition government do not support this bill. We are committed to supporting problem gamblers, but it is a fact that most people do gamble responsibly. The majority should not be penalised by draconian laws because a minority have a gambling issue.

The Abbott-Truss government is not blind to these problems, and our policy is to assist problem gamblers with counselling, support services and voluntary precommitment. This is vastly different to the approach of the Labor-Greens alliance, which was supported by the Independents. They bludgeoned the clubs and hotels industry into submission, never listening to the stakeholders but instead imposing harsh laws. I know the clubs in the New England electorate were ropeable, and they let the then Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, know in no uncertain manner what they thought of the proposals. It was one of his more memorable parting gifts—but more about that later.

We are talking about an industry that employs over 150,000 people throughout Australia and provides entertainment, sponsorship and donations for many millions of Australians. That is why we must be aware of the ramifications of this legislation. In addressing this legislation I would like to specifically address a couple of points. To introduce a $1 bet would mean enormous cost to the industry and the clubs. It is important to note that less than one per cent of gaming machines are set up to allow $1 bets. To change all this would be a massive cost, with design, development and approval of software. That could cost as much as $6,000 per machine. I think here of the little clubs that are the heart of their small country communities. They simply cannot afford this. Many are battling now to remain viable.

If we look at the nationwide cost, it will exceed $1 billion. It would probably be closer to $1.5 billion and maybe more. By my estimate, over half the poker machines in Australia are too old to have the new software installed, so they would need to be replaced at an estimated cost of $25,000 a machine. So we are looking at a $1-billion to $1.5-billion cost to our clubs. And, as I said, in many towns the club is the heart of the community.

I will turn now to precommitment versus $1 bets. Precommitment technology can be connected to a gaming machine without it being a costly exercise. The cost of precommitment upgrades is about $2,000 per machine. Compare that to the projected cost of converting machines to implement low-intensity features of about $6,000, to the cost of replacing a machine of $25,000. Voluntary precommitment provides personal choice, and it is left in the hands of the consumer to choose what they want to do.

Registered clubs have been the whipping boys in this whole debate. They were not listened to by those in the previous government, but the coalition listened in opposition and is listening now in government. I have spoken with club boards in many areas, and all are very concerned that they could be forced into a situation that would see them go to the wall. People should not underestimate the borderline viability of the smaller clubs in rural and regional areas—and that is simply a fact. The clubs do it tough, battling to survive, especially in smaller communities.

I will give you another example: Inverell RSM Club—a magnificent club in the town where I live. It does so much good for the community. It estimated, back in 2011, that it would be out of pocket $1 million to bring machines up to scratch. I will quote from their statement: 'This would change the way the club operates and have a big effect on the way we distribute funds back into the community with scholarships, donations and sponsorships.' This is a club that gives over $50,000 in donations and sponsorships plus in-kind support.