Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Consistency and integrity have never been a strong suit of the Greens. When you have a look at this matter of public importance, you can see where the Australian Greens are coming from—

Senator McKim interjecting—

And right on cue, the Australian Greens cannot help but interject. Senator Bartlett introduced the MPI and, I understand, made some comments about the donations received by political parties as though that might somehow influence the particular stance or view on matters. I do not ask rhetorically—and I stress this—whether the Leader of the Australian Greens has actually approached major gambling organisations for donations. Not a squeak out of the Australian Greens! So it seems that it's appropriate for the Australian Greens to seek donations from major gambling organisations but then condemn those who may receive support from various sectors.

Indeed, in my home state of Tasmania at the moment there is a state election, and the Australian Labor Party have adopted Australian Greens policy, as is always their wont. If you want to know what Labor policy is going to be in about five years time, have a look at what the Australian Greens policy is today. What we have seen in Tasmania is Labor and the Greens seeking to ban poker machines from pubs and clubs. This policy has been widely lauded by the Tasmanian racing industry. I wonder why? It is because they see an opportunity. If you cut out one part of the market, people will transfer to another part of the market.

I agree that gambling is a problem within our community. So is alcoholism. But it would be a bit like saying, 'Alcoholism is a problem in our community so we will ban beer, but not wine or spirits or alcopops; we will just ban one particular product,' and then saying: 'Aren't we good? This somehow cures the problem.' Of course it doesn't.

Who are the greatest champions of the Green-Labor policy in Tasmania? None other than the racing industry and a person who is, in fact, seeking to establish another casino in Tasmania and who has made substantial wealth through gambling. The person involved has made all his money courtesy of other people losing theirs. And, of course, how does the racing industry continue? By people losing money on their gambling. So it is hardly with clean hands that the Greens approach this issue and assert that somehow, if you get rid of one sector of the gambling product, you will overcome the problems.

The Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering, in 2016, estimated that some $400 million worth of betting was undertaken in 2014. This is expected to grow to $910 million by 2020. The review found that the rate of problem gambling for online gamblers is three times higher than the rate of problem gambling elsewhere. So, let's keep in mind where some of the real problems are. You can, today, lose your home through gambling without even leaving your home, because the online gambling facilities are there.

We as a federal government have been seeking to deal with these matters in a manner that is consistent and has some degree of policy integrity about it. The amazing thing is that in this debate you hear about the vulnerable people—and there are vulnerable people, I accept that—but when you seek to protect vulnerable people from their own actions, such as through the cashless welfare card, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens vote against it.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

The Greens, of course, express their faux exasperation, but can I simply remind the Australian Greens that where the cashless welfare card has been introduced there has been a 48 per cent reduction in gambling. If you honestly believe that gambling is a problem, why would you not say: well, here is one way of protecting vulnerable people from themselves? At the end of the day, whilst government has a role in this area, the individual does as well. Individual responsibility is a matter of concern where, within the community, I think we have to invite people to start taking more responsibility for their own actions rather than saying: here's a problem; the government's got to do something about it.

What we're saying in relation to the issue of gambling is that it is widespread within the community and, in the Tasmanian context, just seeking to get rid of one form of gambling will not overcome the sorts of problems that people have had in losing money, be it on the horses, on the dogs, on the card tables or, indeed, in personal gambling, where people play cards and lose their week's wages or their fortnight's wages. As a former lawyer, I've dealt with people that, unfortunately, lost a lot of money and got themselves into problems in circumstances where they were never near a poker machine, so this attempt to pick on poker machines is hardly going to resolve the issues that we, as a country, face today.

I commend to my colleagues the speech by Senator Colbeck, who gave some very interesting insights in this discussion before I did. Whilst the Productivity Commission was referred to, I think, by Senator Griff in relation to $1 bets, the Productivity Commission also noted that pre-commitment is 'the most'—I want to underline the word 'most'—'targeted and potentially effective measure'. But, as soon as you start talking about things like pre-commitment, people taking responsibility and realising that they have to do something about it, you cannot see Labor and the Greens for dust, because they always want to have government banning something, government stopping something, government controlling something, rather than saying, 'How can we deal with this situation?' I remember the former member for Hume, Alby Schultz—rest his soul—taking me to a club in New South Wales where there were technologies in place to protect their membership. I believe that that is a way that local clubs and individual clubs can, in fact, take responsibility in these areas.

As part of the broader media reform, we as a government have announced restrictions on the level of gambling advertising and seeking to control those areas that are appropriate. The sort of sledgehammer approach on just one area of gambling by the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania is a policy that clearly will not work.