Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on the Poker Machine Harm Minimisation Bill 2008, the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008 and the ATMs and Cash Facilities in Licensed Venues Bill 2008 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Before Senator Fielding jumps up, I will make a couple of short comments on this series of bills that came before the Community Affairs Committee. These bills were presented to the Senate earlier this year in sequence and there was a decision made, through selection of bills, that the three of these bills, which had a common element, looking at gambling in our community, would be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for consideration. This was done in the period from September to November and over 75 submissions were received by our committee from people within our community who are genuinely concerned about the issues around gambling, their impact on society and in particular the problems that some people have with gambling.

There is real interest and real concern in our community about these affairs. I think a purpose of the bills presented by Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon has been achieved: maintaining the interest of this place in these issues and ensuring that we as a community do not shirk our responsibilities and that we as a parliament, on all sides of it, understand that we have responsibilities and that there must be more discussion, more debate and much more research. I stress the issue of research particularly hard.

To put this in context, there has been wide interest in the impacts of gambling on the community. We had submissions that talked about the range of impacts. There were so many figures being thrown around in this debate, as often happens, that the impacts were very hard to define. What occurs is that, without a genuine evidence base so we can talk about where we are going, it is way too easy, and I think a bit of a cop out, to pull figures out of a hat in relation to what is in fact causing real harm to human beings. We have the history, which this place knows, where in August 1998 the then Commonwealth Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, referred to the Australian Productivity Commission a detailed inquiry into the impact of gambling in our community. That is listed in our report. It is a very significant document. In fact, I think you almost need a wheelbarrow to cart it around. That in itself is a problem, because I believe that not many people have actually waded through the whole report. But it has been a genuine process of looking at the issues of gambling in our community. The committee inquired into:

… the economic impacts of the gambling industries, including interrelationships with other industries such as tourism, leisure, other entertainment and retailing; and—

what I think was the main focus of the bills before us today—

the social impacts of gambling industries, including the incidence of gambling abuse, the cost and nature of welfare support services, the redistributional effects of gambling and the effects of gambling on community development and the provision of other services.

On 26 November 1999 the Productivity Commission released a report which I think was aptly titled Australia’s gambling industries. This report indicated that there were real issues of harm in our community. The figures the commission quoted in 1999 were that around 130,000 Australians had severe problems and a further 160,000 were estimated to have moderate problems. They stated that there needed to be some form of treatment instituted and a look at developing policy to respond to the problem. Following the release of the report in 1999, the Commonwealth government established a ministerial council on gambling aimed at achieving a national approach to address problem gambling. That ministerial council still exists. It brings various state ministers together with their federal counterpart to look at the kinds of issues that were identified in the original Productivity Commission report.

I think largely due to public concern—and I think some of that has been led by Senators Xenophon and Fielding, with the support of other people in this area—there was a call during the time we were considering these bills for another referral to the Productivity Commission for a report. It is particularly important that we understand that it came out consistently throughout the process that the information and evidence that was released in 1999, important and valuable as it is, is dated. To our regret, this information has not been effectively updated in the nine- to 10-year period since. That is a major gap. It is a major worry for everyone in our community who is concerned about this issue, and it must be addressed.

The majority report of our committee—and I know we will have further comments from other senators in this place responding to this—says:

In view of the anticipated—

and now agreed—

Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia’s gambling industries, the Committee recommends that the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008, the Poker Machine Harm Minimisation Bill 2008 and the ATMs and Cash Facilities Bill 2008 not be passed at this time.

It recommends that the real issues that have been raised in those bills be part of the Productivity Commission inquiry. In fact, the specific issues raised in these bills are part of the Productivity Commission referral—the way that the machines operate and the way that people respond, the support there must be in the community to help those with problem gambling, and the reliance on the money that comes out of gambling machines for state coffers. The latter was raised consistently, and I think it needs to be addressed. There needs to be some national consideration of the process.

At this time, to take three piecemeal bills and take some action, without the value of what will be a full-scale, deeply and effectively researched Productivity Commission report, would not be appropriate. I fully anticipate that other senators will talk about us moving away from our responsibilities and taking no action; I absolutely refute that. We are taking a responsible approach. We are engaging people to be part of this process, we are saying that there are issues and we are responding to the evidence that was given to us with great pain by a number of people across this community, including support groups and people who work on a daily basis with individuals and families who have been fractured by the evils of gambling. No-one is moving away from that. But there needs to be, as we consistently hear in this place, an effective evidence base for any action. We believe the appropriate way for that to happen is through the Productivity Commission, and we put that process in front of the Senate for consideration.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Governments in Australia must love poker machines. They are addicted to the money they rake in from pokies, and it is obvious governments are not going to do anything that would cut the billions of dollars of revenue they take each year. Between a third and half of that pokies cash comes from problem gamblers. State governments in Australia have persistently ignored problem gamblers, and that is why Family First introduced two draft laws to help fix the problem.

Family First is astounded that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has decided to stand by and let state governments continue to take advantage of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable problem gamblers. The committee has shelved extensive and detailed evidence presented on Family First bills in favour of much of the same evidence that we will get from another Productivity Commission report. An updated Productivity Commission report will provide very important and useful information but it should not be used as an excuse for a lack of action now. One of the reasons some groups have lobbied for the Productivity Commission report is in fact to delay a decision to take real action to reduce problem gambling from pokies in the hope that their revenue will be protected.

The committee failed to make one recommendation for action to fix the scourge of problem gambling. COAG announced on 3 July this year it would ask for a Productivity Commission report into gambling. So why did the Senate committee continue an inquiry and hold four sets of hearings in September and October if it had no intention of making any real recommendations?

Family First is calling not for poker machines to be outlawed but simply for more restrictions to be placed on them to protect chronic gamblers from spending too much. The federal government must intervene to enforce limits on poker machine operations where hopelessly addicted state governments will not. Dealing with the problem of poker machines has not been high on the priorities of the federal, state and territory governments, with the Ministerial Council on Gambling’s meeting on 25 July 2008 being the first meeting since October 2006.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he hates poker machines, but there are very strong and entrenched interests which favour the status quo, including the industry and state governments. Those who deal with the despair of problem gamblers felt there was some hope in the Prime Minister’s comment that he hates poker machines, but, when it comes to the crunch of breaking the state governments’ addiction, the Rudd government has been slow to tackle the issue. The committee has ducked making any recommendations for action on poker machines. Until the government decides to do something, expressions of concern are just words. They do nothing to help problem gamblers beat their addiction and they do nothing to support families fractured by the despair of living with a chronic gambler.

The poker machine industry has supported a Productivity Commission inquiry into gambling—no wonder!—in the hope that the passage of time will mean their revenue is safe. Both the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia supported the new Productivity Commission inquiry, yet both dispute the validity of figures produced by the 1999 Productivity Commission inquiry into gambling. Why would anyone expect them to agree with the outcome of a new inquiry, especially if their businesses are threatened? I imagine, from their perspective, it gives them more time to bleed more money out of chronic gamblers.

The chairperson of the Gambling Impact Society of New South Wales commented to the committee on the lack of action resulting from the 1999 Productivity Commission report, but now we are waiting for another report and hoping someone will do something as a result. Evidence presented to the committee estimated that problem or at-risk gamblers account for between a third and more than 50 per cent of expenditure on poker machines. The most recent edition of the Australian Gambling Review reports that ‘problem gamblers are estimated to lose $12,000 per year or a rate of $250 per week.’ A paper published this year in International Gambling Studies stated that more than 50 per cent of regular poker machine users are problem gamblers or at risk of becoming problem gamblers. The close link between poker machines and problem gambling is shown by the fact that about 85 per cent of problem gamblers use poker machines.

In reaction to Family First legislation, the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia have recently recommended harm reduction measures, which begs the question why they did not move to introduce these measures earlier. Poker machines are addictive for players but they are also addictive for state and territory governments. State government revenue from poker machines and Keno in 2006-07 was almost $3 billion. Gambling addicted state governments are incapable of weaning themselves off poker machine taxes. It is time the federal government intervened to send state governments to poker machine detox. The committee could easily have made recommendations on automatic teller machines and whether cash withdrawals should be limited or the machines removed from premises that have poker machines. Two of the bills dealt with the ATMs and there was extensive evidence provided to the committee. In the end the committee put the issue in the too-hard basket. Unless there is federal intervention on pokies, the policy paralysis at the state level will continue. The states have shown they are incapable of kicking their addiction to pokies. That is why federal intervention is desperately needed.

Family First proposed two laws as part of the plan to address problem gambling. The first, the Family First Poker Machine Harm Minimisation Bill 2008, sets out the number of harm minimisation measures which would limit the amount of money gamblers can lose and slow down the addictive nature of poker machines. Family First’s Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008 dealt with the problem of accessibility of poker machines. It would over time see pokies out of pubs and clubs and have them restricted to casinos and racetracks, which are dedicated gambling venues. Governments are addicted to poker machine revenue. The lure of money far outweighs concerns about problem gamblers. Governments say they hate pokies but when it comes down to the crunch they would much rather have the money. That is not what Australians expect of their governments. To turn their back on the despair this brings to families is absolutely shameful. Clearly state governments are hopelessly addicted to the pokie profits. The states have shown they are incapable of kicking their addiction to pokie revenue. That is why federal intervention is urgently required.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not propose to speak for very long. I simply want to indicate that, in the view of the coalition senators who took part in this inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, the question of the social harm and economic harm done by addiction to poker machine use is unfinished business as far as Australian government is concerned. The coalition senators who took part in this inquiry do accept that to make good public policy it is important for us to look carefully at the best available data about the incidence of problem gambling and effective possible solutions to the problem that presents. As such, we support the recommendation in the majority report that there ought to be an updated Productivity Commission report to the Australian community on this issue.

We do, however, take the view that it is important for pressure to remain on the gambling industry in Australia to step up to the mark with respect to ensuring that every measure is taken, in the way in which gambling products are made available to the Australian community, to minimise the harm that occurs to those individuals who cannot use those products temperately. We do acknowledge the point made a moment ago by Senator Fielding that to some extent state and territory governments have moved a certain distance but perhaps not far enough in being able to ensure that these products are available in carefully controlled circumstances to members of the Australian public who may be at risk. We recommend that a number of measures in the Poker Machine Harm Minimisation Bill 2008 which was put before this place by Senator Fielding ought to be considered separately and perhaps with a degree of urgency to ensure that across Australia there are a raft of measures, simple but hopefully effective measures, to minimise the impact on problem gamblers of the availability of these machines: things like devices which limit the size of bets placed on gaming machines in certain circumstances; measures like limits on the use of other devices which might stimulate a gambler’s interest in placing further bets, such as repeat bets available electronically on the machine; and limits on the size of jackpots. It is very hard to understand why jackpots should be much greater than, for example, $2,000 in any one instance.

They are the sorts of measures that we feel have already been adopted by some jurisdictions, could be rolled out consistently across the nation on the basis of best available evidence and could have an immediate impact on some aspects of problem gambling even in anticipation of the report of the Productivity Commission in the near future. We feel very strongly that it is important for the Commonwealth government to play a leadership role in lifting this debate to that level, so that state governments understand that the Commonwealth will be a participant in the debate about how to reduce the effect of problem gambling in this country. The Commonwealth government should provide services which impact on the failure to some degree of state and territory governments to adequately deal with this issue and as such would have a very strong and direct interest in ensuring that further steps are taken to minimise the effect of problem gambling. We accept that this is a process which has to proceeded with on the basis of good evidence. That good evidence at this stage is to some extent ambiguous or blurred, and a Productivity Commission update would be a very welcome new piece of evidence in the armoury to look at this problem. But without even that evidence available, I believe a signal needs to be sent to Australian state and territory governments to lift their game. That is why we support a measure of the kind referred to in the additional comments made by coalition senators in this report.

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

The worst moment I ever had in my 10 years in the upper house of state parliament as the No Pokies MP was not in the chamber but when I went to visit a man whose wife of almost 30 years took her life because of her poker machine addiction. I sat down and spoke with him and he described how she was ravaged by this addiction. He showed me the suicide note, and there is no doubt in my mind, in this man’s mind or in their friends’ minds that but for that woman’s poker machine addiction she would be alive today. That is the most tragic manifestation of gambling addiction in this country. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Australians who are in some way materially worse off because of their addiction to poker machines or because of the addiction of a loved one. We know from the Productivity Commission that there were upwards of 250,000 Australians with an addiction because of poker machines back in 1999 and that each of them affects the lives of at least seven others.

These three bills were a genuine attempt to bring about some real reform from the damage caused by poker machines in this country. That damage has not been addressed, because state governments are hopelessly addicted to the almost $4 billion a year they rake in from poker machine taxes—state governments that tinker around the edges and participate in window-dressing; state governments that are beholden to that obscenely overpaid tax collector, namely the poker machine industry. I heard that Clubs Australia was proposing measures to look after problem gamblers. Well, getting the gambling industry to look after problem gamblers is a bit like getting the wolf to look after Little Red Riding Hood. It is a deeply cynical industry.

The government’s position in relation to this report is to do nothing. It is to stall for another 12 months pending the outcome of a Productivity Commission inquiry. As useful as a Productivity Commission inquiry will be, there are some things that need to be done and ought to be done now. We know from the evidence, for instance, that there is a very clear link between the easy access to an ATM at a venue and the way it fuels gambling addiction, yet the government is prepared to sit on its hands for another 12 months in relation to this. We know that there are a number of measures that can be done immediately that will not impact on so-called recreational gamblers and that there can be a complete banning of banknote acceptors on poker machines. The introduction of smartcard technology could make a huge difference on the impact of poker machines, as could the immediate reduction of maximum bets and slowing down of machines. We have heard the evidence of Dr Charles Livingstone, who has undertaken extensive research, that you can do these things here and now and that the Commonwealth has the powers to do these things using its corporations and taxation powers and its banking and telecommunications powers. These are things that can and need to be done now, but the government is sitting on its hands and effectively stalling any real change on the agenda for another 12 months. Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Australians who are suffering and whose lives are being turned upside down because of this addiction to poker machines.

When you consider that this industry gets over 50 per cent of its income from addicted and problem gamblers, then this is an industry that is unsustainable in any sense because this industry survives off the backs of the vulnerable and the addicted. That is why the government’s position in relation to this report and in relation to the clear evidence that has been heard is more than a disappointment—it actually ignores and I believe treats with contempt the evidence and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have been devastated by poker machines. That is why it is important that that we act and act with some considerable urgency, otherwise we will continue to hear more stories of hardship and tragedy because of the addiction of so many Australians to poker machines.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This inquiry heard extremely compelling evidence around the impact of problem gambling on individuals and on Australian families and of the significant harm caused by electronic gaming machines—commonly known as EGMs or poker machines. The inquiry also heard evidence of the increase in addiction, particularly of young women, which coincided with the introduction of electronic gaming machines. I think that that evidence overwhelmingly showed the negative impacts that these electronic gaming machines are having on the whole of the population but in particular on women and how their gambling addiction coincided with the introduction of these machines.

We heard evidence that 85 per cent of problem gamblers in Australia have problems with poker machines and that up to 50 per cent of the revenue that is earned by the industry is earned from two per cent of the users, or those problem gamblers. The proposition was put that if we make all these changes we will impact on the vast majority of people who are recreational users and are there to have a good time. When you think about the fact that up to 50 per cent of their revenue comes from the two per cent of people who are using those machines, then (a) wouldn’t you say that that is a very significant problem and (b) would you not then question the ability of the industry to actually deal with this issue in a rational manner? It really is not in their interest to want to do anything about that two per cent. The only thing that would really be compelling for them is a regulatory approach being taken, because they are incapable of doing it themselves.

We also heard pretty compelling evidence that the way the machines are designed is particularly addictive and that there are ways that you can stop that addiction to those machines or certainly knock it back a bit. The evidence of the need to do something from the witnesses who had actually suffered from this addiction was absolutely compelling. They are begging the government to actually do something about poker machines. The evidence of the situation with addicted and problem gamblers in the eastern states compared to Western Australia, where we do not have poker machines in pubs and clubs, for me was very compelling. As a side note, that just reinforced the need to keep those machines out of pubs and clubs in Western Australia because we do not want the problem in Western Australia that is evident in the eastern states.

There was a lot of compelling evidence to show that things could be put in place now to actually deal with the problem now. If you know there is a problem now, why put off until tomorrow what you could fix today? I agree it is a good idea for the Productivity Commission to look at this issue again. I think that is extremely important, because a report has not been done for 10 years. However, I do not think it is an excuse not to do anything. Compelling evidence came out of the Productivity Commission report of 1999 and very little, really, has been done to deal with the issues that were raised then. The committee heard evidence that reinforced the findings of that Productivity Commission report. The Productivity Commission will provide more up-to-date information and, hopefully, will also give us a figure on the costs of these problems to the community—for example, we know that the alcohol problem costs the community over $15 billion a year. We do not know the cost of the impact of the poker machine industry. We know absolutely about some of the revenue but we do not know the costs. Of course, you cannot cost the impact of human misery.

There are simple things that can be done—I say ‘simple things’, but I realise it will take a bit to put them in place. The removal of ATMs, the banning of banknote acceptors, mandatory restrictions on the rate of play, maximum bets and pre-commitment technologies are all things that will take a commitment from government to put in place, but they are doable. We know these problems are happening now and we should be doing something about them now, and this is why the Greens are disappointed that the committee did not recommend that we take action now. We support the Productivity Commission inquiry but not that we sit on our hands for another 12 months. It is important that we deal with these issues now. As we speak, people and families are being harmed by this industry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.