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

My question is to Senator Sherry, the Assistant Treasurer. On 11 September 2007 the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said:

I hate poker machines and I know something of their impact on families.

Given the government has taken almost four months to table and respond to the Productivity Commission’s final report into gambling and has only responded to say, in effect, that it will consult with the states and territories on poker machines, how can the government claim that it is truly committed to reducing problem gambling?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. I acknowledge your longstanding interest in this issue—and it is a serious issue. The Productivity Commission report, which I released this morning, estimates that there are between 80,000 and 160,000 Australian adults suffering severe problem gambling. But I do not agree with Senator Xenophon’s characterisation of what Senator Macklin, Senator Conroy and I announced this morning. I know from working personally with the Prime Minister on this issue that he remains committed to tackling this issue.

That is why this morning we announced the process going forward. We made three announcements this morning on this issue, which will, I believe, reshape gambling in this country going forward. First, we indicated our support for a national model of precommitment for gaming machines. As Senator Xenophon well knows, this has never occurred and, once implemented, stands to significantly assist in addressing problem gambling in our country. The PC report itself says:

The most targeted and potentially effective measure is to give people the capacity to control the behaviour of their future selves—to pre-commit

          …            …            …

A major advantage of full pre-commitment is that, properly designed, it has the potential to make redundant some other significant regulatory provisions.

But we are going further. We announced that we will not liberalise online gambling, as the PC report recommended. The government is not convinced that liberalising online gambling would have benefits for the Australian community which would outweigh the risks of increased incidents of problem gambling spreading rapidly via this form of technology. The current prohibition on the provision of online gaming services will continue to apply. But we intend to go further. We are committed to examining the regulatory approach taken by other countries with similar regulatory regimes in relation to online gambling, particularly the United States. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Productivity Commission recommends that maximum bets are reduced to $1 per spin, but does the government agree that to effectively reduce the number of problem gamblers you need to change the volatility of machines and reduce losses to no more than $120 per hour as recommended in the Productivity Commission’s draft report?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon referred to the draft report but we have actually got the final report, which I released this morning. So we are not dealing with the draft; we are dealing with the final recommendations.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important to make the distinction, Senator Abetz. On the issue of bet limits, let us remember that the Productivity Commission has found there is only a limited capacity for the redesigning of existing gaming machines, so the immediate rollout of bet limits would be very difficult, because of the limitations in machine design. The PC itself says a dollar bet limit would not be feasible until 2016, so it is not practically possible to do it immediately. I point to the PC report itself, which expresses that the best way forward is to ensure precommitment, and we backed that today. We will be discussing all the details with the stakeholders for a precommitment regime, but I note the PC’s view on precommitment is that it could be up and running even sooner than bet limits.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the Tasmanian government changed bet limits from $10 to $5 not so long ago, does that not indicate that it can be done practically, and is the government concerned that given the states’ heavy reliance on gambling taxes—$4 billion a year from poker machines—that the states have an incentive not to act decisively on problem gambling?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In our announcement today, we stressed that we want coordinated national action. We want an effective national regime, not a state-by-state approach, and that is going to be this government’s attitude. I acknowledge one of the challenges in addressing the harm caused by gambling is the reliance of state governments on revenue raised from gambling. This is dealt with in a number of ways. Firstly, we will identify the specific measures that I have referred to here that need to be implemented. Then, if there is any particular impact on state revenue—if and when that is identified—we will certainly assess that impact and any implications it may have. I would point out that in terms of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which distributes GST revenue to the states, we decided in February this year that it would no longer include gambling taxes in its analysis of how much a state receives in GST money. (Time expired)