Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I just check that Senator Brown referred the bills to the community affairs committee and the finance and public administration committee?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, for inquiry and report by 27 November 2012.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph (b), omit all words after "be referred", substitute "to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 February 2013".

It is a sorry saga which has befallen the treatment of the package of bills in relation to gambling reform. You may recall that as part of the agreement that the government reached with Mr Wilkie to secure his support they undertook to present to the parliament a package of measures to give effect to his desire to see mandatory precommitment—something which the opposition never supported. But it was initially publicly flagged by the government that that original package of legislation was to come into the parliament in March of this year. The opposition at that time indicated that it was our desire to have that package of bills referred to a committee for inquiry, as is appropriate. So there was a contingent reference to the Selection of Bills Committee submitted at that time.

As is a matter of public record, the government reneged on the agreement with Mr Wilkie. The government went through a period of time where they had multiple positions in relation to gambling reform. Ultimately and finally legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 1 November. This legislation does deserve serious inquiry. If the chamber supported the report, which proposes that the legislation be referred for report by 27 November, the Senate would be complicit in seeking to turn this place in effect into a sausage factory. This is a serious and significant package of legislation which does deserve appropriate scrutiny. What is proposed here is that the committee to which this legislation is referred would basically have less than a week to consider the bills and to report. That is not satisfactory. That is not adequate for legislation of this significance.

So the coalition, quite reasonably, is asking the Senate to amend the motion to substitute a reporting date of 6 February 2013. The reality is it is highly unlikely that this legislation will be passed in the remaining sitting week. If it is likely to be passed, then one can only conclude that my prediction earlier today, that the government will resort to the gag and the guillotine, will come to pass. I think what this desire to have the committee report by 27 November indicates is that this government is lining up to ram legislation through this parliament in the final sitting week. It is lining bills up, getting ready to gag, gag, gag and guillotine, guillotine, guillotine. That is what this government has in mind. For its part, the opposition wants to make sure that legislation receives appropriate scrutiny. I do not think it is at all unreasonable that this legislation be given until the first sitting week of the Senate in February next year to consider this package of measures.

I do note that the government have moved their own amendment to seek to refer this legislation to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. We think that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee is the appropriate committee, particularly in light of the fact that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which falls within the ambit of that committee, now has prime policy responsibility for the not-for-profit sector. Certainly clubs and those institutions that this will affect fall under that remit.

I commend to the Senate the amendment to seek to substitute 6 February 2013 as the reporting date.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the opposition's amendment to the motion. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee is the relevant and appropriate committee to deal with these matters.

This parliament has the opportunity to pass Australia's first national legislation to tackle problem gambling and we should not contemplate further delay. The changes in this legislation will help problem gamblers and those at risk of developing gambling problems to take control of their addiction. We need to pass this legislation this year to ensure that the time frames for implementing these changes can be met and to provide certainty for industry to move forward.

The first requirements in the legislation will come into effect next year. Passing the legislation this year gives us the time we need to develop regulations in consultation with industry and states and territories—something they have been calling for strongly through the committee process. These changes were announced back in January this year and an exposure draft of the legislation has been available publicly since February. We have consulted extensively with the clubs sector, casinos, hotels, manufacturers, the community sector, and state and territory governments through workshops, forums and written submissions. We have since made amendments to respond to the issues raised by stakeholders and to improve the workability of the legislation. These changes, importantly, have also been the subject of two inquiries by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. This is why that committee was established. One of those inquiries focused on precommitment schemes specifically and one is currently underway on the legislation itself.

Now the bills have been referred to another inquiry. Perhaps this is about the opposition trying to stall, defer and delay so that they do not have to put their vote on the record on this important issue. There is no case for further delay. The opposition's amendment should not be supported.

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

I just want to give some context to this matter as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform from its inception. Andrew Wilkie MP, the member for Denison, was in my office on the day that he negotiated with the Gillard government to have a package of measures on gambling law reform. I correct Senator Fifield not to admonish him but just to set the historical record straight. What Andrew Wilkie wanted was $1 bets and $120 maximum hourly losses, as recommended by the Productivity Commission in its key report, which came out on 23 June 2010—and I think there were a number of other events on that day that preoccupied the nation. That was Mr Willkie's first choice. The government did not budge; it would not make that concession on that reform.

The fallback position was to implement a scheme of mandatory precommitment by May 2014, and of course with various transitional arrangements. That was always the second-best option; let's make that clear. But the Productivity Commission made it clear that having mandatory precommitment could make a real difference to the people that are hurt by poker machine gambling in this country, with 40 per cent of poker machine losses—a $12 billion loss—coming from problem gamblers, nearly $5 billion. There are 95,000 people losing $21,000 a year on average and another quarter of a million people who are already showing the signs of full-blown addiction.

This legislation in its current form, as a result of the government's backflip on the legislation, is an incredibly watered down version of what was being proposed. But it is fair to say, as Senator Collins, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, has pointed out, that there have been two inquiries in relation to this legislation. Those inquiries have been comprehensive. Those inquiries have looked at the provisions of this legislation. Those inquiries have included members of the coalition. So I really question the utility of having it go to another committee in these circumstances.

I have grave reservations about this package of legislation but it is important to understand that it would be unfair to say there has been no due process to look at it. Therefore I have difficulty in accepting the opposition's position. In the circumstances, on this occasion I support the government's position because there already has been a process for inquiry and report into these bills.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Senator Fifield's amendment for a couple of reasons, one of which is that I am chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. There has been a disturbing pattern under this government when it has cut a deal in private, whether it has lived up to the commitment or not, whether it be on the carbon tax or on gambling. We hand-pick an inquiry, we release exposure drafts and papers. We do not know what amendments are going to come in next week, Senator Xenophon. I venture to say that, if it is anything like the last time we had rolling guillotines, there will be pages and pages that are never debated in this chamber. This government likes to have its hand-picked inquiries. It says we have had these inquiries into this legislation before. But the important point with this legislation, just like in the other instances, is that I have no doubt that when this comes in as part of the rolling guillotine next week, there will be rafts of amendments tabled that will never receive the scrutiny of this chamber.

For all the importance of having joint committees work on something, this is an independent chamber. This is an independent chamber with its own standing committee system that is meant to look at legislation as it comes across from the House of Representatives. This government is constantly undermining the independence of this chamber through sham inquiries like this one.

Senator Collins, if the government believes seriously that the legislation has been inquired into enough, be honest and say that there will not be an inquiry. There will not be an inquiry into the provisions of these bills in the next seven days—it is simply not possible. There is only one non-sitting day left this year. No reasonable stakeholder has the capacity to make a considered submission and no airing of the issues that might lead to amendments is going to be undertaken by a standing committee of this place, yet the government will not be honest about the fact that the inquiry is nothing but a sham.

I have no doubt that next week there will be a series of rolling gags and guillotines. Such is the form of this chamber under the Labor-Greens duopoly which runs it. The problem is that we are dealing with complex legislation. Previously in this chamber, some bills that I was responsible for carrying and amendments to those bills never received a word of debate in this chamber—not one word. It stands as an indictment of this chamber and, indeed, of all of us that those bills were not subject to any scrutiny. I remember the howls from the south-western corner of this chamber that we needed to have genuine scrutiny and that we could not have the gag and the guillotine, but, with the Greens and their Labor allies running the chamber, the only debate that happens is the debate between the two of them about what the gag and the guillotine will eventually be about.

This legislation is deserving of scrutiny by the Senate and I doubt that anyone from the government will say that they will not be bringing in last-minute amendments or that everyone in the Senate who wishes to debate them will be given an opportunity to do so. This motion moved by Senator Collins, if it gets up without Senator Fifield's amendment, will facilitate the use of the gag and the guillotine and therefore the passage of legislation without debate in this place. It is unlikely that many people will get to speak. There may be a short period of speaking—there may be a government speaker and an opposition speaker and then perhaps Senator Xenophon, with his interest in the bills, will speak—but the members of the Senate in general will not be given a chance to debate the legislation. Senator Fifield's amendment is important because it allows the Senate to demonstrate its independence from the government of the day—its independence from the Labor-Green Alliance; its capacity to hear from stakeholders their final views in order that they might potentially inform amendments which may be moved from any part of this chamber, including the raft of amendments which will likely be tabled by the government; and its ability to facilitate consideration of legislation at an appropriate time.

The government and the Greens, by supporting a seven-day timeline, have lost any credibility whatsoever on the question of whether they allow a deliberative process in this chamber. They are running this chamber in the way that they wish they could run the House of Representatives. Every Australian should take note that, while Labor and the Greens are in office, there will not be an opportunity for voices to be heard—there will not be an opportunity for stakeholders to present to a committee and there will not be an opportunity for debate in the chamber. I note that no-one from the government is jumping to their feet or interjecting to say that there will not be a gag on or a guillotining of this legislation next week.

Senator Fifield's amendment should be supported. The legislation should come to the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Public Administration, as the government originally intended, on the basis that it is the committee which handles legislation from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The bleating of this government and the Greens about independence cannot be taken seriously.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.