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

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

NATIONAL GAMBLING REFORM BILL 2012

SECOND READING SPEECH

These Bills represent the first time that a national government has legislated to help tackle gambling addiction. The reforms they deliver will help problem gamblers take control of their addictions, and help their families take back control of their lives.

This Bill, together with the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012 and the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012, delivers on the Government's commitment to reduce the harm caused by gaming machines to problem gamblers and those at risk of harm, their families and communities.

These Bills enact a series of reforms to help problem gamblers, including the requirement that pre-commitment technology be implemented on gaming machines.

These reforms build on the May 2011 agreement of the Council of Australian Governments Select Council on Gambling Reform to support the infrastructure for pre-commitment in every gaming venue in the country.

The Bills were released as exposure drafts on 17 February 2012, and are informed by consultations since their release with key industry groups, manufacturers, state and territory governments and community groups.

These Bills are based on the evidence and recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

Of course, we know that many Australians enjoy the occasional bet. Gambling is a legitimate industry that provides recreation for many Australians and is a major employer.

For most people, gambling is a form of entertainment that is enjoyed responsibly – whether it's a flutter at the races, buying a lottery ticket, a turn on the pokies or a night out at the casino.

For some people, however, gambling can be highly destructive. Up to half a million Australians are at risk of becoming, or are, problem gamblers.

The evidence is clear.

Problem gambling can – and does – ruin lives and destroy families.

Australians spend nearly $12 billion a year on poker machines.

Three-quarters of problem gamblers play the pokies. And one in six people who play the pokies regularly has a severe gambling problem.

Problem gamblers lose an average of $21,000 a year on their addiction. That's about a third of the average annual salary – hard-earned money that isn't being used to pay bills, the mortgage or put food on the table.

But this isn't just about the money lost. It's the harm problem gamblers inflict on themselves and their families.

Problem gamblers suffer mental and physical health problems, can find it difficult to hold down a job, and struggle to maintain relationships.

People with gambling problems are six times more likely than non-gamblers to get divorced – and they are four times more likely to suffer from alcohol abuse.

The actions of one problem gambler has negative impacts on the lives of between five and 10 other people. This means there are up to five million Australians who could be affected by problem gambling each year – including friends, family and employers of people with a gambling problem.

We also know that the children of problem gamblers are up to ten times more likely to become problem gamblers themselves than children with parents who don't gamble.

And we know that only about 15 per cent of problem gamblers seek help.

We must act to make gambling on poker machines safer. We must act to help protect people whose addiction is hurting themselves and others.

And this Parliament has a duty to act – which is why this legislation is so important.

The Bills brought before the chamber today will reduce the harm caused by gaming machines to problem gamblers.

They respond to the Productivity Commission's 2010 Inquiry into Gambling, into the harm arising through the use of poker machines.

The National Gambling Reform Bill requires that gaming machines in larger venues must be part of a state-wide voluntary pre-commitment system and display electronic warnings from the end of 2018.

We understand of course, that small pubs and clubs, many of them in regional areas, just aren't the same as the big gaming venues in the city. So we have provided for longer implementation timelines for small venues.

Venues with between 11 and 20 gaming machines will have an extra six years – until the end of 2022 – to bring in pre-commitment technology on their gaming machines.

And the very small venues – those with 10 or fewer gaming machines – will be able to implement the technology as they replace their machines in their usual replacement cycle.

All new gaming machines that are manufactured or imported from the end of 2014 will be required to have pre-commitment capability. This means that machines that are turned over from the end of 2014 will already have the functionality required and be 'pre-commitment ready'.

Pre-commitment lets pokie players decide themselves how much they are willing to lose, set a limit before they play – and stick to it.

Under these Bills, people who play gaming machines can choose to register for pre-commitment. Once registered, they can set a 'loss limit' on the amount that they are prepared to lose during a chosen period – known as a 'limit period'.

Once the person reaches that loss limit, the person is prevented from using gaming machines in the state or territory within the pre-commitment system for the rest of their defined limit.

We know that a big part of the problem with gambling addiction is that some people can get into what is called 'the zone'. They sit down with the intention of spending an amount they can afford – but, once they start playing, they get stuck in a destructive cycle they can't get out of.

Getting into the zone can be dangerous – and it can happen quickly.

We know that no one sits down to lose their whole pay cheque, or the week's grocery budget. And that's what pre-commitment helps to protect against. It gives people a tool to help them take control of their own spending.

A player registered for the pre-commitment system will be able to choose not to set a loss limit, and still be able to access transaction statements and other player information to help them to track and review their play. Where requested, transaction statements can be provided in electronic form to help players track their play.

The Bill also provides that it will be the personal choice of a user whether to register or use the pre-commitment system. However, it requires that all gaming machines be linked to a pre-commitment system. If a person does register for the pre-commitment system, they will also be able to exclude themselves by setting a loss limit of zero.

This will complement existing arrangements currently operational across Australia, which allow some users to exclude themselves from gaming venues.

The Bills protect the privacy of players, by making clear that biometric processes cannot be used in registration for, or access to, a pre-commitment system. The Bill also makes clear that a national database of player information must not be established.

The Bills establish minimum requirements for harm minimisation for gaming machines. States and territories will be able to impose stronger measures, and the minimum requirements can work concurrently with state or territory laws. States and territories will also continue to be able to determine the distribution and number of gaming machines in their jurisdiction.

The Bills also introduce a number of other reforms to support problem gamblers to take control of their addiction.

In addition to requiring gaming machines to be linked to a pre-commitment system, the Bills require all machines to provide electronic warnings to players about their use of gaming machines, and the potential harm caused. These changes will be introduced on the same timeline as pre-commitment, with the same concessions for smaller venues.

We know that warning messages can be an effective way to change people's gambling behaviour, and that dynamic warnings can have a greater effect on people than posters or stickers. This Bill requires warnings to be electronic, so they have a greater influence on player behaviour.

The Bills also introduce a $250 per day automatic teller machine withdrawal limit for gaming machine premises – other than casinos and exempted premises in smaller communities, where access to cash is not readily available from non-gaming outlets. This will take effect from 1 February 2014.

This change responds to the recommendation of the Productivity Commission that a daily limit of $250 could help address gambling harm without overly affecting non-problem gamblers and other patrons. An analysis of ATM transactions shows that 85 per cent of withdrawals from ATMs in venues with gaming machines are below the proposed $250 limit. The Productivity Commission also suggested that the daily withdrawal limit should be adjusted periodically to account for inflation – and this is provided for by the Bills.

The Bills also provide for the monitoring and investigation of compliance with the new legislation, which will be undertaken by the Regulator or their delegate.

The Bills also provide for two inquiries by the Productivity Commission – one into the results of the proposed trial of mandatory pre-commitment, and a separate inquiry to assess the progress made by gaming machine premises towards complying with the proposed reforms as well as a number of other matters regarding specific aspects of the proposed legislation.

These additional matters were raised by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform in its inquiry on the Bills, and were adopted by the Government as part of its ongoing commitment to ensure meaningful reforms to tackle problem gambling are delivered.

Further, the Bills establish a new Australian Gambling Research Centre within the Australian Institute of Family Studies to undertake and commission research into gambling, and to build the capacity for research into this area.

The Centre will be guided by an independent Expert Advisory Group on Gambling, consisting of members of the academic community.

This delivers on recommendations of the Productivity Commission and of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, and it is the first time an Australian Government has committed to advancing an independent, national gambling research agenda.

The package of measures outlined in these Bills is supported by two levies – the supervisory levy and the gaming machine regulation levy. These two levies are imposed, respectively, by the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012 and the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012.

The gaming machine regulation levy forms a part of regulatory regime to encourage compliance with the legislation, and will only be applied where relevant bodies (non-constitutional corporations) contravene the Act.

The purpose of the supervisory levy is to cover the costs of the regulating the reforms. The Government listened to the concerns raised by industry, and agreed to impose a $10 million annual cap on the supervisory levy amount, with the opportunity adjust it down where the costs of regulating the reforms are reduced.

The Bills also provide that the Regulator may charge a fee for services, such as for application fees associated with becoming an approved pre-commitment provider, which would be likely to reduce the supervisory levy.

These reforms represent the first time the Commonwealth is legislating to help problem gamblers and their families.

They will help problem gamblers take control of a harmful and destructive addiction.

And they will help the people who may fall victim to problem gambling in the future.

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

I rise to speak on the package of gambling bills. From the outset, the coalition acknowledges that gambling is a major problem. I think that is a view shared by all colleagues in this place. The coalition does indeed support measures that will effectively tackle problem gambling and help to prevent and address gambling addiction. Any response to problem gambling has to recognise that most Australians gamble responsibly and that many Australians also rely on the sector for their jobs. The coalition supports voluntary precommitment, as do the states. Labor's approach in this matter seems to depend on whom they have done a political deal with most recently and what the particular month of the year is.

The government's proposed legislative package has a fairly sordid history. It has its origins in the political deal that the Prime Minister did with the member for Denison in order to keep the keys to the Lodge. It then moved on to the betrayal of the member for Denison and, now, it has moved on again to the capitulation of the once proud Australian Labor Party to the Australian Greens. We have seen this pattern from the government before, where the Australian Labor Party ultimately capitulates to the Greens. It is never an edifying spectacle, but it is one that we have become quite used to in this term of parliament.

The coalition is pretty concerned about the lack of time the government has permitted for proper consultation and review of this legislation. We are concerned because we have seen before the damage that is caused by rushed legislation, the mess that is left in the wake of ramming bills through this place and the inevitable need to go back and fix the problems that the government itself has created. We know that we are being rushed because in this chamber there is a guillotine hanging above our heads—including yours, Mr Deputy President—which is due to come down. This always happens with this government: as we get towards the end of a period of sitting, it is as certain as night following day that Senator Collins will reach for the cord, pull the guillotine blade up to the top and then let it drop at the hour of her and the Australian Greens' choosing.

Above all else, we add our voice to the calls of many others that legislation of such alleged significance to addressing problem gambling in our community deserves much greater scrutiny and much greater community consultation. That is why we believe that a more thorough inquiry should have been undertaken, and that is why we tried to have the bill referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. Indeed, I sought to amend the Selection of Bills Committee report on the floor here to see that happen and the Labor Party and the Greens combined to stop that happening.

The reality is that, despite all of the complexity and despite the clear fact that states and territories will be compelled to play a key role in the new duplication arrangements for regulation, the government has steamrolled ahead with next to no consultation with other jurisdictions. Of even more concern is the fact that the government has wilfully ignored all the warnings from agencies and organisations who are expert in this area. As for the industry itself, the thousands of business owners and clubs involved in the hospitality sector have been not only ignored but locked out.

There can be no clearer example of just what lengths this government will go to in order to cling to office than the package of legislation we see before us. These bills would see a further extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions. Gambling has—historically, traditionally—always been something that has been regulated by the states. We believe that merely creating regulatory duplication and legislating in an area that falls within the purview of the states is not going to help problem gamblers.

The government has also sought to gloss over what will be a significant impost on pubs and clubs throughout Australia, and that is the cost of implementation for those organisations. For smaller venues in rural and regional Australia—areas which I concede the Australian Labor Party do not have a lot of experience in, because they do not have many members or senators who represent those areas or are based in those areas—these new laws would have a direct impact on financial viability. That in turn means that there will be an impact on employment. Manufacturers and operators of machines have also warned of the dangers of widespread noncompliance and about the fact that the government's own time frames are unachievable. We need only look at the soon-to-start so-called trial of precommitment in the ACT to realise just how disconnected this government is. The trial has not started, but already the government's plan—their intention, their time line—has come undone.

Over the last year or so many of us in this place have travelled around Australia and visited many of the thousands of clubs around the nation. The clubs are of all shapes and sorts and sizes. They form local community hubs and are run for the benefit of the community, whether they are sporting clubs, surf-lifesaving clubs, RSL clubs or workers clubs. They fund important programs, social activities, sporting activities and youth events in their local communities. They are, in effect, significant philanthropic organisations, and they support many good causes.

So, if there is a simple message from the coalition to the Labor Party in relation to this legislation it is to stop fighting ideological battles on behalf of the Australian Greens and stop attacking good community organisations that do much that is positive in our community. I think one of the reasons we find ourselves in this situation is that not everyone appreciates and understands the club culture, which is particularly strong in New South Wales and Queensland and is unique in those states. We do see the club culture throughout Australia, but it is particularly strong in those states. I do wonder whether having a Victorian Prime Minister might be one of the reasons there is not a greater appreciation of the club culture in New South Wales and Queensland. I am a Victorian Senator, it is true, but I did spend most of my secondary schooling and university and had my first job in Sydney, so I do have a very good appreciation of the club culture in New South Wales. Of course, a well-rounded politician, regardless of the state they come from, should be in a position to have a good feel and sense of the Australian culture in all its guises and in all states, but that is something that seems to be a challenge for this government and for this Prime Minister in particular.

Labor's obsession with mandatory precommitment means that, if given the opportunity, they would flick the switch and turn it on. This legislation, although it is under the guise of establishing only voluntary precommitment, really is the basis and the infrastructure for mandatory precommitment. The government pretend that they are not interested in mandatory precommitment, but we know what their true agenda is. Tackling problem gambling requires a measured response that does not just look at poker machines but looks at the underlying problem of gambling addiction.

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

Blaming the players now, are you?

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

I don't think I blame players at all, Senator Xenophon. I will take the interjection, but I cannot see what I said that sounds as though I am blaming players. I do concede that there is a strong element of self-responsibility for any individual in our community and that every individual has choices. Some people make good choices and some people make bad choices, but that is not to deny the reality of gambling addiction. I do not think they are mutually exclusive points to make in this debate. Obviously counselling is important and support services are important, and the coalition is committed to addressing problem gambling. But what we are not interested in is dealing with an issue such as gambling on an ideological basis. As I have said before, I do not think duplicating regulation with the states is necessarily an answer.

But let me be clear again. The coalition does support voluntary precommitment. The states support voluntary precommitment. The territories support voluntary precommitment. The sector—the industry—also supports voluntary precommitment. But, as I mentioned before, Labor have already tried to legislate mandatory precommitment. They tried, but they failed.

In my opening remarks I warned of the dangers of rushing this sort of legislation, as is occurring today. The dangers of doing that were on display in the other place a mere few hours ago, where, moments after this bill passed the House, the government sought to bring the bill back to the House because they had discovered that there were 20 or so amendments that they had realised, at the death knock, were needed to fix the legislation which had already passed the House. I cannot say that that gives me a high level of confidence as to the efficacy of this bill in achieving its stated objectives. It is a worry. I wish that this chamber had taken the opportunity that the opposition sought to provide for this legislation to be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for further scrutiny.

The manufacturers say that the time lines are unrealistic and that there are serious technical deficiencies. Industry has voiced concerns that the time lines will force mass compliance. Again, as I have said before, rural and regional venues will struggle to finance and cope with the costs that government seek to force upon them.

The government's objective is really mandatory precommitment. They want the technology in place but they tell venues that it will not be switched on. On the other hand they tell advocates of mandatory precommitment that machines will be mandatory-ready. The government is trying to play both sides.

Let me take a moment to highlight just one issue—that being the government's approach to their trial in the ACT, and whether that trial and the compensation measures in place will pump money into Labor clubs in the ACT and where that money might end up. As I have said before, the trial in the ACT has been delayed. The clubs say that it is proving difficult. If the government cannot even properly plan the regulation of a trial then it is reasonable to wonder how the government might endeavour to regulate an entire industry across the nation.

The Labor Party do not understand how positive an impact clubs have in Australia and particularly, as I have said, the importance of them in New South Wales and Queensland. The clubs do good work. They are run by good people and they make an important contribution. But I come back again to the need to look at the causes of problem gambling. We are committed to doing what can reasonably and responsibly and effectively be done to help problem gamblers and to prevent problem gambling.

As I reach the end of my time in this debate it is important for me to reflect on the numbers of people who are employed in the gaming industry. We know it is a major employer with around 67,000 staff directly involved in gaming activities, a further 105,000 nongaming staff are employed in casinos, hotels and clubs that offer gaming and almost 50,000 are employed in the racing industry.

It is also important in closing to put the issue of gaming in perspective. Approximately four per cent of Australians gamble weekly and approximately 15 per cent of that group are problem gamblers. The Productivity Commission estimates that less than one per cent of the population, all up, are problem gamblers. That is not, for one minute, to diminish the significant impact of problem gambling in the lives of those individuals or the effects on their families. Not for one second do I or anyone in the opposition seek to do that, but I do think it is important to have the context of this issue carefully presented.

In summary, the coalition has identified six areas of concern with the government's legislation: the extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions; the lack of time given to industry to prepare effectively for implementation of the new measures; the cost of implementation; the negative impacts on industry and employment, especially on smaller venues, those in rural and regional areas and those premises already experiencing financial hardship; the risk of widespread noncompliance; and a number of matters associated with the use of ATMs.

As I conclude I want to acknowledge the sincerity of Senator Xenophon in these matters. While we may have different conclusions as to the best way to tackle the issue of problem gambling, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the long interest that Senator Xenophon has taken in these issues—not just here in the Australian Senate, but also beforehand in the South Australian parliament. I do not know, but he might be the world's first person elected on an anti-pokies platform. He may enlighten us about that.

What causes concern to those of us on this side of the House is that the government have absolutely no consistency in relation to issues of gaming and gambling. Senator Xenophon does, but the government do not. Their position changes depending on their fortunes in the House of Representatives. They did obtain an extra vote in the form of Mr Slipper, and that seemed to have a dramatic effect on their view. We will be opposing this legislation.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills today because poker machine addiction destroys people's lives. Lives like that of Katherine Natt from Adelaide, a young mum who committed suicide because of her pokie addiction. It destroyed her marriage. It cost her financially and it cost her her family. She left behind two children, the youngest two years old. The South Australian coroner found that Katherine Natt's suicide:

… was a direct result of her inability to cope with a poker machine addiction.

And there are many, many more.

Thankfully, there are others whose stories do not end quite as tragically as Katherine's. There are people like Tom Cummings, a 41-year-old father of three girls. Tom says:

I started gambling as a young man, in my mid twenties. The pokies were my poison of choice, and over a number of years I threw away close to $100,000. I also threw away my self respect, my state of mind and several relationships with people who had been very close to me.

Thankfully, Tom has used his experience to educate others and is now a blogger and a vocal advocate for gambling reform.

These people are typical of the many thousands of Australians who are addicted to poker machines. Australians are really big gamblers. We gamble $19 billion every year, which works out to about $1,200 for every single person in the country. Two-thirds of that—$12 billion—goes into the pokies. We have over 200,000 poker machines in Australia, and New South Wales has almost half of them. We have the seventh-highest number of these machines in the world. We like to think of ourselves as punching above our weight in many areas but, when it comes to poker machines, by world standards, we do punch above our weight.

Many opponents of pokies say, 'Well, we should be focusing on online gambling, because that is where the real problem is.' But when 60 per cent of all gambling money goes into the pokies, unless you are prepared to do something about the pokies, you are not serious about problem gambling.

The reason we are having this debate is because poker machines are so addictive. For those of us who have not had the experience of falling under the pokies' spell—or any addiction, for that matter—it is hard to understand. We probably have as much difficulty imagining ourselves as pokies addicts as we would as heroin addicts or as crystal meth addicts, but the pokies have the capacity to ensnare anybody, because they are engineered to do so. They are manufactured by an industry that has spent literally billions of dollars in ensuring that their product is as addictive and as profitable as possible.

It is worth reflecting on how gambling addiction works. Gambling works on the brain in the same similar way as other addictions, such as drugs like nicotine, cocaine and so on. Just like addictive drugs, gambling hijacks the brain's pleasure centre. That is why so many people lose self-control. It manipulates our brain circuitry, which has evolved to produce a pleasurable response to things such as food and so on—things that are necessary for the survival of our species. But the pleasure centres in our brain do not just respond to a reward. It is actually the anticipation of the reward that counts. So a surprise reward is much more powerful than a pleasurable experience that occurs at regular intervals. Animal experiments have shown this time and time again.

Pokies exploit this evolutionary wiring in our brain. Whenever you win on the pokies, what is happening is you are activating those cells in the pleasure centre of your brain, the ones that anticipate future rewards and that are looking for some sort of pattern. The catch with the pokies is that there is no pattern, because the rewards from pokies occur randomly. That means that our brains go into overdrive and, when we get the occasional unexpected win, we get huge pleasure from it, precisely because it is unexpected. You will sometimes hear of problem gamblers talking about entering a trance-like state and experiencing a sense of euphoria with each win, and that is the reason for it. It is because our brains are wired in that way.

The pokies industry understand this process all too well. That is why they design the machines in the way that they do. The frequency of wins, the notion of losses dressed up as wins, the sounds and the visual displays—all of those things have a very specific intent: to make you stay longer, to make you come back more often and to make you experience that sense of euphoria until it becomes an compulsion you cannot control. The tactics of the pokies industry are essentially like those of the tobacco industry. In the same way that the tobacco industry looked at cigarettes as nicotine delivery devices, the pokies industry sees pokies as a form of delivering electronic hypnosis, if you like, designed to empty the pockets of problem gamblers.

The pokies industry has very similar tactics to the tobacco industry. In the 1950s and 1960s the tobacco industry tried to immunise themselves from any government regulation by funding things like medical research centres and hospitals. It is unthinkable now, but that is how it worked back then. It was a very deliberate tactic. Whenever regulation was proposed in the way of tobacco control, they were labelled an attack on the health sector and all of the things that the tobacco industry funded. The pokies industry today does the same thing. It throws a few crumbs out at the pubs and clubs and it makes the same arguments. And, just like the tobacco industry, the pokies industry will lie, deceive and manipulate to get its way and to protect its profits ahead of vulnerable people. It does not only ignore the established facts; it creates its own. It creates new facts.

Thankfully, we have got a sound body of research in this area. We know that up to 15 per cent of the people who gamble weekly are 'problem gamblers'. We know that 40 per cent of the $12 billion lost to pokies every year, which comes to about $5 billion, comes from problem gamblers. And, for every problem gambler, there is a family suffering. There are young kids who are going hungry at night, there are businesses going bankrupt and there are marriages breaking down. That is what problem gambling means, yet the industry continues to dispute the facts.

The industry are clever; they know who to target. You just need to look at a map of where poker machine losses are highest. It is essentially a map of social disadvantage.

The people who are losing most on pokies are those who can least afford it. In my home state of Victoria, the city of Greater Dandenong has the lowest median weekly earnings of any Melbourne municipality, but that is where each of its 944 poker machines takes in over $120,000 every year. That is $1,100 per person in that area.

The industry argues that this is just another form of entertainment, but what other forms of entertainment exist where you can lose thousands of dollars every hour. They say, 'Well, you are regulating; it's the nanny state gone mad.' But what choice do problem gamblers have when they find themselves in the grip of an addiction because their brain chemistry is going haywire.

People in this place do not understand addiction. Addiction is a disease. It is a medical process, a disease where people do not have choice. In that context, regulation is critical. The industry argues that cost is a huge barrier to reform—it is too expensive. How do they justify it? They pluck numbers from thin air. One day it is going to cost $3 billion to introduce mandatory precommitment. The next day it is $5 billion. When they are pressed about their costings, what do they say? 'Well, that is the cost of implementing mandatory precommitment on all machines immediately.' But no-one is suggesting that. What they have done is create their own policy; they have costed it and they have used it as a defence to say that reform is too expensive. A wonderful tactic!

Just like the tobacco industry, this is an industry that knows no shame. Thankfully, the Productivity Commission has managed to debunk many of these myths. They conducted a detailed examination of Australia's gambling industries. They handed down their findings in February 2010 and their analysis of the harms of poker machines makes for hair-raising reading.

Poker machines scattered around Australian towns and suburbs are right out of Las Vegas. The amount of money you can lose on them suits a casino high roller but it has no place in the local community. Machines can accept bets of $10 a spin—that is, $10 every couple of seconds—until you have lost thousands of dollars every hour. Sometimes the losses are even higher. Poker machines are not harmless fun. Clubs and pubs talk about them as a friendly, community activity. These are community hubs. But the reality is that these are mini casinos. Australian pokies are called casino-style poker machines in other countries for that reason. If you go into a casino you can spend $50 a spin on a machine. These are the semiautomatic weapons of the gambling world and in the hand of problem gambler they are dangerous.

The jackpots offered by the machines are also engineered for maximum profit. You get high jackpots, more volatility, greater losses in a typical session. Remember what I said about unexpected rewards? That makes it even more addictive because you get a huge rush when you do win. Yes, it is true, most people do not spend $10 a spin. But the ability for a problem gambler to ramp up to such huge losses is a terrible risk, and it is a huge risk for those people who have an addiction.

We say, why should these machines be available at all? If most people bet a dollar or less per spin—90 per cent of recreational gamblers—then why have them? What is the point. In fact, the Productivity Commission said precisely the same thing. If you want to minimise the impact of problem gambling, you put dollar bet limits on all machines. You do not impact on recreational gamblers but what you do do is take away these semiautomatic weapons out of the hands of problem gamblers. We know it is the simplest, cheapest, most cost-effective method of addressing the problem. Why don't we have it? Because the industry hates it.

I pay tribute to my fellow senators, Nick Xenophon and Senator Madigan, for joining me in supporting a dollar betting limit on new machines. We will be amending this bill in order to make all machines $1 bet ready. We hope we can get the support of the parliament for that amendment.

In countries like New Zealand, the UK and others, there are strict limits on bets and jackpots. In the US, high-intensity machines—those casino-style machines—are restricted to casinos. That is where they belong. In Victoria, my home state, we were able to introduce bet limits, reducing the limit from $10 to $5. There was no outcry from the industry, it happened quickly, and we made a serious impact on problem gambling.

I acknowledge that we are having this debate today because of the unique nature of this parliament. Power-sharing governments do bring together people with different perspectives, people who can put issues that have been ignored by mainstream parties on the national agenda—and that is their strength. But the history of this reform is a case study in why people have lost faith with our mainstream political parties. We had the government and the opposition with the unique opportunity to get behind a reform, supported by the great majority of the Australian community, to improve the lives of problem gamblers. Instead, we saw the government renege on its promise to install mandatory precommitment and we saw it fold in the face of a relentless campaign from the pokies industry. I acknowledge that many good people in the ALP fought the good fight for meaningful reform and I especially acknowledge Minister Macklin for doing her best to achieve reform. But the sad fact is that many people within the ALP lacked the courage to take up a cashed-up lobby group, to take on the big end of town and to have the fight. If there was ever more evidence of a party that has been dominated now by the soulless apparatchiks of the New South Wales Right, people who stand for nothing, then this was it.

As for the opposition, they showed themselves once again to be a party with nothing positive to say, no positive contribution to the national debate and their only intention being to bring down the government. What was their response? Establish a working party, write a discussion paper and come up with a document that reads more like a brochure from the pokies industry than a serious contribution to the issue.

The remainder of the transcript will be available online on Friday, 30 November 2012.