Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The second reason we do not give up on problem gamblers and we believe the precommitment technology that has been the subject of this inquiry has a very good chance of solving or helping to resolve problem gambling is that it will prevent people who have been identified by experts as at-risk gamblers converting to problem gamblers. They will avoid doing that by using the precommitment technology to effectively set themselves a budget to punt, a budget to gamble, so that they know on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis how much of their family income they are going to be able to put through a poker machine—how much they can afford to lose.

So we have very good reasons to believe—we are not as cynical as those members opposite—that the technologies and the systems that we are proposing to put in place will work. We believe they will work because they will stop the conversion of at-risk gamblers to problem gamblers and they will give problem gamblers who have already crossed the Rubicon some tools, in those moments of lucidity and reason, to take control of their gambling addiction. Of course in and of itself it is not the complete solution. It has to be part and parcel of a package of solutions. The recommendations put forward by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform go to a combination of solutions.

Some objections have also been raised throughout the course of the inquiry about the egregious costs that this is going to visit upon the industry. We have listened closely to this evidence, and the report points out that for the most part these claims are widely exaggerated and these technologies can be introduced for a fraction of the cost that is estimated and a fraction of the revenue that is generated by one of these machines over its life span. With that comment made, we do make the concession and we do understand that there is going to be a need, particularly for small clubs, for us to have a phased introduction of these technologies and we have recommended exactly that.

I will make the point that the member for Moncrieff was alluding to and then going to quite pointedly in his contribution to the debate. I enjoyed his cross-examination of witnesses throughout the inquiry on this particular point. It goes to the issue of privacy and intrusion, that somehow the introduction of this technology is going to be the visitation upon every Australian citizen of some mammoth Big Brother database which is going to intrude upon every aspect of their private, social and working lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have ruled out quite early the use of biometric technology, despite the fact that many pubs are already introducing biometric technology as a condition of visiting their premises here and now. Many pubs in the state of New South Wales and elsewhere, I am reliably advised, are already introducing, beyond the pale of regulation, biometric technology—fingerprint scanners, retina scanners—as a condition of entering their premises. I believe, and I am sure that many right-minded citizens—and I suspect the member for Moncrieff—would agree with me, that this sort of activity should probably not be occurring outside the realm of regulation; but perhaps that is a matter for another day.

The second point that I would make on the issue of privacy and intrusion is that it is a condition of the establishment of a club that they set up and keep a membership register and ensure that anybody who enters the premises of a club, at least in New South Wales or Queensland and I suspect everywhere else, has proof of identity which satisfies the requirements of the legislation and is able by one means or another to satisfy the occupiers of the premises—the licensees, the club owners and managers—that when they enter those premises and intend to use the facilities, including the electronic gaming machine facilities on those premises, they can show that identity. That is to say, the database already exists. Not only does it exist but it collects information about the gaming habits of individual club members and visitors and the clubs already use that data to market to those patrons they know who are frequenters of electronic gaming machines. They do such things—and I make no value judgment about this whatsoever—as send free tickets for meals and a courtesy cab around to a regular punter's home and say, 'Come on down, we've got a special deal for you today; we will put on a meal and free drinks and we've got a special pokies promotion going on.'

I make no value judgment about that whatsoever. Clubs are entitled to market, but they are already using this data and we believe that the introduction of the mandatory precommitment technology is no greater intrusion on a club member or a club patron's privacy than already exists. In fact, through this mechanism we might serve to tidy up some of the practices that many within the community think are not meeting community standards and expectations.

We are far more optimistic than those opposite. If their real issue is problem gambling and they think that we should do something about it and if their real objection is this just ain't the problem, we are a bit more optimistic. This ain't the solution. We are a bit more optimistic than that. One of the recommendations of the committee, as the member for Moncrieff knows, is that there shall be a trial. I am quite confident that, as a result of the rollout of this technology and the trial that we intend to put in place, any of the teething problems that the member for Moncrieff is so passionately concerned about will be able to be dealt with. I am sure the member for Moncrieff and those he represents will get plenty more opportunities—

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

See this speech in context