Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary speech that was by the member for Denison on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and the two related bills. In fact, I would put it as one of the most extraordinary speeches that I have heard in this chamber—not on the basis of its soundness and not on the basis of its dispassionate approach to good public policy and good policy advocacy but on the basis that it was so completely filled with sanctimony and moral superiority and an attitude that if you are not with me then you are part of some evil cohort destined to ruin the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Australians.

Let me make it very clear from the outset that I stand here as someone who is concerned about problem gambling, despite the empty rhetoric that comes from the member for Denison. I challenge the member for Denison, and indeed all of those who wring their hands in this chamber and outside this chamber and claim that they have moral superiority when it comes to being concerned about the lives and the families of problem gamblers. They do not. The reason they do not is that this is not a choice between black and white; this is not a choice between saying, 'I stand with the families of problem gamblers,' or, 'I stand with those that are involved in the industry.' It is much more sophisticated than that. It is much more grey than that. It is much more complex than that.

The attitude of the member for Denison, like that of many in this debate, betrays the problem gamblers that he tries to assist. Not once did I hear the member for Denison make reference to the personal internal challenges that those who struggle with addiction must face. Instead, we heard a litany of gross overexaggerations from the member for Denison about how the problem is the evil industry that causes these issues. That is the betrayal of the problem gamblers that the member for Denison and others seek to help.

The problem with the approach that has been adopted by the speaker previous to me is this: while he expresses profound concern about the devastating impact of problem gambling, I do not hear the member for Denison—or other advocates out there—adopting the same approach with those who are, for example, addicted to alcohol. I believe the impact of alcoholism is as strong on those individuals and their families as the impact of pokie addiction. I also do not hear the member for Denison and others going out there and talking about people's addiction to food. There are people who are morbidly obese. The cost to the public payroll as a consequence of that morbid obesity is significant and profound. Believe you me, a father or mother upon whom a family is dependent who dies of a heart attack or stroke at 40 years of age leaves just as much of a hole in their family's lives as does a pokie addict who unfortunately takes their own life. But there are no claims from the member for Denison or others about those that are addicted to food. There is no finger-pointing at the industry, no-one saying that the industry is the problem.

Let us continue the madness of the approach that is put forward by the member for Denison and others. What about those who are addicted to credit card shopping? There are people who get over their heads when it comes to the amount of money they put on their credit cards. I would suggest the number of Australians indebted on their credit cards because they cannot control their spending would far exceed the numbers of Australians who are addicted to poker machines. Where is the focus on the industry when it comes to those who cannot control their spending on credit cards? There is no mention. They are apparently not victims, nor are those who are morbidly obese, nor are those who are alcohol dependent. Instead, there is this complete preoccupation, driven by the member for Denison and others, about poker machines.

It is not that simple. Apart from the glaring hypocrisy of singling out one particular industry over a multitude of others, each with almost equal, if not more significant, impacts on taxpayer dollars, the reality is that that is all conveniently brushed aside by those who like to pretend that this is all about the evils of the club industry and the hotel industry. Well, it is not. It is certainly not that. There are of course some irresponsible operators. I am not going to pretend that there are not. But I also sincerely believe that the industry labels them irresponsible operators and the industry works in a constructive way in an attempt to ensure that those people do not continue to operate in the industry. Why? Because it is uncommercial, in the first instance. Even if that is not a good enough reason, even if profit motive is not a good enough reason, I also believe it is because, at their core, these people who make decisions have families and these are community clubs that benefit their community, and they know the negative outcomes that flow from operators that are irresponsible.

So, on a number of levels, I reject completely the approach of and, most importantly, the sanctimony that comes from the member for Denison, because it is a fraud perpetrated on problem gamblers. They need to see through the rhetoric that we hear from the member for Denison. Frankly, the comments about and accusations made against members of parliament on either the Labor side or the coalition side that in some way we sell out our point of view on the basis of electoral donations is an absolutely shameful and disgusting comment to make. It strikes me that the member for Denison likes to throw out these allegations but when it comes to standing up and backing it up he runs for the hills, not even having the courage—and I know exactly what the member for Denison was saying—to stand up to the comments he made only a minute earlier.

Mr Wilkie interjecting—

You had your opportunity! I think the member for Denison needs to realise that he needs to follow through. It is one thing to stand here in cowards castle, as we call it, and to level accusations at Labor members and at coalition members, but it is an entirely separate thing to back it up. I say to the member for Denison: if you have an ounce of backbone, if you have any evidence, go out there and say it. Do not cast aspersions in this chamber. Do not make accusations without having the backbone, the spine, to support your comments, because those comments are disgraceful.

I note, in addition to that, that the member for Denison has Betfair in his constituency. I do not see too much concern expressed by the member for Denison for those that are engaged in Betfair's exchanges. Likewise, I note that the member for Denison and Senator Nick Xenophon, the No Pokies party senator, are very happy to stand alongside GetUp! They are very happy, when it comes to measures like this bill, to stand alongside an organisation like GetUp! What do we know about GetUp!? Its principal financial backer is actually a key supporter and one of the founders or operators of a thing called NextGen Gaming, one of the biggest operators of not EGMs but online poker machines. They are happy to take the money from an online poker machine operator. They are happy to stand alongside NextGen and GetUp!

See this speech in context