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

It is clear to me, and let us just make the record very clear on this as well, that problem gamblers have a problem by definition in the same way that alcoholics do, in the same way that people who spend more than they can afford on their credit cards do and in the same way that people who are morbidly obese do. They all have problems. In fact, I think it would be a human condition. We could say that each of us does, and they are personal challenges that we must overcome. To suggest that there is a silver-bullet solution in legislation like that before the House today is to betray the problem at the core of this issue.

For that reason, we are bound in our obligation to the Australian people to make policy decisions based upon good and sound public policy, reasoned public policy, recognising that the decisions we make in this chamber have a profound impact in the community. We do not do it on the basis of some simplified, distilled-down view of the world that says it is industry or it is the problem gambler. We owe it to those who are affected to do it on the basis of sound public policy. Sound public policy, when you scrutinise this legislation, does not support the case for this legislation.

First and foremost, the reason why this legislation is not a panacea is that it is undeliverable. For those that manufacture EGMs, for the industry that employs roughly 200,000 Australians, for the industry that supports community clubs throughout the country, for the industry that provides a great deal of recreation for millions of Australians—very few of whom have a problem when it comes to controlling their gambling—the consequences of this legislation are significant. This legislation—which, by the way, was slammed through the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform with one day of hearings—is going to massively impact on the ability of this industry to keep people in jobs, to continue to invest in local communities and to continue to operate for the benefit of employees, employers and the community.

The member for Denison and others would say, 'Well, I don't care. If there's a consequence to that I don't care, because this legislation has got to go through, because we've got to be seen to be doing something. Even if it's not everything I want, it's better to do something than it is to do nothing.' Well, I am not sure that is the case. Industry has made clear that this legislation will not be able to be complied with in the timeframes that have been assigned to it. In the first instance there was confusion, and I would suggest that the member for Denison, based upon questions that he asked in the committee hearing, was confused about this exact matter.

For starters, new games that have to be applied across EGMs require regulatory approval from state and territory based regulators, and in order to be compliant with this legislation new games will require approval, effectively, within 12 months. That is almost impossible for the industry to deliver, because they rely upon the regulators approving the development of new games. So the industry has a gun held at their heads saying, 'You must comply and roll out new EGMs in 12 months that have regulatory approval. Oh, by the way, we haven't spoken in any meaningful way with state government regulators.' We had the South Australian regulator indicate that the department had not even spoken to them about what the requirements were going to be.

We have an industry employing 200,000 people. We have the threat of significant job losses. We have small clubs being forced to engage in expenditure that, in many instances, is likely to drive those clubs to the wall, but apparently that does not matter. Apparently it is the better to do something than to do nothing. What we are seeking to do as a coalition is to say that the timeframes in this legislation are unrealistic and undeliverable. In fact, the timeframes in this legislation are not even in accordance with what the Productivity Commission recommends. The question would be: on what basis were the timeframes altered? Were they altered because it is good for industry? No. Were they altered because this government has more superior insight to the problem than the Productivity Commission? No. They were altered for one reason, and one reason alone, and that is the member for Denison. That is reason the timeframes on the legislation were altered.

I say to the member for Denison in the concluding moments of this debate: the families of problem gamblers are important, but just as important are the families of employees in the pub and club sector. These are families who rely on a breadwinner with a job in the pub or club industry that helps to pay the mortgage for those families. You will not help the family of a problem gambler by putting an employee or by putting a family on the breadline, on the dole, when it comes— (Time expired)

Government members interjecting—

See this speech in context