Schedule 1 –
Encouraging responsible gambling
1.1 Never before
have problem gamblers and their families been so cruelly abandoned by those
with the power to put in place a framework that would help to limit the harm
caused by poker machine addiction. The Federal Government’s proposed
‘Encouraging responsible gambling’ policy will do nothing to curb the extent of
problem gambling in our communities. It will only further stigmatise those who
suffer from this addiction and make it harder for problem gamblers to control
their spending and limit their losses.
1.2 I was unable to
support the Labor Government’s gambling reforms in 2012 because I believed
there was still room to negotiate a more comprehensive and effective package of
reforms. The reforms eventually passed by Parliament in November last year were
a disappointing watered down version of what had been promised to the
independent Member for Denison Andrew Wilkie in exchange for his support for an
ALP Government. The Labor Government’s reforms fell well short of the aims
espoused by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard:
“I want to get a big reform done on problem gambling... Not getting change is too
big a risk for those Australians and their families that struggle day to day
with the pressures that problem gambling puts on their shoulders.”[1]
1.3 I could not
support the former Government’s 2012 watered-down reforms because they were in
fact giving cover to a broken promise made by former Prime Minister Gillard. I
did not want to a party to that cynical breach of trust. It was very much a
Hobson’s Choice for me back then.
1.4 However, we now
have legislative changes before us that will likely take Australia backwards in
terms of tackling problem gambling. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has made his
aversion to mandatory pre-commitment clear. In an interview on 2 November 2011
at the Canberra North Bowling Club Mr Abbott remarked:
“Now, it’s very
important that we do what we can to address problem gambling but you’ve got to
have the right policies, not the wrong policies and mandatory pre-commitment
would impose hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs on community
clubs without necessarily improving the predicament of problem gamblers.”[2]
1.5 Mr Abbott went
on to say:
“It’s important
to get maximum help for the problem gambler with minimum disruption for
community organisations and that’s the difficulty with mandatory pre-commitment,
it’s taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.[3]
1.6 The Government’s
reliance on the assumption that problem gamblers are able to set their own
limits and stick to them as the basis for these reforms is fundamentally
flawed. Furthermore, by removing the proposed ATM withdrawal limits the
Government is further enabling problem gambling behaviour.
ATM withdrawal limits
1.7 An all too
common theme when I meet with problem gamblers and their families is the ease
with which the gambler is able to exceed the spending limit they have set
themselves for that particular day. Accessibility to ATMs within gaming machine
venues plays a huge role in this.
1.8 In their
submission to this inquiry, the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce told the
committee of research conducted by the Victorian Gambling Research Panel in
2005 which found that:
“the proximity
of ATMs to EGMs means that money could be withdrawn and then inserted into a
machine without sufficient time for thought of consequences. EGM gamblers who
use an ATM at gaming venues rarely access it for the purpose of purchasing food
and beverages (11.7%). Of those EGM gamblers who withdrew money from an ATM,
74% did so for the purposes of gambling. Those who accessed an ATM more than
twice did so exclusively to gamble”.[4]
1.9 In relation to
ATM withdrawal limits the Productivity Commission in 2010 found that:
“While causality
is hard to prove, easy access to ATMs/EFTPOS facilities appears to increase
spending by problem gamblers. Problem gamblers use these facilities far more
than other gamblers, and say they would prefer to see ATMs removed from venues
so they can better control their spending.”[5]
1.10 In line with
this, the Productivity Commission recommended that ATM/EFTPOS facilities in
gaming venues be limited to $250 a day.[6]
1.11 While imposing a
limit on ATM withdrawals would not be as effective in curbing problem gambling
behaviour as removing ATMs altogether, I believe this measure would have
enabled those experiencing difficulty controlling their gambling to think twice
about withdrawing extra cash. By removing ATM withdrawal limits the
Government’s bill will only serve to exacerbate problem gambling behaviour.
Pre-commitment
1.12 Through this
bill the Government plans to remove the requirement for gaming machines to be
pre-commitment ready by 2016. This is in complete contradiction to and defiance
of the Productivity Commission who in 2010 recommended:
“Each state and territory government should implement a jurisdictionally-based
full pre-commitment system for gaming machines by 2016.”[7]
1.13 In fact, the
Productivity Commission was so confident in its recommendation that it did not
believe a trial was necessary. The trial of mandatory pre-commitment in the
Australian Capital Territory will be abandoned should this bill pass. The
Government is foregoing not only an opportunity to make a difference to the
lives of problem gamblers but also the opportunity to contribute to vital
research in an area which is sorely lacking.
1.14 The former Joint
Select Committee on Gambling Reform repeatedly heard from former problem
gamblers who say that a mandatory pre-commitment system is necessary in order
to limit losses and reduce the harm caused by poker machines, such as Ms Julia
Karpathakis:
“If there had
been another option, there is no way I would have been an addict. If there had
been a pre-commitment card or an opt-out card there is no way I would be an
addict. You get your pension and you know you have three kids and rent to pay,
but you look at that money and it is not even real—it is just something to play
with. That is free rein. Your brain does not think properly, but if there were
a block there I would not think like that.”[8]
1.15 In a submission
to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform Ms Karpathakis also stated:
“I believe that
pre-commitment has the potential to help people, especially the ones who can’t
seem to stop. At least they will be able to curb their addiction or at least
not cause such extreme damage. I believe that if we had had a pre-commitment
scheme when I began to play I would have been a recreational gambler and not an
addict. A pre-commitment scheme, including pre-commitment cards and the opt-out
system, could result in many benefits. These could include preventing new
people from becoming addicted, reducing the incidence of child neglect, as well
as a reduction in crime. I find the idea of preventing future pokie addicts
with the help of the pre-commitment scheme exciting.”[9]
1.16 Based on the
views of problem gamblers, the very people this legislation is purportedly
supposed to help, it is difficult to form the view the Federal Government is
sincere about limiting gambling losses and preventing harm.
1.17 Formal studies
have repeatedly shown that voluntary pre-commitment systems are not effective
at limiting losses. A study into poker machine pre-commitment schemes prepared
for the Nova Scotia Gaming Foundation in Canada found that voluntary schemes
consistently failed because they relied on the willpower of players.[10]
1.18 The Nova Scotia
study found that high risk players were unlikely to use a voluntary system. It
also found that high risk players would often continue to gamble beyond their
limits unless they were locked out of play and that they lost more money than
they intended "most times they play".[11]
1.19 The take-up of
voluntary pre-commitment schemes has also been shown to be woeful. In South
Australia, Worldsmart Technology’s J-Card loyalty scheme allows a player to set
self-imposed limits on time and spending. After reviewing Worldsmart’s scheme,
the Productivity Commission reported:
“Relatively few
consumers have enabled their loyalty card for pre-commitment features. By
mid-September, 233 of just under 32,000 loyalty card members (or 0.7 percent)
had enabled pre-commitment options.”[12]
1.20 However, players
who had opted into the pre-commitment system were found to have engaged with
the feature extensively, with spending reduced dramatically.[13]
Responsibility of the
states
1.21 The cornerstone
of the Government’s legislation is the reliance on the cooperation of states,
territories and indeed individual venues to implement a voluntary
pre-commitment scheme. Surely the track record of the states, who are too
reliant on poker machine revenue to be expected to implement any kind of
meaningful reform, demonstrates the urgent need for a comprehensive national
approach to tackling problem gambling. We cannot have Dracula guarding the
blood bank.
1.22 Given the
cynical abandoning of these minimalist reforms by the former Government and the
aggressive commitment by this Government to unwind them, it seems a realistic
option now available is for the Australian people to have a say on poker
machine reform. Independent surveys indicate a vast majority of Australians
want significant poker machine reform, and in particular the implementation of
the Productivity Commission’s recommendation of $1 bets and maximum $120 hourly
losses. A plebiscite to be held on this issue, on or before the next federal
election would, if passed, give politicians from the major parties the courage
to finally reflect community opinion in any future gambling reform legislation.
Schedule 1A –
Charities
1.23 I recall
distinctly the guillotining that took place in June 2013 when the Charities
Act 2013 was first debated. At that time I indicated my broad support for
this legislation but flagged that certain provisions may need fine tuning in
the future.
1.24 Charities meet
the otherwise unmet, ignored and underestimated needs of Australian society.
Often they step up to the plate and help people and animals who the private
sector deem too uneconomical to help. Charities do wonderful work that is not
easy and they must be recognised for doing so. That is why a definition of a
charity is so important. We need to be able to define a ‘charitable purpose’
and a ‘public benefit’ to ensure genuine charities are able access appropriate
Federal Government assistance, but also to stop those unscrupulous organisations
purporting to be charities from accessing that assistance.
1.25 Australia has
been relying on a 400 year old definition of charity from England’s Charitable
Uses Act 1601. We have seen the success of clearly defined charitable purposes
frameworks in other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
1.26 The benefits of
a definition of ‘charitable purpose’ together with a charities commission was
made clear in 1999 when the Charity Commission for England and Wales refused to
grant the Church of Scientology charitable status because the Commission was
not satisfied Scientology was a religion within the meaning of English law.
Furthermore the Commission held that no public benefit arising from the
practices of Scientology had been established.[14]
This was based on the Commission’s conclusion that the private nature of
Scientology’s auditing, training and practices resulted in a private benefit to
its members only, rather than a benefit to the public.
1.27 The delay in
implementing a statutory definition of a charity will provide additional time
for further stakeholder consultation. However, this time must be used wisely
with genuine attempts made to address specific concerns about the definition.
The focus of the consultation must not be on whether we need a statutory
definition at all, but rather how the definition is framed.
Recommendation:
Schedule 1 of
the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 not be passed in
its current form, particularly without significant alternative and effective
gambling reforms in place.
Senator
Nick Xenophon
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page