The Tasmanian Greens today accused the Liberal Party of being less than honest about its previous support for the implementation of a $1 maximum bet limit on poker machines, and called on Liberal leader Will Hodgman to acknowledge that a $1 maximum bet limit on poker machines is the best harm minimisation measure currently available.
Greens Gaming spokesperson Kim Booth MP said it is clear that the Liberals are now backing away from their support for a $1 maximum bet limit on poker machines, while trying desperately to rewrite history in order to avoid being labelled as cynical political opportunists on such a critical issue of social harm.
Mr Booth also said that the Liberals did not withdraw their Parliamentary attempts to impose a $1 maximum bet limit on poker machines in 2009, as they are now claiming, but that instead both attempts were actually defeated on the floor of the Houses of Parliament. [see attached Hansard]
“The Liberal Party supported a $1 maximum bet limit for poker machines in 2009, and in the lead-up to the 2010 election, but are now backing away from this key harm minimisation measure at the very time that they finally have the power to implement it. What is going on?,” said Mr Booth.
“I cannot believe that the Liberals would be so cynically opportunistic on such an crucial issue, but it is difficult to come to any other conclusion given their sudden reluctance to support this important matter.”
“Liberal MP Brett Whiteley pursued a $1 maximum bet limit in the House of Assembly in November 2009, where his amendment was defeated by the Labor Members. Liberal MP Dr Vanessa Goodwin then introduced the same amendment to the Legislative Council, and that amendment was again defeated.”
“If the Liberal Party are truly interested in minimising the serious social harm being caused by poker machines right now then they should stop trying to rewrite history, and simply support my Bill to implement a $1 maximum bet limit which they already know is the most effective harm minimisation measure available at this time. Their failure to commit to this key measure, at the very time that they finally have the power to implement it, says much about the lack of backbone in Will Hodgman’s Liberals,” said Mr Booth.
Attached: Parliamentary Hansard excerpts from 5 November 2009 (House of Assembly), and 16 November 2009 (Legislative Council):
House of Assembly Hansard Thursday 5 November 2009 – Part 2 – Pages 35 – 160
GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2009 (No. 101)
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 35 agreed to.
New clause A –
(Section 127 amended (Power of Minister to give directions to Commission))
New clause A presented by Mr Whiteley and read the first time.
Mr WHITELEY – Mr Chairman, I move –
That new clause A be now read the second time.
New clause A is to follow clause 35. It reads:
‘Section 127 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (1) the following new subsections (1A) and (1B):
(1A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the minister has no power to make a direction to the commission that sets a bet limit higher than $1 per spin for a gaming machine in any gaming venue.
(1B) The commission must ensure that any standards, directions or other instructions it applies in Tasmania set bet limits on gaming machines of no higher than $1 per spin.’
Mr Chair, this amendment will make clear that ministerial directions issued by the minister under section 127 of the act may not set a bet limit higher than $1 per spin for gaming machines in all venues. The Gaming Commission administers the Tasmanian appendix of the Australian and New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard. The minister issued a direction on 13 July directing the commission to instigate amendments to that appendix to reduce the bet limits from $10 per spin to $5 per spin in all gaming venues. We have no power to change the appendix by amending this bill, so instead this amendment will remove the power of the Treasurer to set a higher bet limit than $1 per spin, and will further provide that the commission must ensure that any standards, which means the appendix to the National Standard, directions or other instructions it applies in this State bet limits on gaming machines at no greater than $1 per spin. This is the view of TasCOSS, Anglicare and many others who have to deal with the problem gambling scourge in Tasmania and its effect on families in our communities. It is also the strong view of the State Opposition.
Minister, I understand your limitations as far as this matter before us goes, given that you have carriage of this bill today. I would be interested, though, in that you made a little about the matter of going to Cabinet. I would be interested to learn from the advisers as to whether in fact the minister’s issued direction back in July reducing it to $5 a spin went before Cabinet or if the directions of the minister are not subject – which I do not think they are – to Cabinet approval. I understand that what you are saying is that the Treasurer could, any day he wants, take it back to $1, but that is not the point. The point today is to impose a bet limit for gaming machines of $1. The Treasurer, if he wanted to, could take it to 50 cents, but he could not take it to $1.50.
[2.30 p.m.]
…
[3.00 p.m]
Mr LLEWELLYN – Your amendment is capable of being implemented. However, these measures are genuine attempts to try to address these issues and I will leave it at that.
The Committee divided –
AYES 8 NOES 10
Mr Booth Mrs Butler
Mr Gutwein Mr Butler
Mr Hidding Mr Cox
Mr McKim Ms Giddings
Mr Morris Mr Green
Ms O’Connor Mr Hulme (Teller)
Mr Rockliff Mr Kons
Mr Whiteley (Teller) Mr Llewellyn
Mr Polley
Mr Sturges
PAIRS
Mr Michael Hodgman Mr Bartlett
Mr Will Hodgman Ms O’Byrne
Mrs Napier Ms Singh
New Clause A so negatived.
Legislative Council Hansard Monday 16 November 2009 – Part 1 – Pages 1 – 55
…
New clause A –
(Power of Commission over gaming machine bet limits)
New clause A presented by Dr Goodwin and read the first time.
[9.26 p.m.]
Dr GOODWIN – Mr Deputy Chairman, I move –
That new clause A be now read the second time.
This amendment was actually moved by my colleague, Mr Whiteley, in the other place and I do commend him for that. The purpose of the amendment is to actually reduce the maximum bet limit to $1 per spin and this is a debate that we need to have, particularly given the Productivity Commission’s findings and recommendations contained in the draft report. I would also like to refer to the TasCOSS media release and just quote from it. It says:
‘The $5 limit proposed by the Government still allows someone to lose their weekly income in under an hour. The $1 limit has been recommended by the Productivity Commission on the basis that it is the only modification likely to be effective as a harm minimisation strategy.’
And I might just repeat that:
‘The $1 limit has been recommended by the Productivity Commission on the basis that it is the only modification likely to be effective as a harm minimisation strategy.’
I think it is very difficult to ignore that observation and to ignore the findings of the draft Productivity Commission report but I do take the point that it is a draft report and I also take the point that perhaps this may not be the most appropriate time or forum to be having this debate over the maximum bet limit because of the matters raised both in the briefing and in this Chamber around the problem of economies of scale for Tasmania as a small jurisdiction and not perhaps having the purchasing power of larger jurisdictions in relation to gaming machines with a $1 bet limit and also the practical difficulties around changing existing $5 machines to become $1 machines. However I do think that if this recommendation is contained in the final report of the Productivity Commission, it should be seriously considered because we do need to do everything that we can to address the problem of people who have an addiction to gambling, just as we try to do everything we can to address issues around other addictions, whether it be to drugs or alcohol or whatever it is because of the impact that it has on people and communities.
I also think that the honourable member for Windermere’s point about the need for statistics to be collated on gambling-related crime is really well made. We certainly do need to pursue those statistics because it will help inform the debate and cost benefit analysis of measures to address problem gambling. We have on the one hand this South Australian report apparently demonstrating a link between crime and gambling but there are obviously data deficiencies around this and we do not have that sort of data in this State. We really do need it to help inform our debate around these issues.
Having said that, and bearing in mind what has come out of the briefing and the session in the House, and the feeling that I get from other members around this amendment, I can indicate that I will not be proceeding with it. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr AIRD – I understand the sentiment of the honourable member. You will probably have to recommit it and do a whole lot of other things. The best thing to do is to vote it down. It is the best way of dealing with the issue.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN – I will take advice on it.
Mr AIRD – I am not trying to usurp the authority of others here, I am just trying to be expeditious and to get this done.
New clause A negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to and bill taken through the remainder of the Committee stage.
