Gambling reform: Kevin Andrews Doorstop

16/01/12

Transcript of the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP,Press Conference,Montefiore Hill, Adelaide

Subjects: Gambling reform.

E&OE...............................................................................................................

Kevin Andrews

Ladies and Gentlemen, can I just say a few things about gambling. Julia Gillard has to be upfront with the Australian people. She was asked this morning whether or not she is still committed to mandatory precommitment and she dodged the issue. She didn’t answer the question and the Australian people are entitled to know what the Prime Minister’s view on this is, what she is actually discussing with Mr Wilkie and other about this issue, and whether or not she is in favour of mandatory precommitment.

All the evidence suggests that mandatory precommitment won’t work. It allows people to set their own limits and they can be as high as the sky, they can reset them if that limit is not high enough for them and we know there is a migration of gamblers from poker machines to other forms of gambling, including online gambling, and this is not being addressed at all in the proposals that Mr Wilkie so far has put forward.

So, I’m calling on Julia Gillard to be upfront with the Australian people and tell us what her view is about mandatory precommitment and what the Labor Party’s view is because we know that the Labor backbench is deadly divided about this issue. There are many backbenchers who do not want mandatory precommitment. They have made it quite clear around the corridors in Canberra that they don’t support it. So, Julia Gillard should come out today and say exactly what her position is.

Question

Mr Wilkie seems to be hoping he might get some support from your side of politics to get this through if he doesn’t get Julia’s support. Is that something that is likely to happen?

Kevin Andrews

Well, we’ve looked at mandatory precommitment and whilst we’ve still got our taskforce inquiring into these matters and will report by the end of February. The reality is that all the evidence so far indicates mandatory precommitment won’t work. The two questions that we ask ourselves are first: will any proposal put forward work, and secondly: what are the consequences so far as the community and others are concerned? On the evidence so far, there is no evidence that mandatory precommitment will work.

Indeed, if gamblers can set their own limit and that could be as much as they like, or if they set a lower limit and they breach it, then they can go back the next day or the day after and set a much higher limit and the reality is this is not going to work. So, we are unconvinced that mandatory precommitment will work and, therefore, unlikely to support it.

Question

Do you think the one dollar maximum bet would be a good compromise?

Kevin Andrews

Well, I’m not going to pre-empt the outcome of the taskforce, which is inquiring at the moment, which I chair. But, again, the same questions would be applied to this as to any other proposal. Will it work? And what are the consequences? There is no evidence so far that this would work either. All it means is that those people that do have a problem gambling – and they’re a minority – spend more time sitting in front of poker machines and away from their families and other commitments, then this won’t work either. So, we have to be convinced that this will work, there’s no indication so far that it will, but we are listening to all those that have an interest in it. I’ll be meeting with many of the parties over the next few weeks and we’ll have a report by the end February, then we’ll have a final Coalition position.

Question

Andrew Wilkie and Senator Xenophon are meeting around midday today. Would there be a message to them in terms of their consideration of this?

Kevin Andrews

Well, they should go away and actually come up with some evidence about what works. When Mr Wilkie put this proposal on the table and said to Julia Gillard: sign up to this if you want my vote to be Prime Minister of Australia. So, this wasn’t a policy consideration, this was basic politics on the part of Mr Wilkie and Ms Gillard. It seems this is all coming back to haunt both Julia Gillard and Andrew Wilkie now. If they’d thought through these proposals and looked at what would work and would not, then maybe we might have different proposals on the table. But this was all done over a deal to make Julia Gillard Prime Minister.

Question

Are you hoping this might be the beginning of the end for the Labor Government, that we might see some friction between Wilkie and a downgrading of support for the Labor Government?

Kevin Andrews

What we’re interested in is good policy and competent government of Australia. And we are getting neither of those things at the present time. This is not a good policy because it won’t work. A policy that won’t work can’t be by definition a good policy. We’ve got continued incompetence on the part of the Prime Minister and this government. She can’t even come out this morning and answer a simple question, which was do you remain committed to mandatory precommitment and says, no, I’m not going to talk about that. Well, then the Australian people must be scratching their heads about where she actually stands on this issue. If there is going to be another back flip like the carbon tax, which she promised she wouldn’t introduce. If it’s going to be another back flip like saying a Labor government wouldn’t legislate gay marriage but looks like they are going to try do that now. The reality is that Australians are distrustful now of the Prime Minister and you can see that in the polls week after week and month after month. If Julia Gillard was upfront with the Australian people, then maybe there would be a bit more respect for her position.

Question

Is this really going to make much of a difference to the Opposition given that Wilkie has said from day one that he is not going to support the Opposition?

Kevin Andrews

Well, as I said, what we’re interested in is good policy and good government. And we are getting neither of those at the present time. If somebody puts up a proposal, which is good policy, then we will consider properly. But if people put up a proposal, which is just done for base political motives, and they won’t meet those tests of ‘will it work’ and ‘what are the consequences’, well, obviously, we are not going to support poor legislation.

Question

What is your position then in terms of what should be done about pokies?

Kevin Andrews

Well, the first thing we say is that there is an agreement all round for voluntary precommitment. The industry supports that, most people who are concerned about problem gambling support that, so we support that. Secondly, we say there should be much more education and counselling provided for people who may potentially become problem gamblers or those who are problem gamblers. In a whole range of other areas and other activities, psychological counselling is provided for people who have addictions or have problems, and so, that could work in this area and we’ve committed to doing that in our discussion paper. Thirdly, we say we need to look at the broader issue of gambling. If, as is happening here and it’s happened overseas, more and more people migrate to online gambling and there’s no proposal for online gambling at all, then that is something that needs to be looked at. But, this piecemeal approach of just picking out one aspect of the issue and saying we will introduce mandatory precommitment, even though it won’t work, is simply not going to solve the problem and we are not going to support that sort of approach.

Question

So, are you ruling out supporting one dollar maximum bet as a compromise?

Kevin Andrews

Well, look, it would pre-empt the outcome of our inquiry and as I said, we are going to report back to the Leader of the Opposition by the end of February and I will be drawing together the taskforce members together over the next few weeks. We’ve had lots of submissions from various interested groups, both those who are in the gambling industry and those who have concerns about problem gambling in the community. We will be meeting with many of those groups over the next few weeks and then I’ll oversee the preparation of the report and report back. So, as I said, it has to meet the tests of ‘will it work’ and that there are no significant adverse consequences for the community broadly.

Thank you.