Problem gambling – Radio National Breakfast with Fran Kelly
E&OE
FRAN KELLY
Well, as we’ve mentioned, the Federal Government has moved to dismantle pokie reforms introduced under Julia Gillard. The National Gambling Reform Act included a switch to pre-commitment technology, a $250 a day cap on ATM withdrawals in gaming venues and the establishment of a national regulator. But legislation to scrap the changes passed the lower house this week, introduced by the Government and supported in the ranks by Labor.
The Greens are not happy. Here’s Senator Richard di Natale speaking to us on Breakfast yesterday.
[Excerpt]
RICHARD DI NATALE
We’ve got Mr Andrews, a Minister who purports to act on behalf of families and who describes himself as somebody who supports family values, has introduced legislation here that will mean families essentially disintegrate because of the harms from pokies, but what we need to see here is we need to see Labor take a stand against this brutal government because once this legislation’s gone, that’s it. We won’t see a Federal Government any time in the future tackle this reform, and so we can’t afford for the Federal Government to vacate this space.
[End of excerpt]
FRAN KELLY
That’s Greens Senator Richard di Natale speaking to us yesterday.
Kevin Andrews is the Minister for Social Services. Minister, welcome to Breakfast.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Morning, Fran.
FRAN KELLY
Senator di Natale says this will destroy families, Tim Costello says it’s a human tragedy which your government is ignoring. Why did you move – why do you think these pokie reforms need to be scrapped?
KEVIN ANDREWS
Well, two reasons, essentially, Fran. Firstly that whilst we recognise that gambling is a problem for some Australians, the reality is that the great majority of people who do gamble do so responsibly. But secondly, and more significantly, gambling and all matters relating to wagering, et cetera, have for a long time been a state responsibility, for many decades. States regulate these areas. They collect the revenue for us. If it wasn’t for the deal between Andrew Wilkie and Julia Gillard, this would not have ever been a matter for the Federal Parliament. We believe that the state’s the best place to regulate and they should continue to do so.
FRAN KELLY
Isn’t the problem, though, that this has all happened because the states aren’t regulating in the way that those who are looking at the data and are concerned about problem gambling in this country and the impact it’s having socially – more needs to be done? I mean, some of the changes that were introduced, and this was a pretty watered-down bill in the first place, for instance ATM withdrawal limits. We know from what’s taken place in Victoria, for example, that they do reduce the amount of money that problem gamblers lose on each sitting at the pokies. We know that works. Why would you move to scrap something as innocuous as that?
KEVIN ANDREWS
Because the states have the power to do this, and you mentioned Victoria where there’s been some quite significant moves in conjunction with the industry to put in more protections for people who have problems, and that’s where we believe this should be. If every time there is a social problem in Australia that is primarily a state responsibility the Commonwealth steps in, then we end up with more and more layers of regulation and greater cost on our community. One of our significant reforms over the next 12 months or so will be to reduce regulation right across the board, and this was an obvious example of where the Commonwealth didn’t need to get involved.
FRAN KELLY
But Minister, are you saying you are happy with the way New South Wales and Victoria are regulating gambling? Problem gambling is built into the business model of clubs and state revenue.
KEVIN ANDREWS
What I’m saying is primarily this is a state responsibility and we’re returning it to the state.
FRAN KELLY
Isn’t that the same as saying you’re vacating the field?
KEVIN ANDREWS
Secondly, we’re doing a number of things. We are going to provide more funding to the state and, through them, to the industry to do things like put in place proper counselling and care for people who have got problems in this area. We’ll work with an industry council which will be established in the new year to look at some of these issues that we can do on a national basis, and we’ll work cooperatively with the states, but we will also recognise that, primarily, the regulatory authority lies with the states.
FRAN KELLY
Minister, I’ll come to the industry council in a moment, but you are winding back reforms that are in place now simply, it seems, due to the philosophical belief that the states should be left to do what the states do, even though the Productivity Commission, which has looked into gambling twice now for this country, has found that between 80,000 and 160,000 Australian adults are suffering significant problems from gambling, and 41 per cent of poker machine revenue in Australia is drawn from problem gamblers.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Well, we’re committed to putting in place a national best practice gambling approach that will deliver real and measurable support for problem gamblers…
FRAN KELLY
But how long will this take? We’ve just spoken about it for three years.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Well, we’ve just come back into government, Fran. This is a policy that’s been clear from us from the outset. We weren’t doing grubby deals with Andrew Wilkie and then walshing(*) on that deal as soon as we didn’t need Andrew Wilkie. That’s what the previous Government did and that’s why we’ve got this situation, but this is primarily a state responsibility and we’re saying that the states, having got that responsibility, they should continue to regulate.
FRAN KELLY
Well, there are suggestions from some – and I’m just repeating them, I’m not making the accusation – that you’re doing grubby deals with the clubs and pubs because they donated over $1 million to the Coalition Government at the last election.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Look, our policy on this has been fairly clear from our sector. This is one of those areas where throughout the last, what, probably two years we’ve had a fairly clear line. Our policy hasn’t changed. It was there in our discussion paper that we put out I think about two years ago now, so that’s been clear.
FRAN KELLY
Yes, but Minister, just because that’s your policy in opposition, doesn’t mean it’s right. I mean, you’ve set up this national industry council, but there was so much criticism of that when you announced it earlier in the year. Tim Costello said it’s putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, because on the council are representatives of the industry but not representatives of the academics or those involved in, you know, gambling counselling, those sorts of bodies. Why not?
KEVIN ANDREWS
Well, there will be academics involved in this council and, as I said, I’ll announce the actual membership of the council and we’ll get it off and running in the new year.
FRAN KELLY
But you won’t consider any arguments to suggest that you should keep in place some of the things that are already law in this country?
KEVIN ANDREWS
We’re not going to have duplication at a Commonwealth and state level, particularly in an area that everybody for decades has regarded as part of a state responsibility. It’s constitutionally the state area to legislate. The states receive the revenue from this. The Commonwealth is only involved because Andrew Wilkie was able to do a deal with Julia Gillard to keep her in the lodge. Of course, that deal fell over. We don’t believe this is an appropriate for the Commonwealth to act when its quite clearly a state responsibility.
FRAN KELLY
It’s 7:49 on Breakfast. Our guest this morning is the Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews.
Minister, you’ve also – you’ve been busy in parliament this week. You’ve also spoken about the need to scrap the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. This was another pre-election commitment from the Coalition. Why do you want to scrap the Commission?
KEVIN ANDREWS
Well, no mischief was ever made out by the government for the establishment of the Commission. This is a new body. It costs millions of dollars a year. It employs something like 100 people or so. And it’s simply heavy handed regulation when it’s not needed. We’ve said that we would work with the civil society, with the community sector in Australia. We’ll put in place a centre for excellence which can look at how we continue to raise governance standards. But our starting point is one of trust.
All these organisations out there who are doing marvellous work in the community, who have hundreds of thousands of volunteers, who rise organically from the community because people come together and see that there are needs to be met, we believe that they have a reputation that they want to protect, and in many cases have been around for decades in Australia, and we’ll start from a position of trust rather than distrust that we’ve got to be looking over their shoulder all the time.
FRAN KELLY
Have you had recent updates from the charitable sector and the non-government, non-for-profit sector about how the Commission is working though? Because there were a few teething problems early on and we’ve talked about those on this program before, but a recent survey of 1500 people in the sector, by the website Pro Bono, found 81 per cent of respondents wanted the Commission kept.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Look, I’ve been consulting more or less continuously about this for more than two years now. I’ve met hundreds of people from different charitable and community organisations right across Australia and whilst I acknowledge that there’s some out there who think that the ACNC is a good idea, my feedback is that overwhelmingly people think that this is over the top and it’s a very heavy handed approach from the Commonwealth when we could have a much more light system of regulation in place.
FRAN KELLY
And Minister, tomorrow gay couples in the ACT will marry under the ACT Marriage Equality Bill. That’s despite the High Court reserving its decision on the Commonwealth challenge to the laws to later in the week. Do you support this move by people to marry?
KEVIN ANDREWS
I support marriage in the way it has been traditionally defined in Australia, both under the common law for a long time now and the Commonwealth Marriage Act, and that is as a marriage between a man and a woman. I think that’s been the approach that’s been taken for many, many centuries, I suppose, over a lot of civilisations and cultures, and that’s one which I continue to support.
FRAN KELLY
So you support marriage, but if a gay couple says we want to declare our love and commitment in the same way, you don’t support that.
KEVIN ANDREWS
It comes down, Fran, I think, to what marriage is. Now, there are two competing views about marriage today. One is the traditional view, and that is that marriage is essentially protective institution for children and women and it’s between a man and a woman. There is a new version, a new view, if you put it that way, that says marriage is essentially an affectionate relationship between adults. Now, there are many affectionate relationships between adults which the law has no part in. Brothers and sisters, members of families, just good friends have affectionate relationships. I don’t think that is marriage. I don’t think that the law should step in to those sort of arrangements and that’s why I continue to support the long held definition.
FRAN KELLY
I guess I’m pretty sure some of those couples, all those couples getting married in the Rose Garden tomorrow will think theirs is more than an affectionate relationship too. But Minister, thank you very much for joining us.
KEVIN ANDREWS
Thank you, Fran.
FRAN KELLY
Kevin Andrews is the Federal Minister for Social Services.