Page 1669 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is to put a bet limit on poker machines. It is not saying that you cannot use the poker machines; it is not saying that you cannot have the poker machines; it is not saying that you cannot have people in the club for the 20 or 21 hours a day that those poker machines are available to people. It does not put any limits on any of those things. It simply says that we know that, for some people, controlling their impulses on machines that are designed to addict you to them is a problem.
One of the evidence-based approaches is to say, “We’re going to put a limit on how much you can flog through the machine.” That is what we are asking for. The people who say, “That’s not okay,” are actually saying, “We can’t have that because it’ll ruin the clubs. It’ll ruin the clubs.” That is the problem we have here. Our clubs have become so large and so reliant on the rivers of gold from poker machines that this is where we find ourselves.
I certainly agree with Mr Parton that online gambling is an issue. I do not think anybody disagrees with that point. The growth numbers are enormous. They are off a small and rapidly growing base, but they are enormous, and that is a cause for concern. I find the targeting of online gambling ads particularly distasteful—the way they say to young men, “If you want to be cool with your mates, this is the way to do it.” I think that is problematic. Those things are not in our sphere of influence at the moment. They are very difficult for state and territory governments to control. I think they are very difficult for any government at the moment, given the global nature of the internet and these sorts of issues. It is an area that needs some serious work. I do not dispute that.
What is within our sphere of influence is a machine that is globally recognised as being designed to addict people to it and which, in our community today, has a detrimental impact. We have a direct legislative capability to change that. That is what we want, that is what we are talking about and that is where we think we can make a difference for our community.
I find the arguments about support for community groups problematic. I find that there is an extraordinary disconnect when people say that there is all of this fantastic support for community groups from the clubs—and there is. It comes in various forms—providing meeting venues and the like. Again, there is this enormous disconnect.
I will never forget talking to someone whose paid job was to support the clubs industry. We sat and had a very nice conversation at a clubs event one time. She was an interesting lady. We were chatting away and she said to me, “What about the fact that my son gets a subsidised football jersey each season to help him play sport?” This lady was probably comfortably middle class, and there was a complete failure to connect with the fact that that subsidised footy jumper came from the poker machine revenue, which disproportionately comes from people with a gambling problem.
It is the reverse Robin Hood effect, where we take from the people who can least afford it in order to provide subsidised footy jumpers and a range of other things. It is an awkward conversation to have, because I am really glad that those kids are playing footy and that people are participating in those community groups. We have to stop and ask ourselves the question: is this reverse Robin Hood effect that the clubs are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video