Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Honourable Speaker, this is a terrible day for Tasmanians, to see MPs in this place having to be debating a no-confidence motion in our Premier, to see the Premier stepping back from mandatory pre-commitment cards. It is not just stepping back from those cards in themselves as helping mitigate the problem of pokies and gambling, it is all the interrelated issues that come along with that. It is the family violence, it is suicide, it is the unnecessary deaths that are caused by unessential poker machines that go along with it. To hear today as a part of this debate the bragging that we have the lowest addiction rates in the nation in Tasmania – you still have a problem and it still needs to be fixed. There are still Tasmanians who are being harmed by this. We can do better, so we should do better. The commitment from the Premier and from the government was to do better, to see them walk away from that, how can Tasmanians have confidence?
Tasmanians are facing a myriad of crises at the moment. They voted for this incredible, eclectic array of talents in this place on the basis that we would best represent their views. They wanted to see not just the commitments that were made, including the mandatory pre‑commitment cards, but everything else that went along with that, all those other issues. There are Tasmanians that are facing a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis. Everything is then exacerbated for those families who are at harm because of pokies addictions. They do not want to just see all of us here today continually repeating the same quote, saying the same thing.
My colleagues have done a tremendous job of articulating what the issues are. Tasmanians do not want to tune and hear us for a full day in the final sitting fortnight repeating the same arguments.
My colleagues have absolutely articulated the evidence in terms of the mandatory pre‑commitment cards. They are the best consumer protections to prevent and reduce gambling‑related harm, including the pre‑commitment cards and the safer program for poker machines. The implementation of the mandatory pre‑commitment cards was an essential step in reducing the impact of poker machines on Tasmanian families and communities. As I said, this is not just the financial loss that people would be facing, but the domestic violence, the viability of regional businesses, and reducing the unnecessary loss of life from the impacts of unnecessary poker machines.
This harm is all a result, and it is going to continue being a result of the Premier’s decision to walk away from the mandatory pre‑commitment cards, to put profits for a select few over the Tasmanian people. We have heard a range of views with the series of quotes that have been made from various ministers over this time, from 2022 and the work that Michael Ferguson has done, through to pre the election, on 15 February 2024. Mr Ferguson said:
We acknowledge that implementing such a system …
Being the mandatory pre‑commitment cards.
… is a complex task and as such, the development and full and efficient implementation may take more time than originally anticipated.
That is what we have been repetitively hearing today. If that is the case, if everything that my colleagues have outlined in terms of the statements that have been said, if the Premier is not lying, then where is that plan to implement the cards? Over whatever timeframe it is, where is the full set in stone plan? We do not have that in front of us.
Here we are today in a situation where the government and the Premier talks about the importance of getting the balance right. What exactly are we trying to balance? Is it the right balance where Tasmanians are losing over half a million dollars a day in poker machines? Where since March 2018 Tasmanians have lost over $1.1 billion to poker machines? Is that the right balance that Tasmanians are supposed to be getting? That contacting Gamblers Help has increased 33 per cent in the 2022 and 23 financial year?
In response to questions by the ABC on 29 October 2024 regarding the government’s promised nation‑leading pokies reform, the Premier said that the government was working through its commitment on the mandatory scheme and that it needed to take into account the impact on businesses, particularly in regional areas. The impact of poker machines in regional areas is already incredibly well‑researched. Anglicare’s Social Action Research Centre clearly found that poker machines were concentrated in our most disadvantaged communities. That is indeed the north, the north‑west, and west coast municipalities. This is the Premier’s own electorate. This is where we see an increase in family violence disproportionately compared to the rest of the state.
Those communities have almost twice as many poker machines per 10,000 people as those in southern Tasmania. The top 10 local government areas in Tasmania with poker machines losses include Sorell in my own electorate. Poker machines in the last six years have estimated to cost that community $18 million. That is a true cost to our regional communities. That is money that has been spent on poker machines that could have otherwise been invested into our regional economies. Fifth Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania 2021 found that the poorest Tasmanians spent the most on electronic gambling machines, that 60 per cent of hotel and club EMGs are located in the 13 most socio‑economically disadvantaged local government areas.
In October, the Premier said, in that same ABC article, that you, the Tasmanian people, would expect us to be very considered in our approach. Is this approach considered? Just walking away without a concrete plan, without anything to give the Tasmanian people confidence that you are going to help fix this problem? Tasmanians trusted the Premier and that is not just on the mandatory pre-commitment cards to help mitigate the problem with poker machines that we have here in the state, but for every single other issue that flows on from gambling addiction and from poker machines, to help mitigate the family violence that comes from that. Yet we have heard they are doing wonderful things on family violence. You have also neglected to do something here, that is the suicide and the unnecessary loss of life and not to mention the financial hardship, especially in a cost‑of‑living crisis. We should have done so much better for Tasmanians, as they expected us to do.
