GAMING MACHINES (HOURS OF OPERATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 November 2007. Page 1830.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:18): Once again, I make a brief contribution. I commend the member for Davenport for introducing this bill. It is an issue for which I have a lot of sympathy. In fact, many years ago I sought to amend the relevant gaming machines act to restrict the hours at which the machines can be available to operate. I do not see any justification for having gaming machines operating around the clock or even a large part of the clock. I think there should be an enforced shutdown when people can get right away from these machines.

I am not a wowser when it comes to gaming. If people want to play gaming machines, that is fine but, with all things in this area, there needs to be some provision for, if you like, a cooling-off time when people can stand back from this activity. Therefore, I do not see any justification for having gaming machines operating past, say, 1am or 2am on a weekend. I think they should be shut down from about that time until at least 11am.

This bill is not as radical as my suggestion but, nevertheless, I support it because I think it is a step in the right direction to bring a bit of balance back to what has become a difficult area. I accept that most hotels do the right thing; I accept that most gamblers do the right thing. Nevertheless, I think it is a prudent provision to shut the machines down for at least eight or 10 (or more) hours out of every 24.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:21): I strongly support the bill; in fact, in my view it does not go far enough. I am of the view that pokie venues should be closed between 12 midnight and 12 noon, but I know that reform has to come step by step most of the time, so I think this will be a huge advance. Interestingly, in a recent survey of a thousand people in my electorate, among a range of possible reforms to pokies, the proposal was put that gaming machines be closed from midnight to noon, and 57 per cent of people approved that measure.

That went further than the member for Davenport's proposal, so I am absolutely convinced that there is easily majority community support for this measure. Let us be realistic: if gaming machines are still available to the public for 18 hours a day, it means that shiftworkers, people with children, and people with any sort of responsibilities will still have the opportunity to gamble, but there is evidence that gambling late at night is often accompanied by inebriation and/or tiredness and is the bewitching hour when it comes to problem gamblers being preyed upon by these venues.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:22): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to have another attempt at this, because I had two speeches in front of me but I picked up the wrong one. I again commend the member for Davenport for moving this measure, and we support him.

This bill seeks to implement legislation so that, outside of the casino, poker machines are not able to operate between the hours of 3am and 9am. Current legislation states that poker machines must not operate for six hours in a day; however, this six hours of closure does not have to occur in one six-hour block. Machines can be shut down for periods of two to three hours and for a total of six hours.

Gambling causes a lot of problems, and I am certainly very aware of it in my electorate: bankruptcy and other financial stresses, family breakdowns and depression. I certainly commend the member for Davenport for introducing this bill. As members would know, I have been here for quite a while, and I was here when we first passed the gaming machine legislation. I opposed it then and I have opposed it ever since.

I can recall the previous member for Goyder and myself campaigning strongly to try to keep poker machines only in the casino and in licensed clubs and never in local hotels. Well, we lost. If we had been successful—as have other states—and kept them out of hotels, we would not have the grief that we have now. It should have been only licensed clubs and the Casino. I support the member for Davenport and this bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:24): I also support the member for Davenport and this bill. I was about to correct one of my colleagues earlier when he stood up and made the wrong speech about party support. It is actually a conscience vote. I will just put that on the official record.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is, but gambling issues are complex votes. This is more of a conscience vote. It is in my nature to be a conservative person, although. I would probably classify myself in a few ways. Gambling is not something that I have done very much in my life, so it was quite interesting to me that, upon being elected to this place, the leader gave me the opportunity to be shadow minister for gambling.

Mr Hanna: No risk in Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is a risk in any seat, because we can never assume that we will be there for the next term. You always have to work hard. I have not gambled very much, but I do recognise that it is a legally allowable activity. Since time immemorial, people have gambled in some way or another; it is human nature.

As part of holding that portfolio for a bit over 12 months, I enjoyed meeting the various groups involved in the gambling industry. I recognise that they are working hard to actually minimise problem gambling, and I know that has some level of support from the government. The people I met are running an industry that is allowed under the laws of the nation, and they just want to make sure that it is done properly.

The AHA is a peak body for hundreds of hotels that exist within South Australia, and it has worked hard to ensure that resources are out there to get information out to people who gamble, to develop policies to minimise gambling addiction and to work with government on initiatives to ensure that support exists for people with gambling problems. I stress the fact that the AHA and the people who operate these facilities are good citizens and are committed to the industry and the community at large. Whilst holding that shadow portfolio, I had the opportunity to go on a tour with AHA members of six sites that had been upgraded in Adelaide.

Mr Hanna: A pub crawl.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, it was not a pub crawl. A lunch was involved but only soft drinks were consumed: I am quite confident about that. I do not go on pub crawls. We had a look at these hotels where a lot of money had been spent. It was obvious to me when walking into these places that the pokies area was not actually the focus of the redevelopment: the focus was on the bar and the dining areas. That has been great for businesses that have supported those redevelopments. An enormous amount of work has been created. It has been hard to get the tradespeople, but it really does highlight that many hotels in our state have had a lot of money spent on them, and there is no doubt that gambling revenue has assisted in that regard.

However, going back to my conscience and my conservative nature, I think it is important to recognise that there are people out there who have gambling problems. I, probably like a few members in this place, have attended several meetings of Gamblers Anonymous. I have been there on Saturday mornings and on a Wednesday night. There were probably only 15 people in the room, but each person stood up and recounted how gambling had affected them, and it was really heart-rendering. There were so many sad stories of how, every day, these people feel challenged to even walk or drive past a gambling venue without the urge to walk in the front door and put some of their hard-earned money into the machines. It is for those people that I indicate my support for this bill.

The control of the six hours in which venues will not be able to operate may seem a minor matter but, for those people out there who just need some relief from the anxiety they face with their addiction to gambling and the pressure that it creates in their families, I think it will be a positive step.

I note that those people with specific gambling problems are small in number and percentage, but every person should be considered. The statistics often quoted by the Hon. Mr Xenophon when he was in the other place, indicating that for every one person who is a problem gambler there are seven other people who are addicted, really do indicate the need for the house to consider very seriously the merit in the member for Davenport's bill.

I know that it will not automatically create a situation where we have utopia again and all the problems go away for the people in question, but I do believe that it is a positive step forward. I encourage the government and the minister to make sure that they do everything possible to assist people with gambling problems, and I hope that the government resolves to support the bill.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:29): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this bill. My position on gaming and particularly poker machine operations in the state has been fairly well documented in terms of the stance I took when the government introduced the legislation about four years ago to remove a maximum of 3,000 machines from the industry.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Mitchell will have an opportunity to make a contribution, if he has not done so already. I supported the legislation and every amendment moved by the member for Mitchell at the time.

Debate adjourned.