House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Gambling Barring Orders Gambling Barring Orders Mr MURRAY House of Assembly Davenport Gambling Barring Orders Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (14:49): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General update the house on the changes to barring orders for problem gamblers? The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens can leave for 20 minutes under 137A. The honourable member for West Torrens having withdrawn from the chamber: The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:50): I would be delighted to provide that information to the house. Members might recall that, last year in the budget measures bill, the independent gaming authority was dissolved. The authority's responsibilities were absorbed by the liquor and gambling commissioner. This was necessary to comply with the strong recommendations of the Anderson review, which of course had been kept secret for some years by the previous government. Having got into government, we read it, we made it public and we actioned it. One of the important things was to deal with the previous barring system. Members might be surprised to know that, if you thought you had a problem as a problem gambler and you needed to self-bar, it would take 10 days for you to be barred from gambling, that is, to advise the agencies in nearby locations. You are saying, 'I need help. I need to be prevented from being able to go in and access poker machines or some other form of gambling.' That was completely unacceptable to us. It was clearly unacceptable to Mr Anderson. So the voluntary barring orders were reviewed. I am pleased to say that the consequence of this is that the commissioner has confirmed that the voluntary barring orders provided are now on the same day whether by telephone or attendance in person. There is a system to ensure that the person with the gambling problem cannot attend another venue to continue gambling. Obviously, it is important to have simplified and expedited this process if it is going to be effective and actually help people. The second aspect of this is that the commissioner has advised that there has been an incident where a help service provider contacted Consumer and Business Services about a person facing significant financial harm associated with gambling. The help provider was able to immediately contact the office, obtain the details about the barring order, conduct a teleconference and have the person barred immediately. This initiative particularly will go a long way in assisting our regional communities. It is terribly important that, if someone wants to be barred from venues, they should be able to do so. If they visit the commissioner's office, they will be leaving with a barring order. It is going to be as simple as that. I am also advised that the commissioner in his work has now approved over 200 individual barring orders since 1 December last year. It is very important that we maintain this. The hotel industry has made compliments, such as: Hotel staff have always been required to process a barring request while the patron is in the venue or on the phone, so it is pleasing that the Commissioner has taken the same approach. A Gambling Help Service representative stated: Consumer and Business Services has made it easier for patrons of gambling venues to have themselves voluntarily barred. It is great to be able to update the parliament. I thank the member for the question and commend this information for the benefit of those who might need assistance in the community.