GAMING MACHINES (HOURS OF OPERATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 July 2007. Page 480.)

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (20:29): The government will not be supporting this bill. As always, I will keep my remarks relatively short, as many of the general points that I will be making have been made previously in addressing matters raised by a former member of the Legislative Council. The Productivity Commission's Report on Australia's gambling industries has been quoted frequently and often very selectively in relation to the development of gambling policy. There is no doubt that, at the time, the report made a significant contribution to the development of gambling policy around Australia. Even today it still provides some foundations for the making of policy in this area. A key message from the Productivity Commission report was that gambling can legitimately be considered as part of an entertainment experience. The report stated:

Gambling is best characterised as a form of entertainment, albeit one where a major element of that entertainment is the chance of winning some money. The fact that gamblers lose money does not mean that they derive no benefit, nor does it mean that industries do not make a contribution to the economy. Many other activities (such as sport, theatres, etc) represent consumption rather than investment, with the net cost to the consumer representing a payment for the entertainment provided.

The report also had the following key message for policy makers in this field:

The two objectives providing the strongest rationale for special gambling policies are to ensure probity and to reduce adverse social impacts. The principle of consumer sovereignty and choice is important when devising gambling policy, but it does not mean that there is no role for government in trying to alleviate the harms from problem gambling. The overarching goal should be to maximise the welfare of the community as a whole. Measures which can reduce the social harms of gambling while maintaining the benefits find particular favour under this approach.

The government acknowledges the Hon. Dennis Hood's concerns in this regard. Gambling can lead to a negative consequences for individual problem gamblers, their families and the wider community. However, it is against the messages from the Productivity Commission and the carefully considered conclusions of the Independent Gambling Authority that honourable members should consider the bill which is now before us. The Independent Gambling Authority is an independent authority established by the parliament to ensure probity of the gambling sector and to bring forward ways of preventing or minimising harm associated with gambling.

The members of the IGA are highly regarded individuals in the South Australian community, and the outcomes of their work have frequently been innovative. The IGA in its 'Review 2006'–a report published in May this year–took the innovative approach of proposing additional compliance mechanisms on venues with gaming machines where those venues were not prepared to commit to rigorous programs of support for their customers, such as Gaming Care and Club Safe.

The additional compliance measures, such as limitations on venue signage, screening of sights and sounds and the relocation of automated coin machines, are essentially a fall-back position that treats all venues and all gaming machine players alike. The government's preference is for problem gambling to be directly targeted. The approach taken by the Hon. Dennis Hood in this bill is a limited and blunt approach in terms of tackling the issue of problem gambling. It certainly does not match the Productivity Commission's overarching goal of maximising the benefits to the community as a whole.

It is at variance with the approach being taken by the body set up by the parliament (the IGA) to deal with harm associated with gambling. Both the IGA and the government are focusing their efforts on approaches that directly target the issue of problem gambling. This has led to the consideration and implementation of measures that can be used in venues that operate gaming machines where the expectation is that venue operators will provide practical support to all of their customers with the aim of helping them to gamble responsibly.

This approach, which is a practical and targeted approach, is clearly evident in the work being undertaken by the Responsible Gambling Working Party which was established last year by the minister for gambling and which was tasked with looking at ways to help customers playing gaming machines to set limits on their gambling. In a first for South Australia, the working party brings together representatives of hotel and club operators, the casino, the concern sector, problem gambling service providers, industry employees and gambling researchers. The first progress report of the working party was published in October and may be accessed from the Department of Treasury and Finance website.

Like the approach adopted by the IGA for the codes of practice, the working party is focusing its efforts on strategies that will directly support customer commitments to place limits on their gambling. In this way, problem gambling can be directly addressed without disregard for other recreational gamblers and non-gambling customers. In essence, honourable members can choose to support the approach in this bill, which is effectively a 'part-time' prohibition on gaming machines that impacts on all users of venues, or agree to an approach that builds a more supportive environment for people playing gaming machines. As I said earlier, the government does not support the approach implicit in this bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:35): The Greens support this bill, which we see as a valuable addition to the regulatory regime to prevent problem gambling. We know that problem gambling causes harm in the community, not just to the individuals concerned but also their families and the rest of society. It seems to me to be fairly straightforward that reducing the times during which people can access gambling machines is more likely than not to reduce problem gambling. On balance, I think the bill will help problem gambling rather than hinder it. In fact, I was surprised to discover that Christmas Day and Good Friday were not already off limits for poker machines, and I can see no harm to the community at all in banning machines on those days.

The government's opposition to this bill seems to be fairly based on the report of the Productivity Commission, which I must admit I tend in an old-fashioned way to refer to by its previous name, the Industries Assistance Commission. It is the same body and its reports very much reflect its origins. With those brief words, I say that the Greens are happy to support this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:36): I rise to indicate that this is a conscience vote for the Liberal Party, and I think a number of my colleagues will make a contribution on this measure. As I am sure all members are aware, this bill seeks to allow the operation of poker machines only from midday to midnight and, of course, there are 12 hours of closed time. I think I am on the record in earlier debates on gaming issues in this place as having said that, if I had been here at the time the legislation was originally introduced, I may not have supported it. Having said that, we now have them.

I have always been somewhat of the view that we cannot have a nanny state as such and try to protect people from themselves, although I do have some sympathy for the idea of poker machines being shut from, say, 3am to 9am, or some shorter period in the very early hours of the morning. People use the argument often that of course we need them available for shift workers. I am not certain that shift workers, after a hard day of whatever they are doing, then call into the pub or the gaming venue to play the pokies on their way home, especially if they are driving home at 4, 5, 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning.

However, that is not the bill we have before us today. I note there is a representative from the hotels association in the gallery. We have not been inundated with lobbying and it has been quite refreshing that we have not been badgered by one group or another. The Hon. Dennis Hood has put his case for the changes that he would like to see, and those in the industry have largely not participated in the debate outside the chamber.

I think we all acknowledge there is a small percentage of the community and those who use gaming machines who have problems with an addiction and are not able to control it. I guess a lot of us have problems with other things. There are a number of us in this chamber who probably eat too much from time to time—not all, I would say, but there would be some.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My colleagues are interjecting and asking me to name names, but I think it would be inappropriate to name people who do that. So, while I have some sympathy for what the Hon. Dennis Hood is trying to achieve, I do not believe it is something that at this point in time I can support.

I always would be interested to look at ways in which we can help problem gamblers, but it is an industry that generates a large amount of revenue for hotels and the entertainment industry; and I know that a range of country hotels provide a much better level of menu and service to the community because of an increased cash flow and a better business package which has been put together because of gaming. Unfortunately, every now and again a small minority are caught up in problem gambling. I do not think that this bill is one which I can support. I think the 12 hours is far too limiting and restricting. I indicate that I will not be supporting the bill. I also reiterate that it is a conscious vote for members of the Liberal Party.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:41): I rise to oppose the legislation. It is a somewhat sad occasion this evening in that this is the first gaming machine-related matter in a decade in which we have engaged without the Hon. Mr Xenophon. It is a Xenophon-free gaming debate. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway said, we have not been lobbied furiously on this bill so I was almost tempted to act on behalf of the Hon. Mr Xenophon this evening. Given that this piece of legislation is being rushed into consideration without Mr Xenophon's replacement here, in terms of expressing his or her view on the particular issue, as I said I was almost tempted to put the views of the Hon. Mr Xenophon to shock him and his supporters.

I will not take long to put my point of view. It will not surprise members to learn that I do not intend, either at this stage or at any stage in the future, to support legislation along these lines. I do not believe that a period of uniform opening or closing hours—however one wants to portray them—will in any way tackle the small percentage of gamblers who are problem gamblers, whether that be 1 per cent or 2 per cent. As I have said before on many occasions, I believe that when you are a problem gambler you would crawl over cut glass to avail yourself of the opportunity to gamble. As long as it exists, whatever amount of money you have, you will spend it over whatever period of time is available on your habit.

I do not believe that this bill, or indeed a number of other issues we have discussed in recent years, if they had been implemented—and, in some cases, they have been implemented, such as the much vaunted 3,000 cut in gaming machine numbers—would have any influence on the 1 per cent or 2 per cent of problem gamblers. It gives me no pleasure to say that some of us at the time said that it was a stunt from the Premier and others to give an impression that they were doing something about problem gambling.

I think the outcome this chamber achieved in forcing through additional moneys into counselling for problem gamblers against the wishes of the government had more potential to assist problem gamblers than the much publicised and much vaunted 3,000 cut in gaming machine numbers, or a number of other things we have discussed in recent times or, indeed, this particular measure, should it pass the parliament.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (20:44): From the outset, can I say how pleased I am to be joining with my comrade the Hon. John Gazzola—one of my favourite now capitalist communists—who is actively supporting the hotels association. I welcome his interest in furthering the efforts of supporting small business, and I am pleased to see that happen.

From the outset, can I say that I certainly share the concerns of all my colleagues in this chamber with respect to problem gamblers, and I welcome initiatives that the hotels association, the casino and Clubs SA have put into trying to work with problem gamblers to alleviate their difficulties. I have a 78 year old mother (I think I have put it on the record before) who occasionally likes to play poker machines. She does not have a lot of joy in life these days: her son is busy working and does not get back to Whyalla very often, but I hate to deprive her of the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Well, she does get out a little bit. Some people say that poker machines are evil, but I think that sometimes we really have to take a bit of responsibility for what we are doing. The majority of people play poker machines in a responsible fashion and have a bit of enjoyment. I cannot say that I am a great player of poker machines: I have put very little money into them. However, I respect the rights of others to enjoy a social pastime and to use their discretionary money in a way that they see fit.

One of the things about being a member of parliament is that you make a maiden speech, which is no surprise to members. It gives people an indication of who you are and where you come from. I said at the time I made my maiden speech that I would always take a very close look at what the hotel and club industry does and that, generally, I would probably be a pretty fair supporter of what it does, because of where I come from and my social interests.

I travel throughout Australia (as do, I am sure, most members), and I take particular interest in the types of facilities that people who live interstate get to enjoy, especially in places such as Western Australia, which does not have poker machines. I like to be able to go with my friends or take my family to a good, clean, high quality establishment that serves good meals in a safe environment. In this state we are, I think, head and shoulders above other states with the facilities that we provide, and gaming certainly has played a massive part in that.

I know that there are people who—shock, horror—have legitimately run businesses and made money out of gaming. Most of them have reinvested heavily in their establishments, which a lot of people whom I know enjoy responsibly, and I think that is very important. I understand the Hon. Dennis Hood's motive, and I do not think that there is anything sinister about it. However, this is an interesting society in which we live. The days when everyone is in bed at 12 o'clock are long gone. We work different shifts. Young people head out into the evening at a time when, in my younger days, if I had not done all the things I needed to do in my recreational time and been in bed, I would have been pretty disappointed. But I find my 22 year old daughter heading out now when I cannot believe that—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You would have been coming home—

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: That is it—and, as I said, I would have been disappointed if I had not fulfilled all ambitions on the evening. I cannot support the Hon. Dennis Hood with respect to this legislation. I share everyone's concerns about problem gambling, but I really support the hotels association, the clubs and the casino in their efforts to impose tight controls and work hard with problem gamblers. However, at the end of the day, people still have to take some responsibility for their own actions.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (20:49): As my Liberal colleagues have mentioned, this is a conscience matter for members of the Liberal Party. I stand here this evening to say that I recognise the sincerity with which the Hon. Mr Hood has developed this piece of legislation. However, I will not be supporting it. I acknowledge the contribution just made by my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens. I think it is a sign of our society today that the hours during which people entertain themselves and do other things in their free time have changed immeasurably.

I notice sometimes when I go home in a cab up O'Connell Street, particularly if we go back a year or so ago when we were sitting late on Monday nights, people are out at hotels entertaining themselves late on a Monday night. Most of us would have been tucked up in bed. I echo the thoughts of the Hon. Mr Stephens in relation to the very good efforts by the Hotels Association, Clubs SA and the other major players in that industry to tidy up the act of some cowboys in the industry. There are fewer of those today, but certainly the operators of the poker machines are out there behaving responsibly and encouraging their clients to behave responsibly. I recognise the sincerity of the honourable member in bringing this forward, but I cannot support it.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:50): In the past, probably more than a decade ago, I made comments to the effect that I thought that gambling as an industry would learn to manage the problems associated with that industry, and I drew parallels with alcohol and that industry going back to the early twentieth century and the sorts of behaviours associated with the old saloons and so on, which ultimately led to prohibition in the 1920s. Eventually the hotel and alcohol industry came out from that on the other side and, bit by bit, became more civilised in the way they approached it. As a child growing up in a teetotal family we would never have gone into a hotel. Now I think teetotal families could quite comfortably go into a hotel and eat, never having to touch alcohol. In many ways the industry matured and found a way to deal with some of the problems.

I thought after this period of time that the gambling industry might have reached that point, but it has not. I have seen people near me become enmeshed in gambling problems and I have had to change my position. As a consequence, with the last government bill that came through here on gambling, the number of gaming machines and so on, I introduced an amendment to reduce the number of hours these machines could operate. The amendment I moved did not go as far as does the Hon. Mr Hood's amendment and it was defeated, but I did that then as a consequence of my view that the gaming industry was not meeting the social responsibilities that I felt it ought to have.

I still see no evidence of a reduction in problem gambling and as a consequence I will support this bill. I look at the issue of problem gambling as very much in the same league as drugs. When I use the term 'drugs' I refer to both legal and illegal drugs. Picking up what the Hon. John Gazzola said at the beginning—that for some people losing that money is not a problem—some people are able to gamble and there is no problem for them, yet there are others for whom it becomes an addiction just like a drug.

My approach to gaming machines is harm minimisation, just as it is for drugs. By having fewer hours available for playing those machines we reduce just a little bit of that temptation and perhaps people might go home, have a good night's sleep and save some of those dollars. Effectively, it is using the same harm minimisation approach we use for drugs. This is a regulated availability model that I am supporting. I am not trying to shut down the venues, but I am saying that they do cause a problem. I do not think the gambling industry is handling it in a mature way, and therefore I think a measure such as this must be supported.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (20:55): Like the Hon. Mr Lucas, I think most people have heard me make my speeches on gambling and poker machines over a protracted period of time. We seem to—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: I have missed out.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: That is right. The Hon. Mr Finnigan has missed out and, indeed, so has the Hon. Mr Hood. So I suppose I need to put my position down again. I chaired the Social Development Committee when it inquired into gambling, and it looked at just such measures as the Hon. Mr Hood has introduced in this bill. The committee decided that, at that stage, they simply would not work, and I am yet to be convinced that they would. Having said that, like the Hon. Sandra Kanck, I am disturbed that the number of addictive poker machine gamblers appears to be increasing rather than decreasing in spite of all the measures that are being taken.

As I have also put on the record on a number of occasions, I love a day at the races, so who am I to say that I can go to the races and enjoy that form of gambling but someone else cannot enjoy their chosen form of gambling? The difference, however, is that if you go to the races you go home at the end of the last race.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Some of my colleagues stay after the last race, but you stop gambling after the last race. I am therefore attracted to the idea of gaming machine venues having to close for a period of time. However, as I said, when the Social Development Committee had this inquiry a number of submissions were made which pointed out that people do in fact work shifts and they do like to stop work, have a couple of beers and play the pokies for a while and then go home. So what period of time do you close them for?

The idea of closing for a 12-hour block again appeals, whenever those 12 hours might be. It might be the decision of the proprietor of that particular venue. However, those who are addicted will then simply travel from one venue to the other. As much as this particular idea is appealing, my view is that it simply will not work. As I have said on a number of occasions, until society addresses compulsive addictive behaviour in all its guises, whether that be eating disorders, addictive gambling, alcoholism or whatever, we are really picking on only one section, which is in fact a legitimate business, a legitimate industry.

We are not attacking the problem, which is those people who cannot control whatever their particular addiction is. For those reasons, I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:58): I will not detain the council very long. I thank members for their contributions. Obviously, the numbers are against the passage of this bill so, as I said, I will not pursue the matter for too long. Also, I will not labour the point about the hardship that poker machines cause in our society. I did that quite extensively in my second reading explanation, which, if anyone cares, is available to read. The motivation behind this bill is that, quite simply, I believe these poker machines are a negative to our society. They do offer joy to some people. I completely admit that; I have played them myself on some occasions.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Quite responsibly. However, this bill is not to protect people like me: it is to protect people who need protection. Anyway, that being the case, I will make a couple of comments. First, I will respond to the Hon. Mr Gazzola, who mentioned that the government had taken steps towards establishing a working party. In April this year, the minister indicated on ABC Radio that a working party would be established to examine this matter, and here we are in November and nothing has happened at this stage. Certainly, one would have to say that that is well and truly a very slow process.

Secondly, in respect of the 12-hour blackout period for poker machines, the reason I decided not to have each individual venue deciding when that 12-hour period would be appropriate was quite simply that, if one closed at midnight and another closed at 2am, people would move from one venue to the next, which defeats the purpose. It was a matter of picking a time.

My final comment is the old saying that you shoot for the stars and land on the moon. Certainly I did not expect this bill to go through in this form, that is, that poker machine venues would open at 12 midday and close at 12 midnight. I was hoping that it may be amended whereby all venues open at 12 midday and close at 3am, or something to that effect. Clearly, that is not possible based on the numbers. With those few comments, I thank members for their contributions. I would have preferred that the bill pass the council, but that will not happen.

Second reading negatived.