Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Gambling GAMBLING The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:41): Today, new responsible gambling codes of practice were tabled in this council, and that prompts me to speak on that subject and, in particular, on the hypocrisy of many who speak on it. I should begin with a declaration of interest. I am only a very occasional customer of the TAB or bookmakers. The first Tuesday in November and the occasional picnic race meeting are the only times that I contribute to their coffers. I am an even less frequent user of gaming machines, although I do have fond memories as a student of spending enjoyable nights at the Wentworth Workers Club playing the pokies. I should also declare that I come to this issue with a philosophical inclination which allows that adults should be free to spend their own funds on whatever legal activities they choose, even if those activities are not deemed, by those who think better, to be in their best interests. I do not believe that people who are engaged in activities thought of as undesirable ought be labelled as dimwits or pariahs. In other words, I believe in the right of individuals to make their own choices. A recent article in the Institute of Public Affairs Review has reminded me of a number of important points. The article, written by Richard Allsop, points out that the opponents of gambling, and in particular gaming machines, come from both sides of the political divide, from ultra-conservatives on the one hand to trendy lefties on the other hand. The Productivity Commission in 1993 indicated that 38.6 per cent of the population had played poker or gaming machines in the previous year. This is more than one-third of the community. The view of many seems to be that this one-third of our population that plays poker machines are, in Allsop's words: ...self-evidently stupid and need to be saved from themselves. Their views are never heard in a public debate that has concluded that the negative impacts of poker machines for problem gamblers far outweigh the advantages gained by those who enjoy them, or gain employment from them. Allsop also points out: Denying citizens the right to gamble is a time-honoured action of illiberal governments. It was the first step the Chinese Communist Party took when it seized power in 1949. Hitler, in 1938, had an opportunity to close down the gaming machines. Mussolini banned gaming houses in 1923, as did Castro when he seized power in Cuba in 1959. The article states: Indeed, for Castro, banning gambling was as much a priority as expropriating private property. It is pointed out that this seems to be a class-based phenomenon and that English legislation over the centuries seeking to ban gambling has been aimed mainly at working class people and is not interested in preventing the toffs enjoying a flutter. Allsop says: ...for both conservatives and communists, providing the working class with something readily available to the upper class was a sign of immorality. Allsop also points out that only 2.1 per cent of the population are problem gamblers. That means that 97.9 per cent are not problem gamblers, yet so much effort seems to be addressed at saving the problem gamblers. He points to the over-exaggerations that appear in much of the propaganda against gaming machines. It is said that bankruptcies are caused by poker machines, but there were 16,000 personal bankruptcies last year and only 480 were gambling related. Many more were attributed to a relationship problem, disputes over housework, influence of in-laws, and the like—matters which are never emphasised by critics of gambling. We ought to keep things in balance. We ought to bear in mind that measures which address 2.1 per cent are fair, but acknowledge the fact that 97.9 per cent gain some enjoyment from this activity, which contributes significantly to our economy.