GAMING MACHINES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 October 2010.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): I rise to speak to the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. I know my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens did make mention of this in his contribution, but I think, at the outset, I should mention that I have a share in a hotel in Bordertown, my hometown, which does have gaming machines, so I need to put that on the record. For the record, it is the hotel where I met my wife and where we had our wedding reception. That particular establishment is almost culturally significant to my family.

Notwithstanding that, while we are talking about gaming machines—and it is on the record from previous contributions—I suspect that, if I had been here when South Australia first adopted the practice of licensing gaming machines, I would have advocated very strongly for them to be in sporting clubs and to benefit the community rather than placed in hotels. I would have been much happier to see some of the revenue derived from these activities put back into junior sport, especially at a country level.

Volunteering and community spirit has declined somewhat in the last 20 or so years, and I think it would have been useful to see some money put back into junior sport and also other community activities apart from sport. For example, in New South Wales, the RSL clubs have gaming machine entitlements and I think they do some particularly good work in the community. Having said that, I was not here at the time, and today we are faced with a set of circumstances.

There is much public debate, of course, with the Hon. Nick Xenophon moving from this place to the Senate. He has been a passionate advocate for gaming reform and harm minimisation for those who are unable to manage their addictions. Sadly, there is a whole range of other people in the community with addictions who are unable to manage them, whether that is eating disorders, financial disorders, gambling, drinking—there is a whole range of them. Obviously, Mr Xenophon has made much of his advocacy for gambling reform and, in particular, harm minimisation.

Having said that, the proposals outlined in this amendment bill, in particular the removal of the cap and some of the other small initiatives that may come from this bill if it passes, look like they will go some way towards reducing the number of machines in the community and perhaps reducing some of the impact on the more vulnerable in the community who are not able to manage their addictions or their compulsion to gamble.

I am also aware that a number of members have a range of amendments. As yet, I have not looked at the detail of those amendments. I will wait until the completion of the second reading stage of this bill to give those amendments due consideration.

Of course, from an opposition point of view, gaming machine legislation is a conscience vote. With those few words, I indicate that I would be very happy to support this bill through the second reading stage and look forward to our exploring the benefits or the disadvantages (whatever the case may be) of the amendments in the coming weeks.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:25): I rise to indicate briefly my position on the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill is a matter of a free vote for members of the Liberal Party. On our side of the house members have the freedom to vote on all bills and motions, contrary to the recommendation of the party.

However, on some votes the party determines that it will not give guidance and, therefore, the vote is particularly free, and this vote is one of those. Unlike the Labor Party, we are not mere zombies bound by the pledge.

My basic approach to gambling is that it is a legitimate, lawful form of recreation and that people should be free to choose to engage in gambling. However, certain forms of gambling, particularly electronic gaming machines, are prone to being the focus of compulsive behaviours. Where regulation of gambling reduces the risk of recreation turning into a compulsion, enhances and supports free choice rather than undermines it, I see such regulation as promoting Liberal values.

Some people place themselves and their family in a very dangerous and perilous financial situation because of this compulsion. We owe it to them and their families to provide them assistance. Therefore, I welcome this bill as supporting more responsible gaming environments. It is hoped that lifting the fixed price on electronic gaming machines will encourage the consolidation of venues and that having a smaller number of larger venues will lead to better staffing and resources to identify and support problem gamblers. The bill also proposes to reinforce the incentives provided in the IGA's new codes of practice by imposing longer closing hours on those gaming venues that do not have a responsible gambling agreement with an industry-responsible gambling agency.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the South Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce. At the national and state levels, church leaders such as Tim Costello and Mark Henley have led the debate on gambling.

I sought the view of the task force on this bill and was reassured that the bill is generally supported by the task force. It does have concerns and, in contributing to the second reading, I ask the minister to advise: is the government committed to active engagement of community interest in the development of the regulations for the electronic gaming machines entitlement trading arrangements? Like my leader, I am currently considering amendments proposed by a range of members and some possible amendments of my own.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.