GAMBLING SECTOR REFORM

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:05): Mr President, before I start, can I congratulate you, sir, on your unswerving loyalty to what is obviously a very lost cause—and I am not talking about the Labor Party: I am talking about Port Power and that disgraceful tie that you are wearing today.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Gambling questions about voluntary precommitment for poker machines.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The minister may be aware that the federal government is planning to introduce a mandatory precommitment system for poker machines Australia-wide. Any implementation of such measures would lead to significant management and implementation issues for the state, not to mention completely destroying the viability of many clubs and hotels throughout South Australia.

As the minister's predecessor (the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, whom I have not seen for some time) hedged his bets on the issue, and the former gambling minister (the member for West Torrens from another place) has previously stated that he supports voluntary, but not compulsory, precommitment, this surely shows that the government's policy is non-existent and cabinet is split on this issue. My questions to the Minister for Gambling are:

1. Can the minister state unequivocally the government's position on precommitment for poker machines?

2. What advice has the government received in relation to the commonwealth's proposal for mandatory precommitment, particularly on the constitutionality of the commonwealth implementing such a system?

3. Does the minister agree that such a measure would significantly harm the hotel and club industry?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. Indeed, as we are aware, arising from an agreement between the Gillard government and Mr Andrew Wilkie, discussions are currently underway between the commonwealth government and state governments on a number of proposed reforms to the gambling sector. Of course, one of those very controversial reforms is precommitment.

In fact, at the last select council meeting on 25 February, South Australia led a presentation on papers to do with precommitment and outlined the very valuable lessons learned from two voluntary precommitment trials that are being conducted here in South Australia. I am told that members discussed and noted those papers, which related to gaming machine dynamic warning messages, cost-to-play displays and also ATM withdrawal limits.

The next select council meeting, which I plan to attend, is planned for 27 May. The terms of reference for that select council require it to consider the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and to advise on the implementation of the national approach to those particular recommendations. The former minister for gambling established a responsible gambling working party right back in November 2006 to consider measures to assist players with precommitment, so it is something that South Australia has given a great deal of thought and consideration to.

Following extensive consultation, the working party identified three focus areas; these included informed decision-making, money management and player tracking and precommitment systems. South Australia recently completed two voluntary precommitment trials, a technology-based system and a non technology-based approach for small venues, and a third technology-based trial, I understand, is underway.

We have learned a number of lessons from those trials, which we have reported at that federal forum. These include that the overall players in the technology trial who set a limit reduced their spend. The reduction was the greatest for problem gamblers and moderate risk gamblers. The trial also found that recreational gamblers were not impacted and that they only slightly reduced their spend.

During the trial a subtle message warning system was also tested on a group of patrons who had not set limits, and based on those results a subtle messaging system appeared to be effective. So, overall, patrons who received that subtle message at three turnover points were found to decrease their spend. The trial also found that the venue staff and patron engagement were very important to the success of pre-commitment.

Staff can obviously help pre-commitment to work by advising patrons about limits that they set and also by attending a machine personally when a person has reached their limit. It was found that that was better than just a message on its own. The trial also found that where this occurred patrons were likely to play for less time, where a staff member attended a machine as opposed to where a staff member did not respond. The critical finding is that pre-commitment will work for patrons who want to set a budget. The system can be of benefit, obviously, to all patrons and should not be seen as a program only for problem gamblers.

They are some of the very important findings of the trials that we have conducted here. The South Australian government is committed to undertaking an evidence-based approach to developing a pre-commitment policy. On the evidence available we have learnt that pre-commitment works when people want to use it and are prepared to set limits suitable to their budget. South Australia, along with Queensland, is leading the nation in this important policy area, and the South Australian government is of the view that we can work with the commonwealth and other states to develop a consensus approach to implementing important reforms in this area.