POKER MACHINES

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, representing the Minister for Business Services, a question regarding poker machine harm reduction.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In 2005, the state government declared that it would reduce poker machine numbers by 3,000 and soon afterwards automatically remove some 2,200 gaming machine entitlements from the market. However, the target of 800 more machines, to reach the 3,000, has taken a painfully long time to reach. Some would say it is the longest breaking of a promise in political history. For a long time there was a fixed price for entitlements, against the advice of many, including myself, on this matter. Unsurprisingly, the trading market was stymied by the fixed price.

Only recently has the government abandoned the fixed price and created a new complex mechanism. The minister has not made it clear how many machines short of the target the government is, but it appears that the number is in excess of 700. Based on calculations of poker machine revenue since 2005, when the promise was made, it seems that the state government has benefited by some $9 million or more in tax revenue from these machines remaining in circulation.

The last trading round saw only 13 machines removed. I have a constituent who has not been able to sell the machines at his country venue for some time now in the trading rounds, even after the fixed price cap was removed. He is desperate to get rid of his entitlements, as are other country venue operators who have been in contact with my office. On the current pace of the trading rounds, we estimate that it is the longest breaking of a promise in South Australian history and will only be an unbroken promise if we allow 20 more years at that pace, making it 27 overall.

I note that the government has made much of the expansion of the Adelaide Casino's capacity for poker machines and, as such, its expectation that trading will proceed at a quicker pace in the next trading round.

In conclusion, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations might be interested to note that, in New Zealand, the Māori Party last year moved to introduce a gambling harm reduction bill, which would see local government given a far greater say on whether pokies come in to, or continue in, a local community. The Māori Party states that pokie venues tend to be over-represented in lower income communities and town centres, with Māori and Pacific Islander people disproportionately targeted and harmed. The bill would also send a far greater proportion of pokie revenues back into the communities they are sourced from to support local charities. My questions are:

1. Exactly how many machines short of the 2005 target is the state government at the time I ask this question?

2. How much tax revenue has the government received from those machines since it made the initial promise to remove them?

3. Will the minister, in her capacity as the local government minister, look at the New Zealand Māori Party approach to pokies reform and respond to the parliament on whether it supports any of those initiatives at the state level?

4. Why should my constituent share the government's hope that Adelaide Casino's entry into the buy-in market might finally give him an opportunity to sell his gaming entitlements when nothing the government has promised so far has accelerated the end of the longest broken promise in South Australian history?

5. Why will the government not enter the market and purchase entitlements from willing sellers, given that it has profited by millions?

6. Is the truth of the government's inertia on poker machine reform due to the biggest problem gambler in the state being the state government itself?

The PRESIDENT: In answering, I ask the minister to ignore the opinion and debate.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:55): Thank you for your advice, Mr President. I thank the honourable member for his questions and will refer them to the appropriate minister in another place and bring back a response. In relation to his question relating to the new legislation in New Zealand involving local government, I am happy to look at that matter. I always welcome looking at different ways of approaching issues, but my view is that our current measures serve the community very well. However, I would be pleased to look at the new legislation.