STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:41): I rise to continue my remarks on the second reading of this legislation that I commenced some two or so weeks ago. On that occasion, I outlined on behalf of Liberal members the broad position the Liberal Party would be adopting in relation to the legislation. We indicated then that, broadly speaking, we would be seeking to split the bill; that is, we would support broadly those provisions which relate to the Casino operations in South Australia to allow the Casino redevelopment deal—which the government has done with the Casino operators—to proceed.

The Liberal Party's position is that we, together with the government, support the proposed redevelopment of the Casino and that we understand that this legislation—or at least those aspects of the legislation that relate to the Casino—are important from their viewpoint in relation to the prospects of that redevelopment proceeding, and we are prepared to assist that.

However, broadly speaking again, in splitting this bill the Liberal Party will be opposing all the other measures that relate to the clubs and pubs section of the gaming industry. We do so for good reasons, and I want to address some of those in my contribution this evening. In particular, as we indicated last time, this proposition from the government has been developed with virtually no consultation with the clubs industry. We in the Liberal Party are strong supporters of community clubs in South Australia.

I indicated on the last occasion that I am a member of the West Adelaide Football Club, and I declare that interest. The Liberal Party is a strong supporter of community clubs in South Australia. We believe they do much good for the community, and we are most concerned that the government—the Premier, in particular, and minister Rau—are intent on killing the club industry through the legislation that they are seeking the parliament support.

That is not the language that has been chosen explicitly by Liberal members of parliament; that is language being used by those who represent the club industry in South Australia. They are the ones who have described this bill as a 'club killer', and anyone who supports the legislation, with or without amendments, will be responsible for killing clubs in South Australia. That is, and ought to be, clear to members in this chamber who I know, in some cases, are still forming their views, but the government members are intent on destruction. They are intent on killing clubs in South Australia. They are intent, through this legislation, in ensuring in particular that the viability of the smaller clubs is affected, but as we have also heard from the South Australian National Football League, the bigger clubs are also concerned about their ongoing viability if this club killing legislation by the government is supported by other non-government members in the parliament.

The importance of the legislation, therefore, cannot be underestimated and it is certainly not going to be underestimated by Liberal members in this chamber. We will fight to the end on behalf of community clubs, sporting clubs and other clubs in South Australia in trying to defend their interests in terms of the important work they continue to do.

After the last session of parliament, minister Rau went out and made some extraordinary claims in the media about the Liberal Party position. One extraordinary claim was that Liberals oppose measures to reduce problem gambling. Parliamentary language will not let me describe accurately what I thought of that particular claim, but let me make it quite clear on behalf of Liberal members that the claim that the Liberal Party opposes measures to reduce problem gambling is absolute rubbish.

I think it is fair to say it is also rubbish in relation to any member of parliament whether they are a minor party, Independent or otherwise, or even Labor Party members. I am sure that for all of us, for the 0.4 per cent of the population who have been defined as problem gamblers, no-one enjoys the problems and the miseries that they go through and they put their families and their friends through, but what we are addressing here in practical, realistic terms is what measures you can institute to help reduce problem gambling.

The government claims, as I will highlight again this evening, that this measure is going to reduce problem gambling. My challenge to the minister and to the government and those who support the bill is to provide the evidence. I challenge the minister to table in this chamber the evidence which indicates that the provisions that they are talking about—increasing the number of machines in venues by 50 per cent from 40 to 60 and by providing an extra 500 machines to the Casino—are going to reduce problem gambling.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 505.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Tammy Franks indicates it is 505. In the converse I am one, and let me put my view in relation to this, who is unconvinced that the number of machines in the South Australian community, within the realms of what we are talking about, will make any impact by an increase or a decrease on the 0.4 per cent of problem gamblers. I have said before and I say it again—if you are a problem gambler, you will crawl over cut glass to get to the gambling outlet to satisfy your particular addiction, whether it be gaming machines, etc.

I had a long argument many years ago with the Hon. Nick Xenophon indicating that, if restrictions are placed on gaming machines, the problems in relation to mobile phones, interactive computers, gambling on the internet, etc., would soon swamp the sorts of problems that we are talking about in relation to gaming machines and the need for national regulation in relation to this sort of area. He took a different view at the time, and that is his prerogative, but I think the reality is, as we look at sports betting and the use of mobile phones, computers and interactive technology that everyone has available in their pocket or in their home, that the issues that we confront with gaming machines, whilst important, will in my view be swamped over the coming years, if not already, by the problems we see in the other areas.

This particular press release, 'Liberals oppose measures to reduce problem gambling', was just a nonsense. We can have a different view as to whether or not this legislation is going to reduce problem gambling, as we do, but it is a nonsense to claim that we are opposed to reducing problem gambling. We just happen to disagree that what the government is proposing is going to reduce problem gambling.

Later on tonight we will go through the budget papers to look at the estimated gambling revenue to come into the state, obviously predicated on the basis of these amendments going through, and the projected growth in the gambling and gaming revenue would not seem to indicate that the Treasury believes that these measures are going to have a significant impact on gaming revenue.

When I last spoke, I indicated that the position that we were adopting was that we were seeking to split the bill, and to do so in part to allow proper consultation with all the stakeholders, and in particular the clubs industry. As they have indicated to all members, they spent two years trying to consult and negotiate with the Labor government in South Australia and they were steadfastly ignored.

Their letters were ignored; their emails were ignored; their telephone calls were ignored. Ministers ignored them; premiers ignored them; senior bureaucrats ignored them; junior bureaucrats ignored them. Every Tom, Dick and Henrietta in the Public Service and in the government ignored the clubs industry for two years as they sought to indicate that they wanted to sit down and negotiate the future of their industry and the impact of any legislation. Then, at the death knell (I use that term advisedly) the government says, 'Here's what we intend to do.'

I note in the two press releases issued on the 20^th and the 19^th of this month by minister Rau that he talks about the consultation they had with the concerned sector, or the community sector, and also with the hotels industry. Here is the direct quote:

The government has worked with the community sector and the hotels industry to negotiate a comprehensive package of reforms supported by both sectors.

The government is at least bold enough to say, 'Well, we only consulted with the community sector and the hotels industry in relation to this, but a critical sector such as the clubs industry we have just frankly ignored because we do not believe they are important enough; we do not believe that they are deserving of being consulted in relation to legislation which is critical to their ongoing viability as an industry.'

The extraordinary nature of that is, in recent times, as you would know, Mr President, in the vexed or controversial debate in relation to the small bar legislation, because on that occasion the hotels industry had taken the same general position as the Liberal Party, the Premier said:

...it's pretty obvious that AHA have got right in behind them with some big donations. They have backed in behind the big venues' position on this. It's pretty obvious the connection between their support and the Liberal Party's position.

Afterwards, in another interview he said:

...flinging quite a big lump of money to the Liberal Party and it's easy to see why; the Liberals have been bought by the big end of town to actually squeeze out the small entrepreneurs.

I think that is a puerile way of interpreting that particular debate by the Premier and the government ministers, but if one wants to use those standards and that assessment, what we can say on this occasion is that the Premier and the Labor Party have got into bed with the hotels industry, with the big end of town, with big business, and have responded to the donations that they have received from the AHA over recent years in relation to this legislation, which is intended to kill off the clubs industry.

As I said, I think that is a puerile way of entering public debate on an issue, but that is the standard of debate the Premier used in relation to the position of the AHA and the Liberal Party over small bars legislation. Well, here we are, and the Premier is supporting the same 'big end of town'—in his terms, not mine—the hotels industry, in relation to this, intent on killing off the small and community-based clubs which do so much good work in the community.

I repeat: that is not my description of the hotels industry. I have too much respect for the hotels industry, over many years, to use that sort of characterisation to describe it. However, sadly, that is the sort of nonsense that masquerades as public debate under this Premier and Deputy Premier, minister Rau, on these and related issues.

Minister Rau went on, in his press release of the 20^th, to indicate what the Liberal Party was going to oppose: we were going to oppose precommitment, we were going to remove on-screen warning notifications, and a range of other things like that. The position we are adopting is to say, 'Look, you have not consulted with the clubs industry. Go off—either of you, if there is to be a new government after March 2014—and negotiate with the clubs industry and other stakeholders, and then come back with a package of measures where you can say that you have properly consulted with everybody.' Some of these measures may well be in there and some of them may not, or they may be in there a different way, but the least everyone will have had a fair go in terms of being consulted on something that is critical to their industry.

If it is a Labor government, they may still take the view that they want to kill off community clubs in South Australia and introduce this package of measures as it is, but at least the clubs industry would have had a chance to sit down and be part of the discussion and the debate, put their point of view and, if it is a Labor government, still get shafted by that Labor government. Alternatively, and hopefully, the government, having sat down with the clubs industry and the other stakeholders, might come up with a package of give and take from everybody that is capable of being supported broadly by everyone. My suspicion, in this area, is that that is always pretty hard to achieve; nevertheless, at least through that mechanism everyone would have had the opportunity to be consulted, in part, during that process.

From the Liberal Party's perspective, we would obviously wait and see what measures came up. We may well agree with the position that is negotiated or we may well disagree, but we would do that if and when we got to that position. Certainly, if this has not been resolved by March 2014 the sort of position I hope a Liberal government, if elected, would adopt would be a commitment to sit down with all stakeholders, not just say to the hotels and community sector, 'We will negotiate a package with you and stuff the community clubs. We'll leave you out of the discussion and negotiation.'

I say to the non-government members in this chamber, the minor parties and the Independents that I know the government will want to negotiate and seek a deal, make a tweak and a change here and there, but ultimately I hope that this chamber, or at least the majority in this chamber, will be prepared to stand up to the government and say, 'Your whole process is wrong in that you haven't included a critical stakeholder, such as the community clubs, in the negotiations.' It is fine to tweak here and there and try to do a deal with enough members in this chamber to get the bill through, but if you do that it will still be done on the basis that the community clubs have been frozen out of the negotiations or discussions, and they will be left high and dry in terms of being at least equal participants in a discussion that impacts on their future.

Given that the federal legislation is to come into operation over a period of time in the future, much of what we are talking about here is just a race to be first; it is just a race to say, 'We have done the same things as the federal government package, only a year earlier,' or two years earlier, or whatever it might happen to be, with all the problems that that might engender or create as well. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:45]