STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 108.

The CHAIR: Before the lunch break the Hon. Mr Brokenshire moved a motion (not an amendment) that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend clause 108 by inserting new subclause (1). Are there any further contributions to that motion?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to indicate that at this stage the Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Suggestion; it is a suggestion.

The CHAIR: A suggestion in the form of a motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, it is a suggestion; I think we all know what we are talking about, so we do not have to argue about the semantics. It is the form of words that are before us at the moment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, how about that?

In practical dollar terms, the motion would result in $14 million or $15 million a year in additional expenditure into a very worthy cause, we would all concede. The reality is that in the sport and recreation area this government has cut funding at the community level. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire pointed out that into elite sport—I guess as illustrated by the Adelaide Oval development—$600 million plus has gone into that development, but sport and recreation grants have been cut by about $3 million a year, I think, in one of the recent budget decisions.

So the impact is being felt at that particular level, and we acknowledge that issue; however, at this stage we are not in a position to be able to support such a significant level of additional funding. Even if it were a more modest level, at this stage our view would be consistent with the position we have put, given that the bill we will see come through the committee stage will essentially be the Casino bill, as required, with a little bit of topping and tailing amendments that have been agreed to by the government and by the chamber. Essentially, most—not all, but most—of the stuff that relates to pubs and clubs is likely to be split and set aside.

It would appear that issues like the $5 bet will go through on recommittal, and we will discuss that at a later stage. So, there will be some elements that are going to survive at least this debate in the Legislative Council.

It is our view that the vast majority of the stuff in relation to whether you have mini casinos as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire portrays them—that is, venues with 60 machines in them and all of those other changes in relation to pre-commitment and opening hours—all of those issues should be negotiated, in our view, with the clubs and the hotels and other stakeholders if need be during the coming weeks before we sit again in September so that at least the clubs have had the opportunity to put a point of view.

We believe it would be at that stage that, if the government can be persuaded, there should be some commitment given in relation to either sport and recreation funding or live music funding or whatever other worthy cause needs to be funded out of gaming machine revenue.

I think to be fair to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, he acknowledged that the member for Davenport has been a leader in the area of Active Club grant funding pools and things like that both in government and in opposition. He has been a strong supporter of community level sport and funding community level sport. His own history in terms of community sport in the Adelaide Hills is testament to the fact that he is not only an active participant but an ongoing and strong supporter of community level sport and recreation.

It was Liberal Party amendments, as is my recollection, being moved by people like the Hons Diana Laidlaw and Angus Redford, I suspect, in relation to a debate a number of years ago which led to the initial funding for the live music fund, and that was moved—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you do not have to, I have just acknowledged them. I am just saying that we can keep the spirit. Certainly the Liberal Party has demonstrated both through the member for Davenport's actions and the Legislative Council members such as the Hons Angus Redford and Diana Laidlaw and the rest of us who at the time supported those particular positions we are sympathetic to the causes, but at this stage we will not be supporting amendments because we think all of those issues now need to be put in back on the table and negotiated with the government and with stakeholders and then ultimately both government and we, as a potential alternative government, will need to make judgement calls in relation to priorities for the spending of scarce taxpayer dollars. For those reasons, whilst sympathetic to the principle, not to the dollar sum that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Beg your pardon.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Do you want to make it more?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, do you want to make it less? Not to the dollar sum but to the principle of providing additional support for community level sport and recreation. We will not be supporting the amendment at this stage of the debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Earlier on in the debate regarding this clause the minister—and I do not have the exact wording—essentially said, 'As I have stated previously, the government is satisfied with the current funding levels regarding sport and recreation.' My questions to the minister are: is the government satisfied with the current funding levels of sport and recreation funding generally? Is the minister satisfied with the current injection of funding into sport and recreation from pokies through section 72A(4)(a)? Why does the minister say that they would need to increase taxes or reduce government services if 5 per cent of pokie taxes went into the sport and recreation fund?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is simple maths really. It is like managing a household budget. Managing the state budget works on exactly the same principles, and it is about inputs and outputs. If 5 per cent of revenue is put into sport and recreation projects instead of going into general revenue, then that is 5 per cent less that goes into general revenue.

Honourable members in this place know—I have spoken about it many times and so has the government generally—about the challenges during this economic time and the difficulty in ensuring that we get the balance right: reducing our debt in the long-term yet, at the same time, being able to provide important services and balance our budget. At this present time, like everything, we would all like to have more money to spend on a whole range of things, but we are working within very tight fiscal constraints and the government has made its decision in terms of its allocation of these particular funds.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Given the minister's answer regarding that matter and the amendment to ensure that some increase in funding occurs to sport and recreation, I just wonder whether the she can explain why the government has not considered another option: a higher tax revenue from the Casino. The minister says that the budget is in diabolical trouble, to paraphrase it. We cannot look after sport and recreation because of that 5 per cent of the $300 million budget, approximately. So we are talking about 15 per cent that, even now, cannot come out of the gaming tax, yet we have had demonstrated to us in this debate that the Casino is getting a windfall gain from the VIP room, which has a tax rate much less than sport and recreation, that is, clubs and hotels.

So why wouldn't an option be to have a higher tax rate for the Casino's high roller room, the VIP room, rather than allow them to get away with a 10.19 per cent taxation regime? The profits from clubs go into helping the community, sport and recreation, and they are taxed around 40 per cent plus. Why doesn't the government look at that as an option to satisfy us in relation to getting some money into sport and recreation? What is the reason behind the Casino—with its profits going to New Zealand, mainly shareholders, not South Australians—getting a sweetheart deal at 10.19 per cent?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is about getting the balance right. We believe that we have got the balance right with these arrangements, and the government has introduced a greater level of taxation for the Casino under these new arrangements.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

New clause 108A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 49, after line 27—After clause 108 insert:

108A—Amendment of section 73BA—Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund

(1) Section 73BA(4)—after 'gamblers' insert:

and towards any costs associated with the gambling advisory committee and gambling advisory officer established in accordance with this section

(2) Section 73BA—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) At least 85% of the money paid into the Fund must be applied towards programs for rehabilitating problem gamblers.

(6) The Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 must establish an advisory committee (the gambling advisory committee) to provide advice to that Minister in relation to the performance of his or her functions under this section.

(7) The committee established under subsection (6) is to consist of 4 members appointed by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 of whom—

(a) 2 must be from bodies representative of gaming machine licensees; and

(b) 2 must be representatives of charitable or social welfare organisations.

(8) Members of the gambling advisory committee will be appointed on terms and conditions determined by the appointing Minister.

(9) Subject to any direction of the appointing Minister, the procedure of the gambling advisory committee may be determined by the committee.

(10) The Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 must appoint a person (the gambling advisory officer) who, in the opinion of that Minister, is an appropriate representative of charitable or social welfare organisations to provide advice to the Minister or the Authority, either on his or her own initiative or at the request of the Minister or the Authority, on any other matter relating to the gambling industry.

(11) The gambling advisory officer must be paid remuneration of an amount determined by the appointing Minister.

This amendment has been drafted in consultation with SACOSS. Honourable members would be aware that in its submission SACOSS called for more advocacy support. They provided:

...the outcome of the informal consultation on this bill, plus the lack of resources to engage with the sector, including gambling counsellors and support groups, is an ongoing concern in relation to gambling regulation.

SACOSS has been unable to put submissions or comment on several reform initiatives over the last two years, and the few gambling policy advocates in our sector do it at the margins of already full workloads. This is in stark contrast to the industry which has almost unlimited resources to dedicate to protecting its interests.

The government has addressed similar asymmetric lobbying and power relations in areas like energy, water and mining by providing resources for consumer advocacy, but there is no such funding for advocacy around gambling issues.

Until there is funding for such advocacy, the input into government on any reform processes will lack key perspectives and the public policy outcomes will inevitably be poorer. Any package of gambling reform should include securing money for consumer advocacy in relation to gambling and problem gambling.

The amendment itself seeks to address these concerns by doing two things: first, it creates a gambling advisory committee to be made up of two representatives from the hotel and club industries and two representatives from the charitable and social welfare organisations. The purpose of that committee will be to provide advice to the minister in relation to his or her functions as they relate to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund.

Secondly, it requires the minister to appoint a gambling advisory officer who is to be chosen from one of the charitable or social welfare organisations. The role of that person will be to provide advice to the minister or the authority either on his own initiative or at the request of the minister or the authority on any other matter relating to the gambling industry.

It is expected that the gambling advisory officer will act as a conduit between the care sector and the minister. They will be able to provide consumer advocacy and offer advice based on feedback from NGOs and problem gamblers themselves. They will, in effect, fill the gap that currently exists in this area as a result of resourcing issues. Members will note that the gambling advisory officer will be remunerated for their work. In practice I imagine the position will be filled perhaps by a tender process amongst NGOs. Since July of last year the government has raked in some $216 million in poker machine taxes alone. This is a very small ask from a group of very dedicated organisations who make the world of difference in our community.

Lastly, the amendment also addresses the issue of ensuring that funds from the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund are directed predominantly at frontline services by requiring that at least 85 per cent of the money paid into the fund be applied towards programs for rehabilitating problem gamblers. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to support this amendment. Although we believe there is overall adequate scrutiny, nevertheless, we are willing to accept the formalisation of the consultation arrangements proposed in this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am very pleased, on behalf of the Greens, to be supporting this amendment, and we have long called for better recognition of the work that SACOSS does.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just briefly, as I stated earlier in this debate—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Just before the Hon. Ms Vincent goes on. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I cannot hear the Hon. Ms Vincent and I ask that other members allow the Hon. Ms Vincent to be heard, thank you.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. I stated earlier in this debate that I support all of Mr Darley's amendments. I see them all as being very sensible, particularly with regard to the issue of problem gambling. It will come as a surprise to no-one that I support this amendment on behalf of Dignity for Disability.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): There being no further contributions then the question is that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to insert new clause 108A.

Suggested new clause inserted.

New clauses 108A and 108B.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 49, after line 27—After clause 108 insert:

108A—Amendment of section 73C—Community Development Fund

Section 73C(4)—delete '$500,000' and substitute '$850,000'

108B—Insertion of section 73D

After section 73C insert:

73D—Funding agreements

An agreement for, or relating to, the provision of money from a fund maintained under the Part must not prevent or limit the ability of the person or body receiving such money to make public comment about any aspect of the funding arrangement or the services provided by the person or body.

This amends the amount of $500,000 which has been allocated within the Community Development Fund of some $20 million to be assigned to live music and raises that according to a CPI calculation of what it would have been increased to had it been increased in real terms over the past decade, that is, $850,000. My understanding is this is not a suggestion but, indeed, an amendment—that is my advice from parliamentary counsel—because it does not raise the allocated amount within the bill. It does not create any new spending but simply specifies that a larger amount within that particular fund go to live music.

The reason I move this will be no surprise to members. There is a long understood correlation and recognition that live music has, indeed, suffered with the introduction of poker machines and that is, in fact, why we have this live music fund within the Community Development Fund as inserted when pokies first came into this state. I certainly acknowledge the work of the former minister, Diana Laidlaw of the Liberal Party, and her great commitment not only to the arts but, in particular, live music. She was responsible for this fund originally being established.

As a punter, I remember the groundswell of community support to recognise the impact that poker machines would have on live music. I remember petitions being in the pubs, rallies in the streets and public meetings being held. Indeed, I remember the great victory when the music industry secured this fund. I am sure that under the Rann and Weatherill governments it has been a dismay for those people that this fund has never increased by a single cent since that day and, certainly, over 10 years we are looking at at least another $350,000 which should have been allocated to the fund.

This rectifies that historical mistake and has, indeed, been a campaign long called for by many involved in the live music industry. I will certainly credit the work of the Raise the Bar campaign, which all members of this council probably would be aware of, having been lobbied by them at some stage; also Save Live Australia's Music (SLAM), which is both a national and state-based body; as well as, of course, MusicSA. MusicSA has this morning issued a press release in support of this amendment, and it reads in part:

The $500,000 fund was initially established when poker machines were first introduced in SA after a massive backlash from the music community about the effect pokies would have on live music. 10 years on and the fund still sits at $500K per year, less than 0.5% (yes that's POINT five of a percent) of the total Arts funding budget.

The original provision allowed for 'at least $500,000' to be allocated to live music, however there has never been an increase. If these amendments are successful there will be a CPI adjustment made to this fund to increase it to $850,000—which is an extra $350,000 going towards Live Music and the Music Industry in South Australia.

MusicSA would urge for bipartisan support for this amendment and will be contacting key members of parliament requesting they get behind the changes.

I would hope that members do pay attention, and certainly Labor members who have been part of the Labor Loves Live Music campaign would have heard those voices loud and clear in the past days. Certainly, there has been a lot of online support and a lot of community support within the music sector for this fund to be increased.

It is support that the Premier himself acknowledged when he attended the recent Reverb event where we heard from the Live Music Thinker in Residence Martin Elbourne. At that event, which Premier Weatherill attended—and I congratulate him for taking such an interest—he remarked that there are economic benefits from the creative industry but he also responded to questions from the floor which called for the increase by at least CPI to this particular fund, and he did say that the Labor government would be looking at it. I certainly urge members of the government opposite to take those words of the Premier seriously when they are deliberating on their vote on this. Certainly, the Greens have long championed live music and the role that it has played in our community and culture for many years.

We recognise that causal link and the impact that pokies have had not only on sport and recreation, as we discussed in a previous amendment (which was a suggestion), but also live music. Many studies have been done which show that that impact has, by and large, been negative.

However, I do want to comment that many hotels have actually been the backbone of supporting live music over decades, if not centuries, and some of those pubs and clubs do not have pokies, and proudly so, but some of them do. While it is a relationship with some tension, there is room for all of those variations, and certainly many of the pubs proudly support live music in this state, and that proud tradition—and hopefully future—should be recognised. With that, I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First supports the amendment because it makes sense but it is extremely disappointing that, because this is a small amount of money, the government is supporting this amendment, but when it came to sport and recreation, because it was a bigger amount of money, they were not interested. I put on the public record double standards by the government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We recognise the numbers in the chamber, so we will not be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: To make everything nice and tidy, I also support the amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I indicate to the council that I will put the first part relating to new clause 108A as a suggestion and then the second part relating to new clause 108B will be a normal amendment. The first question is that it is a suggestion to the House of Assembly to insert new clause 108A as proposed by the Hon. T.A. Franks.

Suggested new clause 108A inserted.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Now the question is that new clause 108B, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. T.A. Franks, be so inserted.

New clause 108B inserted.

Clauses 109 and 110 passed.

Clause 111.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The opposition opposes this clause. This is consequential on earlier amendments in relation to major/minor venue amendments.

Clause negatived.

Clause 112.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 51, lines 16 to 20 [clause 112(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

This is consequential on earlier amendments on major/minor venues.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 113 to 115 passed.

Clause 116.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 52, lines 19 to 21 [clause 116(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

This is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 117 and 118 passed.

Clause 119.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 53, line 19 [clause 119(6)]—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) Schedule 1, paragraph (nd)—delete paragraph (nd) and substitute:

(nd) that the licensee will not conduct the gaming operations on the licensed premises between the hours of 2 am and 8 am unless measures are in place that prevent machines designed to change a monetary note into coins (and located on the licensed premises) from being operated between the hours of 2 am and 8 am; and

In part, this is in consequence of earlier amendments in relation to removing the prohibition of coin machines in minor venues. The advice the member for Davenport has taken on behalf of the party is that this amendment is required to maintain the current prohibition of the use of coin machines in all venues between 2am and 8am and, as I said, is consequential upon the amendment passed earlier to remove the prohibition of coin machines in minor venues.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 120 to 126 passed.

New clause 126A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 55, after line 6—After clause 126 insert:

126A—Amendment of section 11—Functions and powers of Authority

Section 11(1)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) to publish advertisements directed at reducing the incidence of problem gambling and for preventing or minimising the harm caused by gambling; and

Section 126A of the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995 deals with the functions and powers of the authority. This amendment seeks to broaden those powers by enabling the authority to instigate ongoing advertising campaigns directed at reducing the incidence of problem gambling and preventing or minimising the harm caused by gambling. Any such campaign will be overseen by the authority itself.

According to some sources current problem gambling advertising reaches only 10 to 20 per cent of problem gamblers. Ideally, we should be aiming to reach out to at least 50 per cent of problem gamblers. Clearly, there is a need for more targeted advertising aimed at reaching those most in need. This amendment achieves that goal. It will mean that the government will have to make a long-term investment in problem gambling advertising. I ask all honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. We consider that there is good expertise and capacity within the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion to develop and implement public awareness campaigns. Indeed, the department is leading work in this area as part of the gaming regulation reference group. Nevertheless, the government is also confident that the Independent Gambling Authority would undertake this function well and would, no doubt, engage the department in the development of the public awareness campaigns necessary to make this reform package successful.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that the government is supporting it and the numbers are there to support this amendment, the Liberal Party will not divide and oppose the amendment. On behalf of Liberal members, we would indicate that we do not really see the preeminent role for running anti-problem gambling advertising as being the role for the Independent Gambling Authority. There is, within the government department, as the minister has outlined, an agency and a function already with the responsibility for running those particular problem gambling ads.

We have no problem at all and certainly support effective and targeted advertising and marketing campaigns in relation to trying to identify and assist problem gamblers. The potential problem with this arrangement will be in terms of divided responsibilities between the arm of government and the Independent Gambling Authority.

Whilst we acknowledge that the numbers are here in the chamber to pass this amendment—we recognise the numbers in this place only too well—we will not divide and oppose it, but we at least raise those concerns, and certainly if elected to government it would be an issue we would want to monitor to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap between, in essence, what would be a new expanded function for the Independent Gambling Authority in competition with an existing arm of the government agency that is already responsible for this function.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (127 to 142) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment and suggested amendment.