Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 26 March 2015.) The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:40): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill. This has been described by the government as a bill to fine tune the provisions in the Gaming Machines Act 1992 and the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995, the Lottery and Gaming Act 1936 and the Problem Gambling (Family Protection Orders) Act 2004. This bill makes it an offence under the Gaming Machines Act for a person to purchase or enter into a contract or agreement to purchase a gaming machine, unless licensed. I understand that this is because a South Australian resident attempted to have such a machine in his man cave, and there was some discrepancy around at which point he was acting illegally. So certainly tightening up those provisions has been observed to be necessary. The bill also removes the amendment prohibiting EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas in hotels and clubs. I note the concern that gamblers leaving a venue to withdraw cash means that it is harder for trained staff on site to identify problem gamblers, and that has been the advice of the government. I understand the Hon. John Darley may have amendments around that, and at this stage the Greens are still consulting on that particular measure. It also provides the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner with the power to seek input from the Commissioner of Police about any gaming manager or gaming employee. It removes the requirement that the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner approve the layout of gaming machines in the gaming area, and this is certainly supported by the Greens and seen as a cutting of red tape measure. It also defines the circumstances in which it would be unlawful for a player to engage in a game of poker in a public place. I note that this definition is quite carefully defined, and that tournament poker would not be affected by this particular provision. It amends the Lottery and Gaming Act to increase the modern powers of delegation to recognise that that is to the minister. It amends the Independent Gambling Authority Act to provide greater clarity in administrative arrangements, including a new staff provision clarifying that the staff of the IGA are Public Service employees, assigned by the relevant chief executive, and certainly the Greens welcome that particular pleasure. It also extends the IGA's delegation-making powers and finetunes the barring framework by extending the confidentiality obligations. The Greens support the finetuning of the barring framework, and my contribution today will focus on some areas where not only does the barring framework need finetuning, but I think it needs significant overhaul. I have some cases that have been presented to me by various groups, in particular Communities against pokies and Pokies Anonymous. In my conversations with the AHA they have indicated many similar cases of what I have coined 'barring fail'; cases where the IGA barring system has failed the South Australian community and, in particular, vulnerable people who have a problem with gambling. I have amended many of the names of these individuals to protect their privacy, but I wish to share with the council some of these cases, which I think go a long way to calling for further overhaul of the barring regime in this state. The first case study I am provided with is from David. David says he has had a pokies addiction since 1999, and he writes to my office: I have had a pokies addiction since 1999. This addiction has impoverished me in every way. It has caused severe mental health problems ultimately driving me to the brink of suicide. He goes on to say that, with the help of Pokies Anonymous, he stopped playing, but recently he started playing again, knowing that his 'self-destructive addiction', as he termed it, was again taking over and destroying his life. He says he wrote up a list of about 20 venues that he needed to exclude himself from, and he began the self-barring process. He continues: I set about making appointments with the gaming manager at each venue. I made appointments with the gaming managers at the first two venues on my list. The third venue was the Hampstead Hotel. When I rang this venue I spoke with a barman because the gaming manager wasn't there. He said he thought I could self-exclude statewide [and]…gave me a number to call. This turned out to be the gambling helpline…They gave me another number to call. This turned out to be the Australian Hoteliers Association (AHA). The woman I spoke to explained that they didn't manage self-barring and suggested that I phone the IGA. I rang the IGA and made an appointment. The earliest appointment was eight days later at 11.30am on a Friday and I took this. I was told that most people come in with a list of up to 15 venues that they wish to be explicitly barred from. He says that, at that appointment, he was taken into a room and told that the interview would be videorecorded. He writes: …the interviewer motioned towards a set of shelves behind me. I am uncertain as to whether the interview was recorded or not. I thought that videoing the interview was unnecessary and intimidating. He continues: I suspect the [intimidating] nature of videoing the interview would put many people off from being honest… It was explained to me that my request for self-barring would…be considered, [and] that approval was required by the IGA before they would approve my request... Finally I was told that I would be sent a letter confirming my self-exclusion and that the letter would be sent in an envelope with Independent Gambling Authority 'clearly displayed on the envelope'. It was also explained that self-barring was far from perfect. I was told that because of the enormous numbers of people being self-excluded that the venues had great difficulty in identifying people who have self-excluded; the sheer numbers overwhelmed their ability to effectively police self-exclusion. Mary Briggs, whose name has also been changed, writes: Mary's aunty rang the IGA to see if she was still barred from hotels from a few years ago. She stated to the lady on the phone her inquiry and gave her name. The lady on the phone indicated that they didn't have a Cheryl Briggs on the phone, but they did have a Mary Briggs… Mary's aunty had no idea that she had a gambling problem, but now her and her whole family know thanks to the IGA. I heard many, many stories like these, including some that I have recently highlighted in this council in recent months—stories from people who have been treated with contempt when they have called the IGA to inquire about barring, and stories where people have called up and been promised a call back and this has not happened. There have also been stories from people who have specifically asked for a plain envelope to be sent to their home in response to their barring application, and instead have had an envelope emblazoned with the IGA logo arrive at their home for the family to see. Therefore, of course, I note it is particularly pleasing to see the government's amendments to improve the IGA's confidentiality obligations. However, there is clearly plenty of room for further improvement when it comes to the IGA's procedures. Ultimately, the barring system must serve those who are seeking to use it. It should not be for the IGA head to act like a judge in this way. If any individual thinks they have a gambling problem and asks for help, that help should be given and given promptly. Having met with the AHA, I understand from discussions with them that their barring system for alcohol works much more effectively. Perhaps that could be seen as a guide. I encourage the IGA to engage in dialogue with those managing this system to see if they can perhaps simplify what I am told by those who try to use it, and indeed those who try to use it and give up, is a very complex barring system at present. It is a shame to hear at this moment in time that our problem gambling agencies are also reluctant to direct problem gamblers to the IGA. Communities against pokies have certainly been one of those groups who are very loath to refer people, given the treatment that they have encountered when they have made contact with that organisation. I also question why we cannot have a statewide barring option for those who wish to self-bar or to be barred. A statewide solution would seem logical. I also touch on other situations where people have asked to be barred or asked not to be told which venues they have been barred from, but then been sent literature telling them the names of the venues that they have been barred from. This totally defeats the purpose of trying to get around that information not being known to them so that they would assume that they are barred from all venues. The barring system is currently a failure and it needs to be fixed. I would hope that this is a step in the right direction and I certainly applaud the government's main intent with this bill and most of the key recommendations. I note also that the Hon. John Darley has a raft of amendments, including the ability for those holding gaming machine entitlements of 20 or less in a venue to be able to sell those to the government; also $1 bets, which of course the Greens have long held as a policy and we will fully support those particular amendments. As I say, we have not yet landed on a position with regard to the EFTPOS machines, but we look forward to this debate and to seeing further reform in this sector to support those who have a problem with gambling. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:51): I rise to support the second reading of the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill. In doing so, I am advised that these particular measures have the support of the gambling reference group. We are told that the gambling reference group includes representatives from the AHA, Clubs SA and the welfare sector. In particular, as I understand it, I think Relationships Australia represent the welfare sector on the reference group, and there are various other regulatory officers and state government agency representatives who sit on the reference group. As members will be aware, gambling measures or issues are often quite controversial and they often attract views from either end of the gambling spectrum, from pro-gambling advocates to antigambling advocates, and those who sit happily in the middle and are not particularly fussed one way or another. So the fact that the gambling reference group, which represents all those groups—the antigambling groups, who campaign often against gambling measures are represented on this particular group, and I am told that they have supported the measures in this bill. We contacted the representatives of SACOSS and Relationships Australia. Relationships Australia indicated that they supported the measures in the bill. SACOSS indicated that they had no particular comment because they did not have the resources to consider the government legislation and its impacts, and deferred to Relationships Australia and others. The fact that the representatives of the welfare sector or the antigambling groups in the community are supporting this, and also the groups which might be seen to be pro gambling, such as the AHA, and the regulatory agencies, represented by government departments and other agencies, is a powerful argument, for some of us anyway, to think, 'Well, this is potentially a balanced group of measures which merit support.' The major issues in the bill are, first, a new offence for a person to purchase or enter into a contract or agreement to purchase a gambling machine unless licensed. We are told that there is a loophole in the drafting of the current provisions and that this amendment will prevent the capacity for some people to access for private purposes a gaming machine. The second major issue to be covered is the removal of prohibition of EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas. Whilst I have not had a chance to look at the Hon. Mr Darley's amendments in any great detail, I would expect that he and some sections of the anti-gambling groups in society may well oppose these particular provisions, and I guess we will hear from the Hon. Mr Darley during this debate. This is probably, from our viewpoint, potentially the most controversial aspect of the legislation. Certainly, having been engaged in the debate when the original legislation passed through the parliament, the notion that an amendment like this might be supported by various anti-gambling groups in the community probably would have been greeted with some scepticism. But I am told again that Relationships Australia, representing the anti-gambling groups on the gambling reference group, support this particular change. As I have said, I think that is an interesting development, that Relationships Australia and others who support their representing their sector's anti-gambling views on the gambling reference group have supported it. I am told that the argument goes something along the lines that, if someone is having a gambling problem, rather than scrambling out of the gaming section of the establishment and going into the restaurant or hotel and taking a couple of hundred dollars out and then going back into the gaming area and gambling and then leaving and going back out to the EFTPOS facility again, the trained staff within the gaming venue part of the established are trained to identify people having problems with gambling and to help either provide assistance or counsel against continuing to gamble—all the other anti-gambling methods that trained staff are meant to undertake with potentially problem gamblers; whereas the staff in the other parts of the establishment where the EFTPOS facilities are currently located do not have that training and do not have those responsibilities in relation to providing assistance. That is the argument, as I understand it, that has been put by the gambling reference group and has been supported by the anti-gambling advocates on that particular group. That is not to say that there are not people outside Relationships Australia and others who will take a different view. As I have said, I suspect that the Hon. Mr Darley and I suspect the Hon. Mr Xenophon, if he speaks on this issue—he is not honourable anymore is he? He is a senator. The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He is honourable. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He is honourable? Senator or the Hon. Mr Xenophon, if he speaks on the issue, may well oppose the provision as well, although I cannot say I have seen or heard a direct comment from him on this aspect of the legislation. That is potentially a controversial part of the legislation, but the Liberal Party's position is that the gambling reference group has supported it. That in and of itself, of course, does not mean that we have to support it as a party, but in taking evidence on it and speaking to people about it, we have indicated our willingness to support that provision a well. The next major issue canvassed in the bill is to give the Liquor and Gambling Commission the power to seek input from SAPOL about any gaming employee. The Liberal Party's position on this was that we really thought that that was already probably the case. But, again, we have been advised that, in some circumstances, this provision is required and, unless someone gives us reasons otherwise, our indication is that we are prepared to support this change. The next major provision is that the bill seeks to reduce red tape by removing the requirement for the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to approve the layout of gaming machines in a gaming area. That makes eminent sense and, evidently, it has made eminent sense to the gambling reference group because they have supported it. We have no problems with that. The next major area is clarifying the law so that it is clear that it is unlawful to play poker in a public place, whilst allowing tournament poker to occur. We are comfortable with these particular changes. We understand that the provisions in the bill seek to clarify the definition of what tournament poker is. There has evidently been some blurring of the lines between playing poker and playing tournament poker. It is a fine line, I think all would readily concede, but the bill seeks to clarify the provisions of the law. The regulatory authorities have recommended that these particular changes be introduced, and we are prepared to support them. The final area concerns staff of the Independent Gambling Authority becoming Public Service employees. We are interested in the government's reasoning for this. Again, we have had no strong argument from anyone in relation to why this provision should not be supported and our position therefore is that we will support that aspect of the legislation as well. We have been advised that there is one further amendment which all the stakeholders I have referred to earlier have supported, but which the IGA, and in particular, perhaps, the CEO of the IGA, has not supported. That is in relation to delegation provisions, so that some of the powers of the IGA can be delegated to Consumer and Business Services. Again, our default position is that we are prepared to support that, but we will seek further clarification during the committee stage or at the response to the second reading from the minister as to the reasons why that particular provision has been introduced and what the particular problems might have been. In summary, the Liberal Party's position is that, in this not uncommonly controversial area where we do have both ends of the continuum, both extremes, represented on the gambling reference group recommending in a joint fashion that these provisions be supported, we have indicated our willingness to support them. As I said, I have not been through the Hon. Mr Darley's amendments, but I would flag at this stage that we are prepared to address these particular provisions. During this particular debate, we are not too much interested in reopening debates in a whole variety of other areas that we have previously debated in relation to gambling, because those measures have not come with a joint or united recommendation from the reference group. I think that would be our default position. We have authority to support the bill at this stage. That is our position and, as the shadow minister for gambling, it would certainly be my recommendation that we see the passage of the legislation. If we want to revisit other issues, that can be done by way of private members' legislation or, if the gambling reference group at some stage comes to the parliament with a recommendation, our party room will need to address those particular measures at that particular stage. The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:04): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill 2015. At the outset, it should come as no surprise that I will be moving a series of amendments to the bill aimed at addressing those aspects of the bill that I do not support, as well as other important gambling reform measures. In short, I will be opposing the government's proposal to reinstate EFTPOS machines or facilities back into gaming areas. I will also be opposing those measures aimed at removing the requirement that the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner approve the layout of gaming machines in gaming areas. I will be proposing, once again, that we support $1 maximum bets on poker machines as well as breaks in play, and I will be proposing that persons who hold 20 gaming machine entitlements or less be able to surrender those entitlements to the Crown and be paid compensation accordingly. I will elaborate on those changes further during the committee stage debate of the bill. It is pleasing to note that this bill does include some very good measures aimed at reducing red tape and curbing the incidence of certain gaming activities. For instance, the bill proposes to make it an offence under the Gaming Machines Act for a person to purchase or enter into a contract or agreement to purchase a gaming machine unless licensed. According to the government, the need for this amendment arose as a result of information received by Consumer and Business Services that indicated that unlawful gaming machines were being brought into South Australia by unlicensed operators. Consumer and Business Services, in association with SA Police, acted on that intelligence by raiding properties and seizing those machines held by unlicensed persons. It was not possible to take action before the gaming machines were actually in the possession of the unlicensed persons because the legislation, as currently framed, does not allow for action to be taken until that point. The bill addresses this situation by making it an offence for a person to purchase or enter into a contract or agreement to purchase a gaming machine unless licensed. These are very sensible changes that will, hopefully, allow our regulators and police to be able to step in and act on intelligence at an earlier stage and more appropriately. The bill also addresses the issue of illegal gambling activity at poker tournaments. There is certainly no question that tournament poker has become a popular activity undertaken by hotels and clubs. I have to admit that I am no expert on how those tournaments are run, but I do know that they cannot involve gambling. Based on the advice of the government it would appear that, in some instances at least, poker games that are being played under the guise of tournament poker do involve gambling activity. This is extremely concerning, especially given that this gambling activity is occurring in an unregulated environment. I certainly support the government's proposal to clean up this area by making it unlawful to play or engage in poker in a public place and by clarifying the circumstances in which engaging in a game of poker will constitute unlawful gaming. I would at this point ask the minister to advise of the number of instances where tournament poker with gambling activity has been suspected or identified, and what action has been taken in relation to any such cases. The bill also makes changes to the barring framework to ensure that confidentiality obligations extend to authorised persons and to ensure that barred persons are able to be removed from a place where specified gambling activities, as set out in a barring order, are engaged in. These are also sensible changes, which I support. As I mentioned at the outset, it should come as little surprise that the single most concerning measure included in the bill is that which seeks to enable EFTPOS to operate in gaming rooms. The government says it has been convinced of the need for this change because it would enable trained gaming area staff to keep a better eye on patrons and intervene when someone is exhibiting signs of problem gambling. Let us not kid ourselves: hotels and clubs have been trying to get around changes aimed at restricting access to cash at gaming venues—as first implemented in 1996—for years. In many instances EFTPOS facilities are provided just outside the door of the venue's gaming area and patrons are still served by the same trained gaming staff who monitor patrons gambling behaviour. On 14 February 2014 InDaily published a story entitled 'Cynical pokie pubs get around ATM laws.' The article talks about the use of eCash pospoint machines at gambling venues, following changes that restricted the use of ATMs. It demonstrated how far some venues were willing to go to circumvent the law when it came to cash facilities and ATMs. I have spoken at length on this issue previously and I do not intend to repeat myself at this stage. In conclusion—and I do not say this often when it comes to gambling related bills—there are some good measures in this bill and the government deserves credit for those. It is just a pity that the government has also incorporated some not so favourable measures into a bill which, overall, appears to be aimed at achieving some good outcomes. With that, I support the second reading of the bill and look forward to the committee stage debate. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.