Statutes Amendment (Gaming Area Prohibitions and Barring Orders) Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:30): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Casino Act 1997, the Gaming Machines Act 1992 and the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a collaboration between crossbench parties because concerns have been put to all crossbench party members from across the state through a broad cross-section of the community about problem gambling. Whilst some parties had certain issues that they saw as a priority with respect to problems around problem gambling, after consultation with the crossbenches it was decided that this would be a collective, collaborative approach, and I am pleased to be speaking to this bill as one of the crossbench members here today.

Last year, as a result of the government Statutes Amendment (Gaming Measures) Act 2015, South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia to permit EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas. Victoria has a ban on access to EFTPOS facilities and ATMs within gaming machine areas. Victoria has also removed ATMs from all gaming venues, and has introduced mandatory precommitment technology on all gaming machines, which commenced on 1 December 2015.

Associate Professor Michael O'Neil from the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies of the University of Adelaide presented the crossbenchers with a research paper titled 'EFTPOS in gaming areas: wrong way—go back!', which strongly opposed allowing EFTPOS in gaming areas. The government's decision to allow EFTPOS in gaming areas is contrary to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

The Productivity Commission report 2010 cited the presence of ATM and EFTPOS facilities as the key contributors to problem gambling. It endorses legislation limiting opportunities for gamblers to make what we describe as impulsive withdrawals and recommends that ATMs and EFTPOS machines be a reasonable distance from the gaming floor. It does not endorse venue-based problem gambling identification and intervention.

At-risk problem gamblers are more likely to withdraw money using ATMs/EFTPOS compared with others. Reports highlight that problem gamblers support removal of ATMs from gaming venues. Professor O'Neil in his paper highlights that the Statutes Amendment (Gaming Measures) Act 2015 has increased the number of access points to cash in hotels and clubs through allowing a third access point situated in gaming areas. Gamblers can now access cash from ATMs (usually subject to a per card/per day withdrawal limit), EFTPOS facilities outside of gaming areas and EFTPOS facilities inside an actual gaming lounge. EFTPOS facilities normally have no withdrawal limits.

The reason provided by the government to allow EFTPOS in gaming areas is to provide, they claim, supervision of at-risk gamblers and to have trained staff intervene, where necessary. However, there is no evidence that staff effectively intervene, and there is also no research evidence as to its impact on measurable outcomes.

The bill removes EFTPOS from gaming areas forcing players to leave gaming areas, which creates a break in the cycle of play, allowing for the player to reassess their losses, walk away and hopefully get some fresh air and head on home. This is in line with the recommendations from the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies and Professor O'Neill, who states that there is need to create real situations of breaks in play where gamblers are required to leave the sounds, lighting and ambience of the gambling lounge before being able to access cash.

The bill includes provisions for gambling providers to request that the authority issue a barring order. I have been advised that although a gambling provider (such as a hotel or club) can issue a barring order, it is only effective for up to three months, whereas the Independent Gambling Authority-issued barring order can be in force for up to three years.

A gambling provider requesting an authority-issued barring order must report the reasons for making the request. This allows gambling providers to report to the authority any high-risk behaviour observed in gaming areas, such as excessive cash withdrawal patterns and other harmful behaviour. The criteria for gambling provider-issued barring orders are narrowed and focused on the consideration of whether a person is at risk of suffering harm from problem gambling, and this bill extends the reporting requirements.

The crossbenchers have consulted with SACOSS and Uniting Communities on this bill, and both have indicated their support for the bill. SACOSS actually recommended a $1 bet limitation on gaming machines, which the crossbenchers have included in the bill.

In regard to the facts about EFTPOS in gaming areas in South Australia, as a result of the government's Statutes Amendment (Gaming Measures) Act 2015, I just want to reinforce that South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia to permit EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas. The government's decision to allow EFTPOS in gaming areas clearly goes against the recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

The government contends that face-to-face EFTPOS transactions deter gamblers from withdrawing money as it involves human interaction, but there is again no evidence to suggest that staff intervention is either effective, nor is there evidence to suggest that staff intervention occurs at all—a lack of transparency.

The government increased the number of access points to cash in hotels and clubs through allowing a third access point situation in gaming areas. Just to reinforce that, patrons now have the choice, under current legislation, of accessing cash from ATMs, EFTPOS facilities outside gaming areas, and EFTPOS facilities inside the gaming areas.

In summary, this bill removes EFTPOS facilities from within gaming areas. It strengthens the barring orders and, hopefully, will send a message to the Independent Gambling Authority that they are not subservient to Treasury and the government, that they are by the intent of the parliament, as stated, an independent gambling authority with clear responsibility to address problem gambling and harm minimisation. Finally, the bill prohibits gaming machines that allow bets of more than $1, and removes coin dispensing machines from gaming venues.

We are about to see a reduction from $10 bets to $5 bets, but when you get out into the real world and talk to the community (as crossbench members have discussed), they are clearly saying on a majority that, 'We believe that $1 would be the way to go if you were to try and seriously prevent problem gambling and focus on harm minimisation.'

Finally, this bill removes coin dispensing machines from gaming venues. Importantly, removing EFTPOS facilities from within gaming areas creates a break in the play where gamblers are required to leave, as I say, all the glitz and glamour of the gaming room, and hopefully allow them to have a clear head before accessing further withdrawals from EFTPOS. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley.