Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gaming Prohibitions) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 July 2016.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:10): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to speak to the second reading. This bill seeks to do a number of things, but the key ones are that it seeks to introduce a $1 maximum bet limit on gaming machines and to remove EFTPOS facilities and coin machines or dispensers from gaming areas. Most of the key provisions in this bill were opposed by the Liberal Party as recently as last year. Since gaming machines were introduced more than 20 years ago now, the maximum betting limit had been $10. Just three years ago, in 2013, parliament approved a reduction in that $10 betting limit to $5 but did so on the basis that it should be delayed until 1 January 2017. I note that the Liberal Party's position at that time was to oppose the reduction of the $10 maximum betting limit to $5, but the majority view in parliament was to support it.

The reason a delay was agreed to was that the parliament and those who supported the reduction to $5 agreed that there needed to be a delay or a transition period to allow hotels and clubs to fund the replacement or modification of a significant number of gaming machines. In the period from 2013-14 through to 1 January next year, hotels and clubs have been spending significant amounts of money replacing or modifying machines so that they can adjust to this new $5 maximum betting limit.

The AHA has provided an estimate to members that the cost to the industry in preparing for the $5 bet limit might be as much as $30 million. I suspect, with the greatest of respect to my friends and colleagues in the industry association, that that is probably an upper estimate but clearly, from discussions with individual operators and hotel operators, millions have been spent and are being spent to prepare for the decision that was taken in 2013. As recently as this week, one member of our Liberal parliamentary party room reported on a non-profit club in his area in the country that had spent, I think, somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 on modifications and replacement of machines in their club.

The decision taken at the time said, 'Okay, we are going to make these major changes. However, we accept that it is going to be very costly and therefore we will provide for a transition period.' We have not even arrived at 1 January 2017, and clubs and hotel operators are horrified that the parliament might be saying to them that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in adjusting to a decision that the parliament said would be implemented from 1 January, and now, even before 1 January arrives, we are saying that they have to go back and spend even more money on either modifying the games and the machines or, in some cases, replacing the games or machines in the clubs and hotels. The logic of that escapes the Liberal parliamentary party members.

When this particular issue for the $1 limit was introduced in a measure last year in 2015, the government members and the Liberal party members voted against the $1 limit at that stage for exactly the same reasons. We said, 'We've only just taken the decision to halve the maximum bet limit from 10 to five. We've given the industry time to fund and manage the replacement machines to 1 January 2017.' In 2015, the government and Liberal Party members said that we were not prepared to support the further reduction and add that further impost on the industry.

This is just a further attempt at introducing exactly the same change. Certainly I can only speak on behalf of Liberal Party members, but our position in 2016 remains the same as it was just last year. Equally in 2015, in a government bill, the government established a gambling reference group which included representatives from the AHA, Clubs SA and Relationships Australia. It was not just the operators of the machines: Relationships Australia were representing the welfare sector. The advice to the government and the parliament at that particular stage was that the Gambling Reference Group supported the removal of the prohibition of EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas and that is why the government proceeded with that amendment.

In terms of its operations, that government amendment has only been operating for nine months since January this year. I acknowledge, as I think the movers acknowledged in their second reading, that since then a South Australian Centre for Economic Studies report has been released called EFTPOS in gaming areas: wrong way, go back! which argues that EFTPOS in gaming areas goes against all the evidence obtained from problem gamblers themselves, recommendations provided by the Productivity Commission and various other gambling studies.

The advice last year, which the government relied upon, and which the Liberal Party supported, which essentially came from the Gambling Reference Group but also others, was that the gaming employees are trained to identify problem gambling behaviour at machines and coin dispensers and also if someone is using an EFTPOS machine. They argued, successfully at that time, that the previous arrangement was that where the EFTPOS machine was placed just outside the gaming area, for example, in the bar or in a restaurant, it meant that those particular staff were not trained to identify problem gambling behaviour.

I am not sure whether all members are familiar with access to EFTPOS machines in hotels in particular. I must say I am more familiar with the hotel arrangement than a significant number of the clubs but clearly if you went to some of the hotels' EFTPOS machines prior to the government's change supported by the parliament, you went into the gaming area and you could go outside the gaming area and, in one particular hotel in the eastern suburbs, for example, access to EFTPOS machines was available in the restaurant area immediately outside the entrance to the gaming area because that is where the bar was. In another case, in the bistro where counter meals could be provided to customers, access to EFTPOS in those particular facilities was available.

For all those reasons, the government and Liberal members, only last year in 2015, supported that particular change. Given that it has only been operating for 10 months, our position is that there is no evidence given in the second reading speech of what has occurred in the 10 months other than, as I said, a SACES report which in essence looks at the whole issue of EFTPOS machines. Having met with the authors of the report, they are looking at the general question, not what has occurred since 1 January 2016. They have gone back to the Productivity Commission report which was before then and have argued their particular case as they are perfectly entitled to do.

Given that the Liberal Party's position was that we supported the petition of the government in 2015 based on the advice from the Gambling Reference Group that had been established, the Liberal Party is maintaining its position. It is certainly prepared to monitor what occurs. Whilst nothing indicates specifically a causal factor, I have seen the net gaming revenue figures that industry people have given me for 2016 from gaming machines, and they show further significant declines in net gaming revenue from gaming machines.

I think when one traces the timing of that, certainly if one looks at August 2016 compared to August 2015 and July 2016 compared to July 2015, there is a drop of approximately $2 million to $3 million a month in net gaming revenue from gaming machines being recorded by the industry and by the government. I think it is fair to say that people are saying the major impacter over the last 10 years in terms of net gaming revenue has been the removal of smoking in hotels and gaming areas. It has had a significant impact.

My view is that increasingly we are going to see fewer people betting less money on gaming machines and more and more people betting more money on their mobile phones and iPads in sports betting and exotic betting options that are provided. It is an argument I have had with the Hon. Nick Xenophon for 20 years. He was concentrating on gaming machines in those early days. He is certainly arguing against it now, not appreciating that the whole world was going to move on to being able to bet through mobile phones. In the early days, we were really only talking about the television set at your home, but the world has moved on now with sports betting and exotic betting options available.

With much merriment, I think, some government members were quoting the odds of who might be the Family First replacement for Senator Bob Day. They were quoting the odds that are available for South Australians to take a punt on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire or the other potential candidates. In my view, it is clear that, where the world is heading in terms of gambling and betting options, in terms of the challenges for the future (which have been the challenges for the last 10 years or so), are the betting options available through mobile phones, iPads, your home interactive computer and all those options.

It does not mean that there will not be ongoing problem gambling issues with gaming machines, of course, but I think that will tend to be, over the long term, the older demographic. The younger demographic that is coming through will be more inclined to do more of their betting in sports betting and on mobile phones and iPads and I suspect that less of their betting and gambling will be on gaming machines. As I said, I am certainly not arguing that gaming machines will not continue to be an ongoing issue and a problem for some numbers in our community, but the reality is that there are many other challenges.

I will acknowledge the consultation. SACOSS has indicated its support for this bill. Clearly, it is strongly opposed by Clubs SA representing clubs. We have had a detailed submission from clubs, highlighting their concerns at the changes in this bill and its impact on their operations. Without going through all the detail, they highlight that, in their view, they do much good in the community in terms of supporting sporting associations and recreational associations in particular in the community.

The funds that they make through their clubs help fund these particular groups, and their argument to the parliament is that, in their view, if this legislation was to pass, a number of them would no longer be viable operations as clubs, and community organisations would, frankly, be put out of business by these particular changes. Many of them have found it tough to adapt to the changes the parliament agreed to in 2013, but nevertheless some of them have raised the money and funded the modifications and replacement of machines, and they passionately argue against a further change, even before the last change is implemented (which is meant to be implemented on 1 January next year).

So, for all those reasons the Liberal Party does not support this bill. I indicate that there is a very similar bill, which we will address in a moment. I will not repeat all of my remarks there, but indicate that for similar reasons the Liberal Party will adopt the same position in relation to the similar bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:25): I rise on behalf of the Greens and as a member of the crossbench who proposed these bills to support not just this bill but also the other bill that we will shortly debate on gambling in this state. It is no surprise that it is the crossbenchers who are united on this. While I note that currently the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is on odds of $2.30 to $1 on Sportsbet to take the new Senate spot, the leader of Family First in this place is on $11 to $1 to move to the red leather benches in Canberra, but of course the former staffer in this place, Rikki Lambert, is currently the favourite at $1.87 to $1.

What we can be sure of, and what is a sure bet, however, is that when it comes to political donations we know there is gambling money there. We know that those who have a vested interest in this industry also fund political parties, who then seem to come to this place with particular views. Certainly, it is no surprise that the Alliance for Gambling Reform federally, which is a group of business people, academics and politicians who want greater restrictions on Australia's multibillion dollar gambling industry, is in strong numbers represented by crossbenchers.

Senator Xenophon of course came to prominence in politics as a 'No Pokies' candidate, and has long advocated, and the Hon. John Darley has continued that work in this place. The Greens proudly support all the measures in this and the following gambling bill. I note that Senator Larissa Waters, my federal Greens colleague, has been part of something that we are calling 'pokie-leaks'. Pokie-leaks is necessary because the major political parties have been compromised by political donations from gambling and hotel industries for too long in this nation, avoiding scrutiny, and that is why I suggest members of the community check out pokie-leaks. If you follow the money, you will see why we have the votes that we do.

The Greens certainly consulted previously, as did members of the government, members of the opposition and the crossbench, about one particular facet of both these bills, which is the placement of EFTPOS machines in terms of the location and proximity to gaming machines. At the time, we were informed by the welfare sector that they were not sure. However, we have since seen—and as the Hon. Rob Lucas has noted—evidence that that is a harmful move, and the Greens are willing and prepared today to say that we got that wrong. We did not have the evidence, but now we do, and we will support this bill and support the removal of those EFTPOS machines from these facilities.

This nation does have a gambling problem. We do see people suffer enormously from the ill effects of gambling. We even have a budget where we will soon debate the amounts of money to go into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. We have to rehabilitate people's lives, those who continue to live. I think most people in the community can tell you a story of somebody who they know, somebody who they have had contact with, somebody who they have lost due to problem gambling. It is a scourge in our community. It can be a bit of fun and I certainly understand that members, particularly of the opposition benches, will advocate that, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that it also creates enormous harm and that we should seek to alleviate that harm where it happens.

I will not labour the point too much. I will simply say that it is no surprise that the crossbenchers stand here united today in terms of bringing to this place and bringing to all parliaments—federal, state and territory—the issues of problem gambling and seeking to address them. We will not stop advocating. We will not close our eyes to this issue and we also certainly will not take money from gambling industries themselves. That means that we will not be compromised on these issues and that is why I can stand here and say that we have seen the evidence and we have changed our vote and we will support both these bills. Indeed, we were proud to help introduce them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (17:31): I rise to oppose both this bill and the gaming prohibitions and barring orders, and many of the comments that I am making in relation to this particular bill pertain to both. The Statutes Amendment (Gaming Prohibitions) Bill amending the Casino Act seeks to introduce:

a $1 maximum bet limit on gaming machines and automated table games in the Casino, and gaming machines in gaming venues;

remove EFTPOS facilities from gaming venues; and

remove the ability for gaming venues to provide a machine designed to change a monetary note into coins on licensed premises.

The government embarked on an extensive gambling reform and administrative reduction agenda in 2013 and 2015 with the aim of reducing problematic gambling behaviour. As a result of that gambling reform, a $5 maximum bet limit will apply to all gaming machines from 1 January 2017; and as of January 2016, gaming venues are able to provide EFTPOS facilities in a gaming area in a licensed venue.

We believe the bill should be opposed. The $1 maximum bet was considered during the 2013 amendments. One of the reasons that the $1 maximum bet was rejected was that it would be difficult for South Australia to go it alone in the context of a national gaming machine market. The EFTPOS facility availability in the gaming area will make sure that the customer is face-to-face with an employee who has benefited from recognised training. This training was required under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 to address gaming operations, responsible gaming, problem gambling identification, including automated risk monitoring, and also precommitment. The advanced training includes low-level intervention and referral to gambling help services.

An EFTPOS facility outside the gaming area is not necessarily operated by a person with recognised training, nor are they in a position to observe behaviour in the gaming area. This could result in a situation where some problem gambling risk factors cannot be observed by those trained to identify and respond to them. In addition, note acceptors are prohibited on gaming machines in South Australia. Accordingly, South Australia is the only jurisdiction that allows coin dispensing machines in gaming areas as gaming machine players need to use coins to play. It is for these reasons that I ask members to oppose this and its other associated bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:34): Dignity for Disability wholeheartedly supports any measure which reduces the harm done by gambling in this state. We believe that $1 bets can, and will, do exactly that: reduce the harm caused by gambling to families, to individuals, and to our state's economy, and society in general. As I have said before in this place, people with intellectual disabilities in particular and people of limited economic means for other reasons are tragically disproportionately represented in problem gambling figures. We need to take any action that we can to arrest the harm done, and for this reason we strongly support the second reading of this bill.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:35): First of all, I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this bill. As I have said before, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill is very similar to this one. Both bills address the issues of EFTPOS facilities and coin dispensers in gaming venues and also propose to put a $1 maximum bet on gaming machines. The difference between our two bills is that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill also seeks to amend barring orders so that gaming providers are able to make a request to the Independent Gambling Authority to issue a barring order. This will result in barring orders being valid for three years rather than three months.

I want to put on the record again my thanks to all my crossbench colleagues—the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire—for their cooperation on this matter. This is an issue that we all felt strongly about and have worked on together. Obviously, only one of our bills will need to be passed today, and I am not optimistic about this, especially as we have provided this parliament with two opportunities for the mistake to be corrected and for changes to be made to protect problem gamblers. With that, I move that this bill be read a second time.

Second reading negatived.