Statutes Amendment (Gaming Area Prohibitions and Barring Orders) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 July 2016.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:37): Can I indicate that the second reading contribution I have just made to the bill moved by the Hon. Mr Darley applies significantly to the second reading debate on this particular bill and therefore I will not repeat it. There was one table that I meant to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, which I did not, and I do so now, which is a table that indicates the prevalence of problem gambling in Australia. It is purely statistical.

Leave granted.

Prevalence of Problem Gambling in Australia (CPGI)

Table 10-8 Problem (CPGI 8+) and Moderate Risk (CPGI 3+) Prevalence in Australia

Most Australian state/territory studies undertaken in the latter half of the last decade have used the CPGI—which is now widely accepted as a better measure of population prevalence than the SOGS. Please note that CPGI and SOGS results are not directly comparable.

(33) Scoring (8-27)

(34) Scoring (3-7)

(35) Davidson, T. M. & Rodgers, B. (2010) 2009 Survey of the Nature and Extent of Gambling and Problem Gambling in the Australian Capital Territory, ACT Gambling & Racing Commission.

(36) AC Nielson (2007) Prevalence of Gambling and Problem Gambling in NSW—A Community Survey 2006, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

(37) NSW Health (2010) Gambling Module of the NSW Population Health Survey 2008-09.

(38) Ogilvy Illumination (2012) Prevalence of Gambling and Problem Gambling in New South Wales, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

(39) Charles Darwin University, School for Social and Policy Research and School for Health Sciences (2006) An Overview of Gambling in the Northern Territory.

(40) Queensland Government (2002) Queensland Household Gambling Survey, 2001.

(41) Queensland Government, Research and Community Engagement Division (2006) The Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04.

(42) Queensland Government, Research and Community Engagement Division (2008) The Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2006-07.

(43) Queensland Government (2010) The Queensland Household Gambling Survey (2008-2009).

(44) Queensland Government (2012) The Queensland Household Gambling Survey (2011-12).

(45) South Australian Department for Families and Communities (2006) Gambling Prevalence in South Australia: October to December 2005.

(46) The Social Research Centre (2013) Gambling Prevalence in South Australia 2012, SA Office for Problem Gambling.

(47) Roy Morgan Research (2006) The Fourth Study into the Extent and Impact of Gambling in Tasmania with Particular Reference to Problem Gambling. Follow up to the Studies Conducted in 1994, 1996 and 2000. Tasmania Gambling Support Bureau.

(48) South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (2008) Social and Economic Impact Study into Gambling in Tasmania, Department of Treasury and Finance, Tasmania.

(49) The Allen Consulting Group, Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre and The Social Research Centre (2011) Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania, Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.

(50) Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) A Study of Gambling in Victoria: Problem Gambling From A Public Health Perspective, Department of Justice (Victoria).

(51) The CPGI has not been used to date in this jurisdiction.

(52) Productivity Commission 2010, Gambling, Report No. 50, Canberra p11—Please note this figure is the product of a meta-analysis of pre-existing state/territory surveys and is not an original survey figure.

(53) Hing, N., Gainsbury, S., Blaszczynski, A., Wood, R., Lubman, D. and Russell, A. (2014) Interactive Gambling, Gambling Research Australia.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This particular table and its various iterations have been seen over the years. It uses the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI), an accepted index for the research studies into problem gambling, the extent of problem gambling internationally, but this is for Australia in particular. When members get a chance to have a look at that, the issue is that problem gambling studies are done at various times in various states and territories so there is not a perfect comparison in terms of all measures being done in the one year.

It certainly would be a useful research study to conduct at a national level. For example, if any member of this chamber was soon to be in the national parliament, it might be an issue that he or she might like to take up in terms of the usefulness of a national research study to measure problem gambling in all of the states, compared to Australia.

Certainly on these measures what this table will show is that the CPGI for Australia is 0.61, and the problem gambling index for South Australia is at exactly that level, at 0.6. The national study was done in 2011 and the South Australian study was done more recently in 2012. Evidently, there has not been one done since then on a comparative basis.

What it shows, and what has been referred to previously, is that no-one is able yet to provide convincing evidence that the extent of problem gambling in South Australia is significantly worse than the national average, or indeed any worse than the national average, in terms of what it might be. Certainly the evidence indicates that about 98 per cent of people are able to gamble without getting themselves into problems. Many of us are recreational gamblers. We would not see ourselves as being problem gamblers.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Some of us don't gamble at all.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It depends on how you define 'gambling', Hon. Mr Brokenshire. If one was to gamble a seat in the state parliament on a seat in the national parliament, it might be seen as a big gamble.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: A reckless gamble.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A reckless gamble. Coming back to this issue, the evidence is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of people who punt, Sportsbet, use poker machines or go to the dogs and the races can do so on a recreational basis and do it without causing grief to themselves, their family or their friends. I think there is not anyone who can argue against that fact. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of people can gamble without causing grief to themselves, their family members, their acquaintances or whoever it might be.

It is a conscious choice that those people who gamble on a recreational basis take that they will spend their money on a punt on whether the Hon. Mr Brokenshire goes into the Senate, or his former staffer does, or whether a horse is going to win a race on Saturday, or whether a particular footy team is going to win a football game on a Saturday or whatever it might be. It is a conscious choice that someone makes, they are prepared to do it, and the overwhelming majority of people can do it without causing grief.

They spend their money that way rather than spending their money on alcohol, or spending their money on a whole variety of other recreational pursuits, skiing in the Alps once a year or whatever it might happen to be. That is a conscious choice that people can take without causing grief. On the other hand, there are 1 or 2 per cent of people who are problem gamblers, who cannot control their problem gambling, who do cause grief to themselves, who do cause grief to their families and who do cause grief to their friends and acquaintances.

They are the people whom we should be targeting in terms of providing assistance, providing rehabilitation and providing help to them and to their families. Much good work has been done in South Australia and nationally in terms of endeavouring, but much more could be done. We are the first to acknowledge that. For the reasons that I outlined in the previous debate, which I will not repeat, the Liberal Party is consistent in its position on this bill as it was in 2013, in 2015, and on the bill that we have just debated that was moved by the Hon. Mr Darley. We oppose the second reading.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:43): I rise very briefly to reiterate my comments made on the previous crossbench bill and just note again the role of the crossbench in bringing these issues to the fore, but also to address some of the words the Hon. Rob Lucas just made mention of. Yes, the majority of people who gamble, and particularly with regard to poker machines, do not have a gambling problem and do not fall into trouble. The measures here in these bills are actually designed to support problem gamblers, those who have a problem with gambling, without hurting those who do not have such a problem.

Dollar bets: we know that that, according to the Productivity Commission, is one of the key things that we could do to help problem gamblers that does not hurt those who wish to play the pokies. As I say, my mother quite enjoys playing the pokies. Well, she has to push the button a few more times to fill out her time. She will actually enjoy that because she will spend a little bit more time at the poker machine, but for the person who has a problem that dollar bet is actually going to protect them from further harm.

Strengthening barring orders: I do not understand how that could in any way hurt those who do not have a gambling problem but, of course, it helps those who do. How you could oppose that provision in this bill is beyond me. Removing coin dispensing machines from gaming venues: so that those who do not have a gambling problem have to walk a few more steps in support of those who do have a problem—I think those few steps are worth it. Removing both the EFTPOS facilities and the coin dispensing: it is quite simple stuff. These measures are very simple but they would actually have a profound effect in supporting those with a gambling problem.

We know that those problems are quite significant. They lead to people's lives being ruined or lives being lost. Let's take it seriously, let's not stand up on behalf people who, in fact, are not harmed by these measures in this bill—those who do not have a gambling problem—let's help those who do.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (17:46): I rise to oppose this bill. I have already made some comments relevant to this particular issue previously, so I will not repeat those. In relation to the proposed barring changes that this particular bill looks to, the government believes that they are unlikely to have any benefit as gambling providers already have the power to bar. If a gambling provider wishes to bar a gambler, they should use the current power that they have, rather than make an application to the Independent Gambling Authority and then have to wait for the authority to make a decision. For those reasons, the government opposes this bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:47): Once again, Dignity for Disability is very happy to be collaborating on this bill with our crossbench colleagues from Family First, the Greens and the Xenophon Team to reduce the harm done by problem gambling to our community. Removing easy access to cash withdrawals by not having ATMs in gambling venues can only have a positive impact for problem gamblers, we believe. As I said less than half an hour ago in this place, there are particular groups who can be particularly susceptible to problem gambling, including people with intellectual disabilities and people of limited economic means who are disproportionately represented in those figures.

Since neither the Labor government nor the Liberal opposition have done anything to arrest the harm done by problem gambling in this state, we crossbenchers have had to take action on behalf of the community. The government and the alternative government have a conflict of interest as the regulators of gambling in this state while we rely so much on the proceeds of gambling to fill their coffers. It is a shame that both the Labor government and Liberal opposition can continue to profit from their misery created by problem gambling in this state. So we strongly support this bill.

Before I close, if I can just respond to a few comments, particularly those of the Hon. Mr Lucas. Of course, I accept that the vast majority of people who choose to engage in gambling-related activities can do so and do so responsibly. However, the same could be said of motorists, for example. The vast majority of people adhere to our road rules—they drive, operate, motor vehicles safely in this state and in this country. Does the Hon. Mr Lucas intend to do away with the road rules act? I should hope not, sir.

The vast majority of people adhere quite well to our laws. The vast majority of people, thankfully, are not violent and are not rapists, but do we do away with laws to punish people or to assist people if they do get themselves into that sort of trouble? No, we do not. I do not think anyone is saying that the vast majority of people who engage in gambling do have a problem, but the fact of the matter is that when we do have a problem in the state, we, as a parliament, have a duty to act. It does not matter what the size of that problem is. If it is impacting people, if it is impacting the constituency, who we are paid to serve, then we are bound to take action.

I would recommend very strongly to the Hon. Mr Lucas, and to any other member in this place who has not yet done so, to watch a very interesting and very well considered documentary called Ka-Ching! Pokie Nation. If members watch this documentary, they will hear direct quotes from people who are interviewed—for example, a musical composer whose job it is to compose the music that plays on these machines. He will tell you that—I am paraphrasing here; it is not a direct quote—when a person wins money, we play a big, happy, triumphant sound on the machine. When a person loses money, there is no sound, because we do not want to reinforce that they have lost money. I repeat, we do not want to reinforce that they have lost money.

Yes, I accept that the vast majority of people in this state, and in this country, can and do engage in gambling somewhat responsibly. However, as you will see from the documentary and the research, the pokie machines are not built for those people. They are built for the people who have a weakness to problem gambling, who will be drawn in by those sounds, who will be drawn in by those lights, which are specifically designed to target them and to make them vulnerable. I believe we have a responsibility in this parliament, on behalf of the community, for the good of the future of this state, to do anything we can to limit this problem.

I was reading a quote before that came to mind when I was listening to the Hon. Mr Lucas. I am not sure to whom the quote is attributable. I apologise for that. It goes something like, 'When you are used to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.' Of course, we are not really talking about equality here: we are talking about making sure that people are safe and protected when they need to be. Quite frankly, I am not particularly fussed if people who are not problem gamblers have to make a bit of additional effort to gamble in order to keep those people who are problem gamblers that little bit safer. In fact, I would argue that people who are not problem gamblers are barely even going to notice the change precisely because they are not problem gamblers.

The other point that I would make, and as has already been made by the Hon. Ms Franks, particularly in the nature of this bill, is I fail to see how a non-problem gambler can be impacted unfairly by changes to barring rules, because people who are not problem gamblers generally do not get barred. I would say that is a fair comment to make. So, I fail to see how anyone who is not a problem gambler can be unfairly impacted by these changes. All they do is seek to further support and further assist those people who are problem gamblers.

Two per cent of people might seem like a very small figure, but I am sure it is not a small figure in the minds of those individuals and those families who have lost jobs, homes and even lives to problem gambling. I believe that this parliament has a duty to do whatever it can to stand up against problem gambling in this state and support those people impacted by it. Anyone in this place not willing to do so should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:53): It is probably of no surprise that I rise in support of this bill. This bill is very similar to my own Statutes Amendment (Gaming Prohibitions) Bill which makes various amendments to the Casino Act and the Gaming Machines Act. The big point of difference is the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill has included changes to barring orders.

At the moment, both gaming providers, and the Independent Gambling Authority, are able to issue barring orders on patrons. Orders issued by gaming providers are valid for three months and orders issued by the Independent Gambling Authority are valid for three years. This bill will allow for gaming providers to request the authority to issue a barring order, thereby having a barring order which is valid for longer. I am supportive of these measures. Obviously, as the other clauses are identical to the provisions in my own bill, I am also supportive of the other measures in the bill.

I want to put on the record that although I introduced my own bill, this should in no way be interpreted that I will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill. Given my history on these matters, especially when it comes to EFTPOS facilities in gaming venues, I felt it was important to introduce my own bill to reflect this. All crossbench members are supportive of these amendments and it is of the utmost importance that at least one of these bills pass.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:55): I thank all honourable members for their contributions and I thank my crossbench colleagues. Whilst this bill is under my name and Family First has facilitated the bill, it is clearly a bill that does not happen very often but is a healthy way of bringing democracy into parliament. All the crossbenchers contributed to this bill and I speak on behalf of all the crossbenchers.

Something like this is a major social issue. When there is an addiction involved, we do have a duty to act to try to prevent that addiction. As the Hon. Kelly Vincent clearly said in response to the Hon. Rob Lucas's remarks, it may only be 2 per cent—I am not sure that it is 2 per cent; that may be 2 per cent who are extremely damaged by problem gambling—but what about the percentage that are having issues at home or at work? There are children who are missing out on some of the things that they need because there is a significant problem although it may not be specifically so detrimental that it sees the shocking things that we see with that 2 per cent, which sadly include domestic violence, sometimes, very sadly, suicide, and sometimes children who are damaged as a result of nutritional problems and the like.

The bill that we have put up, as has already been highlighted by previous speakers, is not opposing gaming machines per se, but it actually has some common-sense measures to try to help address that 2 per cent of problem gamblers. We heard the Hon. Rob Lucas, and just for the record, one of the issues that we get from the lobbyists who are pro gaming machines is that, 'Since the smoking ban came in and this, that and whatever, we are seeing a lack of income, a reduction in income. We are seeing fewer people spending money on gaming machines.'

Only yesterday, we received the Auditor-General's Report of 2016. I quote for Hansard that the table is in Part B: Agency audit reports, pages 46 to 47. There are some interesting numbers there, because if you come in at 2013, there were 12,613 machines, and the government had promised way back when the Hon. Michael Wright was the minister that we were going to see a significant reduction in machines. We see here today that, at 30 June 2016, there were still 12,337 machines. I do not call that a reduction.

Then we look at the turnover. In 2013, the turnover for gaming machines in South Australia was quoted as $7,911 million; in 2014, it was $7,966 million; in 2015, it was $8,055 million; and in 2016, it was $8,000 million. The amount won sits pretty flat also, from $7,180 million in 2013 to $7,282 million in 2016. The important point I want to put here is the taxation revenue to the state government. The state government received taxation from gaming machines in 2013 of $286 million; in 2014, $288 million; in 2015, $287 million; and in 2016, $284 million.

I would love to see my income from our farms be as consistent and reliable as that. I do not see that that has had an impact on the hotel industry whatsoever. I think any bank manager would like to see a cash flow like that, as consistent and stable as that. Where has the reduction been in expenditure on gaming machines? I cannot see it.

The barring order issue was one that personally was really important to me, because I had the privilege, as some members know, of setting up a new portfolio when I had the ministries opportunity with the former Liberal government. We had to do a lot of work on the Independent Gambling Authority. I watched how the Independent Gambling Authority was to proceed over the years and I watched the barring orders, and there is no doubt in my mind, and my colleagues agree with this, that where the EFTPOS machines are placed, the issues around barring orders and the other one about extending reporting requirements have to, and should be, accepted by the government and by the industry because these will be huge steps forward to protect those problem gamblers. I do not believe that they are a major impost whatsoever on the industry at all, as my other colleagues have said.

I thank members again. I can hear the voices from the two major parties joining forces on this, but sometimes we have to have a social conscience. I was hoping today we would have seen a multipartisan social conscience, but I do thank those on the crossbenches for their support and I commend the bill to the house.

Second reading negatived.

Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:48.