Poker Machines

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer a question about poker machines.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: South Australians woke this morning to news of the government's plans to overhaul poker machine laws in this state, a reform proposal that has been the subject of significant criticism, for obvious reasons. When interviewed on radio this morning, the Attorney attempted to justify the government's proposal, saying it was simply to bring SA in line with other states. She stated:

We still accept it's a significant entertainment and gambling form for South Australians largely in the older age group.

This is despite the fact that figures from the Attorney's department revealed that about $11,000 more, on average, was lost on each poker machine in 2018-19 compared with when poker machine numbers ballooned to their highest figure 17 years ago, and despite the fact that the number of problem gamblers—85 per cent of whom play poker machines—has almost doubled over the last 14 years. My questions to the Treasurer are:

1. Has any economic modelling been done to calculate the increase in poker machine revenue these changes will have?

2. Having said previously that revenue from poker machines is relatively insignificant when compared with the total state budget, but also conceding that the proposed land tax changes were forced by a projected $2.1 billion writedown in GST revenues, what role did the Treasurer play in the government's proposed changes to poker machine laws?

3. Is the Treasurer concerned about the impacts his government's reforms will have on poker machine gambling addicts?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:58): I thank the honourable member for her questions. As I'm sure she would expect, I have been intimately involved in discussions in relation to these issues; however, I don't have the carriage of the legislation. That is a matter for the Attorney-General, who has had primary responsibility in terms of the discussions on this issue.

Gambling and gambling reform has been an abiding interest of mine for many years, and obviously I support the comprehensive reform package the Attorney-General has now outlined and which the parliament will, ultimately, get to vote for. I would hope that the honourable member will be able to support significant aspects of the legislation—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: And pigs might fly tomorrow as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member says, 'Pigs might fly,' and it is entirely her prerogative if she wants to say that. The Attorney-General has outlined—to our members, anyway—key protective measures for problem gamblers enabling people to be barred from gambling venues indefinitely, including both single premises and multiple venues, limiting the amount of money someone can access through EFTPOS facilities in a gaming machine venue to align with limits on ATMs, expanding the scope of uses for the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund to cover public education and information programs, treatment and counselling programs and research, and a number of other initiatives as well.

The honourable member can indicate pigs might fly before she supports those aspects of the legislation. I am surprised and disappointed in relation to those issues. Certainly, even though I come from a different perspective in relation to these issues and highlight the fact that approximately 99 per cent of gamblers in South Australia do so on a recreational basis without becoming problem gamblers and enjoy their decisions in terms of how they spend their money, at the same time I share, as the honourable member I hope would share, the concerns about the approximately 1 per cent or so of gamblers who are problem gamblers and do need significant assistance in terms of trying to overcome the problems that they encounter.

In relation to the other aspects of the honourable member's questions, there will clearly be—I don't know about economic modelling—taxation modelling that will have been done by Treasury in relation to some potential aspects of the legislation, particularly in relation to the introduction of note acceptors, and possibly, I am not sure, in relation to the proposals in the bill in terms of increasing the number of machines that clubs might be able to have, as opposed to hotels.

I note that some years ago the former government brought proposals to this parliament in relation to increasing the numbers of machines in some venues to 60, which didn't enjoy support at that time. I think, on reflection—I will stand corrected if I am wrong—that that might have included both hotels and clubs, but certainly there was a proposal at that time. I think there are some people in what is described as the concerned sector who at that time actually supported what they described as larger numbers of machines in fewer numbers of venues, and spoke publicly in relation to supporting that particular aspect of the former government's proposals at the time.

I am sure the bills will be in this chamber, I would imagine, in the not-too-distant future and the honourable member will have the opportunity to quiz me—I suspect I will be handling the bills in this particular chamber—in relation to those particular aspects of the bill. During that particular debate, we may well be in a position to give some indication of what the estimated impact on revenue might be from the total gambling reform bill or package. I will be happy to respond at that particular time during the committee stage of the debate.