Gambling Reform

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That this council—

1. Notes that the latest figures from the 34th edition of Australian Gambling Statistics of total gambling expenditure in Australia for 2016-17 show that:

(a) the nation's gambling spend was $23.694 billion for 2016-17;

(b) total sports betting increased to a record high of $1.062 billion, representing a 15.3 per cent increase from the previous year;

(c) total race betting expenditure in Australia increased from $3.099 billion to $3.313 billion (a 6.9 per cent increase) in 2016-17; and

(d) $12.136 billion was emptied into poker machines by Australians in 2016-17.

2. Acknowledges that the 2010 Productivity Commission report into gambling found that around 4 per cent of the adult population plays poker machines at least weekly, and that 15 per cent of these players are ‘problem gamblers’ with their share of total spending on poker machines estimated to be between 40 and 60 per cent.

3. Acknowledges that according to figures released from the Australian Electoral Commission covering the 2017-18 financial year, the Australian Hotels Association of South Australia donated $324,944.43 to the South Australian Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), the Federal Liberal Party of Australia, the South Australian Labor Party (SA Branch) and the Australian Conservatives.

4. Supports the call by the Alliance for Gambling Reform for a complete ban on political donations by licensed gambling operators.

(Continued from 13 February 2019.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:38): I rise to welcome and support this motion that has been put before this place by the Hon. Connie Bonaros of SA-Best. This motion notes the latest figures from the 34^th edition of the Australian Gambling Statistics of total gambling expenditure in Australia for 2016-17 year that show that the nation's gambling spend was $23.694 billion for that year; that total sports betting increased to a record high of $1.062 billion, representing a 15.3 per cent increase from the previous year; total race betting expenditure in Australia increased from $3.099 billion to $3.313 billion, a 6.9 per cent increase in that year; and that $12.136 billion was emptied into poker machines by Australians in that year—some very sorry statistics, and sobering statistics, there.

The motion further acknowledges that the 2010 Productivity Commission report into gambling found that around 4 per cent of the adult population plays poker machines—and 'play' is certainly an insidious word—at least weekly and that 15 per cent of these players are what are known as 'problem gamblers', a euphemism if ever you heard one, with their share of the total spending on poker machines estimated to be between 40 and 60 per cent, somewhere around half.

This motion also, importantly, acknowledges that according to the figures that have been released by the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2017-18 financial year, the Australian Hotels Association of South Australia donated some $324,944.43 to the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Conservatives. That is a lot of money for very little return—unless there is a return.

We strongly support this motion and, importantly, while the rest of that was all fact, we note the key here: paragraph 4, which supports the call of the Alliance for Gambling Reform for a complete ban on political donations from licensed gambling operators. We have seen in this place time and again a state government addicted to gambling revenue, addicted to animal cruelty that is supported through that gambling industry, addicted to these donations to help run their political campaigns that buy their favour and leave us as a state with an extraordinary position where we have a bill not yet before this place—so it is not unparliamentary yet for me to comment upon it—where apparently Labor and Liberal have gone off and done a deal to allow note acceptors in poker machines and a range of other measures that are quite extraordinary.

Certainly the Hon. Rob Lucas, as the Leader of the Government in this place, and so far on record the leadership of the Labor Party have said there is no conscience vote on this particular bill. It is quite extraordinary, when previously Liberal Party MLCs in this place have indicated that on gambling legislation they have a conscience vote. The Labor Party once upon a time did have a conscience vote, but now, quite extraordinarily, when it comes to gambling, they no longer have a conscience.

It is extraordinary days indeed when we see a racing industry able to lobby to have part of the point of consumption tax which is now being levied upon them returned to them, because somehow they need it for the prize money and to keep growing their industry, an industry which is based upon the racing of animals for a profit, for people to take a punt on or profiteer from. Yet time and again across those industries we see cruelty against these animals exposed—time and time again.

And we see little delineation in those industries between the integrity sections of those industries and the profiteering sections of those industries, putting those animals in danger and, worse still, putting punters into poverty. Whether it is poker machines or the racing industry, industries designed to part people with their money when we know that many of those people have a problem, an addiction, and cannot afford to be parted with that money are indeed extraordinary things to be propping up with party votes in this place.

All parties should start refusing to take donations from these cruel and calculating and clever industries that have worked out that if they put a few pennies in the pockets of some politicians as they campaign for an election the payoff will come when pieces of legislation pass this place with, lo and behold, bipartisan old party support.

I have to say, I do not know if Shit Adelaide has ever been quoted in this place, but I have noted that they have been commenting on the failure of the sex work law reform bill today. They have asked the question: how on earth has it come to this, where we have bipartisan support from Labor and Liberal on poker machines having note acceptors, but they cannot actually support sex workers' rights?

I welcome this motion today, and I look forward to working with SA-Best and the Hon. John Darley in Advance SA to eradicate gambling donations from our political system. I urge Labor and Liberal to consider where this leaves our political debates. We know that it takes courage and that courage is not something that political parties necessarily embrace. We saw what happened to the Tasmanian Labor Party when they said that they would ban poker machines from their pubs and clubs: the gambling industry came in in force and that Labor Party policy has now been abandoned.

We ask the Labor Party in particular, but also all political parties and all members in this place: do not abandon the very people who most need our support. Do not abandon, for a few pennies from gambling income at election time, the very people that this place should actually be protecting. Ensure that these industries do not unscrupulously profit from South Australians, do not treat animals with cruelty and do not get away with corruption, fraud and profiteering. With those few words, I wholeheartedly support the motion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:46): I rise to speak in support of the motion from my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and I endorse the powerful words spoken by the Hon. Tammy Franks. Earlier this year, the Australian Electoral Commission published shocking figures that exposed the vulgar amounts of political donations made by the Australian Hotels Association to the two major parties and the now defunct Australian Conservatives.

Money buys influence and it buys elections. It is that simple. You may ask, 'What level of influence?' The proof is in the soon-to-be-debated gambling bill, which will see a turbocharging of poker machine addiction in this state if left unchecked. SA-Best will do everything in its power to stop the worst of the measures from being passed. The government's proposed changes are nothing more than payback to the poker machine barons for their support during last year's elections. It is payback to the Australian Hotels Association for waging a war against Nick Xenophon and the team to prevent SA-Best from getting anyone elected in the lower house at the 2018 state election.

We went into that election with sensible and comprehensive reforms for the pokies industry, including a gradual reduction scheme that would see a 50 per cent reduction of those insidious machines over five years; $1 maximum bets per spin and reducing the maximum jackpot to $500, which would reduce losses to $120 per hour rather than the current capability of over $1,000 per hour in losses; the removal of EFTPOS machines in gaming venues; and a reduction in opening hours. These were among the many measures proposed. What did the now Attorney-General say at the time of these sensible measures, and let me quote her:

…the most damaging change of policy since Labor broke its promise to 'never, ever close the Repat'.

And she added:

Nick Xenophon's decision to abandon his long crusade against poker machines brings into question exactly what he stands for.

How disingenuous. What does the Marshall government stand for? It stands for more and more of those poker machines and more and more revenue from those who cannot afford to lose. Make no mistake: they are the pokies party, and the AHA loves them for it.

The audacity of the Attorney's comments are especially galling now that, 18 months later, she is responsible for introducing measures that will see a massive expansion of poker machines in this state that will only serve to harm South Australians. SA-Best wants these devastating machines phased out while the Marshall government wants to see a proliferation of them everywhere. They suck money from workers' wallets and pensioners' purses.

The Attorney has not consulted with those battling at the coalface of gambling addiction about the many harmful measures in the bill. She has simply taken her cues from the AHA, that note acceptors and EFTPOS facilities in gaming venues will only turbocharge the industry. That is exactly what the AHA and Clubs SA want and the Attorney has delivered.

Poker machines are already in the majority of the state's pubs and clubs, housed in 511 venues in South Australia, with a staggering 12,210 machines still taking money from South Australians. As of June 2017, there was an average of nine poker machines per 1,000 South Australian adults.

Poker machines are concentrated in South Australia's most disadvantaged areas, with South Australians losing $680 million over 2016-17. We know from the Productivity Commission's report into gambling that 15 per cent of regular poker machine players are so-called 'problem gamblers'. It is these gambling addicts that provide the lion's share of profits to poker machine barons. If there was any doubt about the power and influence these poker machine barons have over the major political parties, you just need to look at the upcoming gambling bills.

Money buys influence. South Australians are not stupid; they can connect the dots. Playing the pokies is not entertainment for our elderly citizens, as the Attorney-General seems to apply, it is an addiction. We also know through the Productivity Commission's report that the majority of money lost in these machines comes from pokies addicts.

If you still think playing the pokies is fun, go to the pub underneath the Myer Centre, which is a few metres from this place, and observe the people playing the machines. Most exhibit addictive behaviours that addiction gambling expert Paul Delfabbro and others have reported in their research in detail. As Tim Costello, chief advocate of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, has said so eloquently:

What happened in Tasmania and South Australia in early 2018 was nothing short of disgraceful and now that we've seen the size of the pokies money that was poured into those campaigns, we need Labor and Liberal to agree to a complete ban on gambling donations similar to what they have done with tobacco.

It is time to unplug from poker machines and cut ties with political donors from the gambling industry, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has already pointed out. I implore my colleagues to vote with their conscience on this motion. Do not take the party line. I will be moving a small amendment to the motion to include not only licensed gambling operators but also their industry bodies, such as the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs SA. As such, I move:

Paragraph 4—After 'operators' insert 'and their industry bodies'

With those words, I commend the motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:53): It does me no good to be continually opposing motions being moved by the Hon. Ms Bonaros; nevertheless, on behalf of the government, I will do so. The government opposes the motion that the Hon. Ms Bonaros has moved. Given the lateness of the hour—and I know a number of members have very significant engagements ahead—I will not speak in great detail. My views on gambling in general are well known in this chamber. I describe myself as having a 'small c' catholic view about gambling.

I acknowledge the problems of the small percentage of people who are problem gamblers. I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros in her own motion says that 4 per cent of the adult population play poker machines and 15 per cent of those are problem gamblers. Well, 15 per cent of 4 per cent is 0.6 per cent, so it is a very small percentage. A lot of the prevalent studies have demonstrated over the years that, interstate and in South Australia, it is around that order. Some of them sometimes show it as a little bit higher, but the overwhelming majority of gamblers are recreational gamblers who do so as a form of recreation.

They do not become problem gamblers and it is their choice as to how they spend their money, as opposed to going to the movies, eating at fine restaurants, drinking fine wine, trail bike riding, riding $15,000 bikes, or whatever it might happen to be. It is their money and if they do not cause any grief to themselves or to their nearest and dearest, and it is manageable, then, as I said, I have a long-held view that people should be allowed to make that choice.

I have been flagging for 20 years the concerns about interactive gambling and online gambling, and I am pleased to see that this motion at least acknowledges the prevalence of sports gambling. The preponderance of people concentrating on attacking gaming machines as the sole source of problems in terms of gambling, in my view, for 20 years has missed the point.

I remember having the debate with the Hon. Nick Xenophon more than 20 years ago in relation to a select committee, highlighting the fact that in those days I was only talking about interactive television sets and sitting in your lounge room at home. I had not contemplated the circumstances today where young people in particular are just betting on their mobile phones, or their computers or tablets, on all sorts of sports betting options not only here but around the world.

We can control some of those sites but we cannot control the sites from around the world in terms of the gambling. The Hon. Mr Xenophon was elected on a platform of gaming machines. That was his concentration and I respect that but, as I indicated then, and I think the proof of the pudding has been in the eating, the issues of the future will be in terms of online gambling—not just sports betting but online gambling—in relation to mobile phones and the like.

The honourable member has referred to the Australian Gambling Statistics. While she has quoted some figures in terms of the total gambling spend, I have not checked this personally but my advice is that those figures demonstrate that while South Australia has about 7 or 8 per cent of the population base, only 4.5 per cent of total expenditure for all gambling comes from South Australia, so we have much less than our population share in terms of total gambling expenditure.

It is of no great significance, nor is the figure of $23 billion in terms of gambling spend because if the overwhelming majority of that gambling spend is by people who are not getting themselves into trouble and it is their recreational pursuit, why should we the parliament stop people having a recreational pursuit which they enjoy, which is causing no grief to them or indeed to their nearest and dearest? The final part of the resolution is the full-fledged assault from SA-Best on the hotels industry. The honourable member says:

During the state election, both major parties, flush with funds thanks to this group of wealthy poker machine barons, aimed all their venom at SA-Best…because we have a policy to reduce the scourge of poker machine addiction in this state.

Can I make two points in relation to that. I have not checked this, but the honourable members says that in the days leading up to the March election, SA Liberals received $12,500 on 8 March and $12,500 on 14 March. That was what she quoted. I am assuming there might have been other small donations in the period leading up to March. I have not taken the trouble to go back to that but, given the cost of election campaigns, if the honourable member thinks that contributions of that size dictate a political party's policy direction, she is sadly misguided.

What I can say, and say proudly, is that people who donate funds to the Liberal Party do so on a clear understanding that they do not dictate policy direction of the Liberal Party. The debate that we are having in relation to land tax is the perfect example of that. We were criticised at the first meeting after the budget speech, when people stood up at the Property Council meetings and said, 'We donated to the Liberal Party and we expected this.' I made it clear then and I make it clear again today: this government is not to be bought. This government makes decisions, as we see it in our view, in the best interests of the people of South Australia.

On some occasions, our views will coincide with people who support us financially, morally and otherwise. On other occasions, they will be different from the views of people who support us financially, morally and otherwise. People donate to the party, support the party or volunteer for the party in the full knowledge that they cannot buy policy decisions from the Liberal government.

That is a clear and understandable position, amply demonstrated publicly by our position on legislation such as the land tax and indeed some would say, for example, the position that we adopted on the mining legislation. We have been criticised that we have ignored the views of some of the people who have supported us for many years, financially, morally and otherwise.

It is a clear demonstration, contrary to the views that SA-Best is putting, that the Liberal Party—I will let the Labor Party speak for themselves—are capable of being bought in relation to donations for policy direction. We are not, have not and will not put ourselves into that position in relation to policy direction. We, therefore, do not support paragraph 4 of the motion, which is that there be a complete ban on political donations by licensed gambling operators, although I am not sure why unlicensed gambling operators should not be banned as well.

The simple issue is, compared with some other jurisdictions, we have a very robust public disclosure regime in South Australia. It is one that was supported in a bipartisan fashion by the Liberal Party when introduced by the former Labor government. It was negotiated between the major parties and I think maybe supported by all the parties at that particular time. We believe that people are able to donate to political parties but should do so on the clear expectation that they cannot buy policy direction or influence in relation to the decisions of the political parties.

That disclosure regime is robust. If it needs to be improved on occasions, we should debate that. As to this whole notion that we can pick off particular industry sectors and say, 'We don't like you and because you support parties that have views different from ours on gambling, you should be banned,' but anyone who supports views that support the views of SA-Best should be allowed to continue to donate, I can give examples of prominent industry sectors that have supported, both financially but also in kind, through the provision of voluntary labour on polling booths on election day, crossbench parties who supported their particular policy position on a number of important political issues in the state.

Again, I do not say or assert, as SA-Best have done towards the Liberal Party, that that necessarily bought policy influence of the crossbench parties. It may well be that their views were that anyway and these particular industry sectors were prepared to support those parties as a result. If you wanted to be unfair about all of this, you could make the same assertion that the mere fact that someone provided in kind support to a crossbench party, and their position was the same as that on an important issue to be debated by parliament, meant that in some way influence was bought.

I do not make that assertion and I think it is unfair for SA-Best to make the assertion about me as an individual and my colleagues as individuals that we are capable of having policy positions bought through the mere provision of political donations leading up to an election campaign. With that, I indicate our strong opposition to the motion before the house, even as amended.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:04): I thank honourable members for their respective contributions, in particular the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Treasurer. As we know, the motion supports the call for a complete ban on political donations for reasons articulated well by both Ms Franks and Mr Pangallo. I do want to clarify that it is intended to capture profit-making gambling operators and they are plentiful. It is not, for example, intended to capture charities and charitable organisations running a lottery, and I did undertake to provide that clarification on the record. In response to the Treasurer's point, it does not cover unregulated gambling because that is already in breach of legislation.

I note that I will be supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. We have all spoken now at length about the quantum of political donations from the AHA and the trend of donations in the lead-up to the election. Despite what the Treasurer says, I maintain that those donations are obscene.

I am bitterly disappointed that the opposition has decided to not even speak to this motion today. It is a cowardly move and I know that there are many of them who feel sick to their stomachs knowing that the political party to which they belong happily accepts money from gambling entities and operators but does absolutely nothing about it. Their stony silence today is a clear indication of how they will vote.

Despite what the Treasurer says, gambling addiction is devastating South Australian families. Poker machines continue to outstrip all other forms of gambling, despite the rise in online gambling. In terms of some of those statistics, we know that Australia has 20 per cent of the world's poker machines, yet only 0.3 per cent of the world's population. We lose more at gambling than any other nation, with $1,000 in per capita losses, mostly because of the prevalence and ferocious hunger of poker machines.

I make no apologies for the comments that I have made in relation to the Liberal Party on this. They have been dubbed the pokies party, not us. The Treasurer's words come as no surprise to me today. Of course, the Labor Party is responsible for introducing these insidious machines into this jurisdiction 25 years ago and since then South Australians have lost $15 billion. I ask the question: how many lives have to be devastated as a consequence of the cash grab in gambling tax revenue by the Liberals and lapped up by the previous Labor government? I have met with them and I would question how many our Treasurer has met with and whether he mixes in those circles.

I think Ian Horne summed things up really well last week on David Bevan's program on the ABC when he referred to the gambling legislation that this government is proposing as 'our' legislation. It was not the government's legislation. It was not the Liberal Marshall government's legislation. He referred to it as 'our' legislation, and that in itself says everything about this government's policy direction when it comes to gambling.

Every story of gambling addiction is a tragedy and every loss of life is heartbreaking. I say that those who continue to support the industry through sympathetic legislation and political parties that happily receive donations from the state's poker machine barons should really think about who they are meant to be serving in this place. We will soon be debating the legislation that Ian Horne referred to as 'our' legislation—not the government's legislation, 'our' legislation. We will see then where we all sit in terms of gambling in this jurisdiction.

I am going to finish by quoting once again Tim Costello, the chief advocate of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, who said that Australia would not begin to tackle 'our world's worst levels of gambling harm' until political funding by licensed gambling operators was banned. He said, and I quote:

What happened in Tasmania and South Australia in early 2018 was nothing short of disgraceful and now that we've seen the size of the pokies money that was poured into those campaigns, we need Labor and Liberal to agree to a complete ban on gambling donations similar to what they have done with tobacco.

I am disappointed with the opposition. There is still the opportunity to side with SA-Best and the Greens in support of the motion and vote with your conscience to support a ban on gambling donations derived from the poorest and the most destitute, and those addicted to problem gambling and poker machines in particular.

Amendment negatived.

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10