Resolutions

Online Gambling

Consideration of message No. 45 from the House of Assembly.

(Continued from 23 July 2020.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:46): I move:

That the council concur with the resolution of the House of Assembly contained in message No. 45 for the appointment of a joint committee on online gambling; that this council be represented on the joint committee by three members, of whom two shall form the quorum necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee; and that the members of the joint committee to represent the Legislative Council be the Hon. Ms Bonaros, the Hon. Ms Franks and the mover.

There have been discussions, as I understand, in the other house about the need for, firstly, this particular committee. I will not go on at length about the whole debate about online gambling. I think all members acknowledge the growing significance of online gambling. Often, when we have debated gaming machines in this particular chamber over the decades, I have highlighted the fact that, yes, gaming machines are important but that the clientele who use gaming machines are likely to become a smaller clientele over the years—sadly, as many of the users die off due to their age.

The growth in online gambling is amongst people of all age groups but in particular younger South Australians. Anyone who has adult-age children will know that many of them spend a good amount of their time on their devices, generally mobile phones, and engage in all sorts of standard betting options but also some exotic betting options, involving trying to pick the winners of the World Series, the Premier League, the Champions League and a variety of other options in terms of multibets. Some of these may well take up to 12 months to be concluded but have the lure that the lucky person who picks the lot of all these worldwide sporting events generally attracts a very significant sum of money in terms of winnings.

Of course, there are standard options in terms of racing and the various football codes, etc., that are available regularly, and increasingly these days non-sporting events, such as political contests and various other options in terms of online gambling. As I said, I am not going to speak at length in relation to the subject matter of the debate; nevertheless, the House of Assembly has requested the committee, and our processes are such that we either agree or do not agree, and then we nominate the members.

I indicate that normal procedure in this place is to have a member of the government, a member of the opposition and one member from the crossbench. In accordance with that practice, I sought the nomination of a member of the opposition to this committee and was advised that there would not be a nomination.

Although I have not had direct discussions—these have been going on between the shadow treasurer and the Attorney-General, who has carriage in the other place, and what goes on in the other place we will leave to members of the other place—my understanding of what is going on there is that there has been a submission or request that their normal practice of two government members and one opposition member might be changed in the House of Assembly.

I do not think I have ever been aware of that occurring in the House of Assembly under the former Labor government, where the government did not nominate two government members to a joint committee. We have to bear in mind that a joint committee is a joint committee, which means there are equal numbers from both houses: in this case it is three from the House of Assembly and three from the Legislative Council, which is generally the standard practice.

I will leave the negotiations—or however you might want to characterise what is going on in the other place—to those in the other place. All I can indicate is that we have to respond to this particular motion in this chamber, and the process is that I have to propose that we agree, which I do, to the joint committee, and I have to propose three members, which I have done.

As I said, in accordance with our normal practice I sought a nomination for a member of the Labor Party, but when I was advised that was not the case I had a quick discussion with the Hon. Ms Franks, because the crossbench's original nomination was the Hon. Ms Bonaros. I guess the other alternative was that the government could have nominated another member, but that would have disturbed the balance of the committee.

The balance of the committee will be, as it generally is, three government members and three non-government members, as is currently proposed. In the interests of not disturbing that balance, under the current proposal there will be three government members from two houses, one Labor member and two crossbench members, so three government and three non-government members. That would constitute the usual balance, albeit the non-government members would be in a different composition than normal.

I am sure that means very little to the millions of people tuned in to the direct telecast of Hansard, but I wanted to explain that to members in this chamber so that they understand the reason I am moving the motion in this particular way. I seek the support of the chamber for the motion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:53): I will not repeat the comments the Treasurer has made in relation to why the committee is being set up. However, I will comment on some of the commentary around the formation and make-up of the committee.

As happens to allow the efficient running of this place and negotiations between parties, I am informed there was an assurance and an agreement, as an essential element of the opposition's support for the government 12 months ago, that this committee be established and not only that the committee be established but that on this occasion Labor would have two nominees in the lower house. This will go back to the lower house, and if assurances and agreements are not complied with as they were given it will make it very, very difficult to come to agreements in the future.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:54): I rise to indicate SA-Best's full support for the establishment of this committee, and I look forward to ensuring that we deal with this inquiry as effectively as possible. To say that the increasing popularity of online gambling fills me and others with fear I think is a gross understatement. I think there is acknowledgement across the room that online gambling is a huge issue and it needs to be dealt with.

We know that virtually anyone, anywhere, at any time of the day can gamble their lives away, and there is absolutely no escaping it. We know children are being targeted and groomed towards gambling products. Children under 10 are playing online games and being enticed to purchase mystery loop boxes which may or may not contain something of worth to them, such as a skin or access to a special game feature. We are doing absolutely everything we can to create the next generation of gambling addicts, and it is safe to say that screen time in most households has increased considerably since the onset of the COVID pandemic, making it even more concerning.

There are some interesting statistics, which I will not go into now, but I think what we can agree is that this is a problem, it is a current problem and it is facing future generations. Right now we know that more money is poured into poker machines than any other source of gambling in this country, but I think it is very timely that we look at online gambling seriously and see just what the costs of that form of gambling are.

There is some research that was done by the Australian Gambling Research Centre late last year. That was during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two thousand gamblers were surveyed during that time and the survey results showed that 32 per cent of survey respondents gambled four or more times a week, which was an increase of 9 per cent. Almost one in three signed up to a new form of online gambling. Horseracing, greyhounds, sports betting and Lotto continued to be the most popular products to bet on. The expenditure of male respondents in the age bracket of 18 to 34 increased from $675 to $1,075 per month as an average.

There are lots of very concerning statistics like this and it is very timely that we should be looking into this issue. Data released in June 2020 also showed that 11 per cent of early superannuation withdrawals, accessible due to COVID, was spent not on necessities, not on renovations, not on a new vehicle, not on the cost of living, but instead on gambling. It is estimated that Australia as a country lost nearly $25 billion to gambling in 2017-18.

They are jaw dropping figures that continue to rise. As we know, and I have said in here a million times over, per head of population Australians are the world's highest gamblers. We are the world's biggest losers in that respect, too. Losses are no longer limited to the opening hours of a poker machine den or a TAB outlet because the advent of online gambling means it is available 24/7.

Even when you recognise you have a problem, it is hard to get away from it. It is constantly in your face. You cannot turn on a footy game, the radio or the TV without being given market updates. You cannot open a weekend newspaper without being bombarded with full-page ads. It is relentless and it is very damaging.

There is not a lot that you cannot bet on these days. I think the Treasurer just touched on this. International sports draft picks, the gender of a royal baby, election results, the colour of someone's tie, everything is up for a bet. When sports were all but shut down throughout the world at the time of the beginning of the COVID pandemic you could still place an online bet on Russian table tennis matches at 2am. There is always something there to feed someone's gambling addiction. It is relentless, as I have said, it is addictive and it destroys lives.

It means that you no longer have to take the walk of shame to the betting counter at your local bar or walk into a poker machine den. No-one even has to know that you are doing it. I know from young people that I know not only how accessible it is but how accepted it is amongst them. That is very concerning to me, because you know that inevitably minors are accessing these gambling products as well.

There are baiting advertisements all over the news. I have written to the federal Attorney-General with concerns over online casinos attempting to draw in customers via social media advertisements or media advertisements that say something like 'Breaking news' and that some superstar died and you press on the link, or 'this person made $1 million'. It is baiting advertising. You press on the link and instead it takes you to an international and online casino site. These are sites actively targeting Australians and South Australians and it is very clear that improvements need to be made.

With those words, I absolutely welcome the establishment of this very important committee and look forward to working with all colleagues in addressing this issue. Before concluding, I want to touch on the issues that have just been raised by the government and the opposition and remind members of the history of this motion. As we know, it was the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill that saw this inquiry proposed in the first place.

That bill was introduced in the other place in September 2019 and it finally passed in this chamber on 13 November 2019, much to the credit of the opposition, which, together with the government, did a cosy deal to make gambling addiction worse than it has ever been in this jurisdiction. It was an absolutely deplorable contribution on the part of the opposition, which refused to contemplate even the most sensible of amendments. To be honest, they may as well not have been present for the debate at all, such was their contribution to gambling regulation in this jurisdiction.

They did a deal and said that their hands were tied and that they could not back away from that deal, and that deal of course was to allow note acceptors into this jurisdiction. That was to undo the single most effective harm reduction measure that South Australia has ever had in place. The opposition made no apology for that. In fact, they said their hands were tied, they did not contribute very much to the debate (it was only a couple of minutes, from memory) and refused to consider even the simplest of amendments that were geared towards providing some protections for gamblers. I found that extraordinarily disturbing.

In fact, I expected the position of the Liberal Party, but to learn that the opposition had stooped to that same level was, in my opinion, the most disappointing display I have ever seen from them in this place. As part of their support for that bill, and for the government's so-called reforms, the government also agreed to this joint committee into online gambling. This was also agreed to at least in September of last year. That bill, as I said, was finalised at the end of November. It is 16 February today, and I know that I am not the only one scratching my head wondering why we have not got this inquiry off the ground. There certainly has been a lot of chatter.

I have certainly made myself privy to conversations that have taken place between the government and the opposition about why this bill has not moved. It should not take those sorts of conversations to get this onto the agenda of this place, it should be important enough that the government and opposition want to bring it on for a vote and want this inquiry to take place, otherwise they have done nothing more than pay lip-service to the establishment of this inquiry in the first place.

I absolutely and sincerely hope that this is not just a reflection of how frivolously both sides have treated problem gambling in this jurisdiction for years and years. I have no doubt that, when the inquiry receives submissions, hears evidence and hears the cold hard facts of gambling addiction, it will smack all serving members in the face. I honestly and genuinely hope that they can put aside their political—whatever it is; I do not know what to even call it anymore—addiction—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Donation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —maybe donation addiction; maybe they are good places to start—and take seriously the issues that this committee has committed to reviewing. I am not going to get caught up in who agreed to do what between Labor and Liberal. Frankly, I do not care who serves on the committee. Obviously, I want to be on there, and I have made that known, but the formation of the committee in terms of the two major parties is something that should have been worked out a long time ago, and if you are serious about getting this done then let's just get on with the job at hand.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:05): I had not intended to speak today, but the Greens rise to support the creation of a joint committee on online gambling. I reflect that the Greens, SA-Best and Advance SA were all vehemently opposed to the legislation to allow note acceptors in poker machines in our state, which saw what I would call a dirty deal done behind the scenes to allow that to happen, with some concessions and some handwringing, particularly from the Labor Party, that they had this safeguard of an online gambling committee that they had managed to wrest out of the largesse of the government.

Facial recognition technology was also put up in that piece of legislation by the Labor Party as somehow a protecting mechanism against the scourge of predatory gambling, particularly with poker machines, and yet we know—as the Greens raised in that debate and now have a private member's bill on—that facial recognition technology is actually used by the gambling industry to groom gamblers, not to prevent harm.

The Hon. Tung Ngo looks at me with interest. It is used by the gambling industry to groom gamblers. Facial recognition technology is put on its showcases and described as, 'Bring back the old Vegas,' when you can know that punter's favourite drink, when you can give them a ticket at the bar to be taken great care of in the old-fashioned way. Their name will come up and the staff in the venue will know exactly who they are, exactly what they like to drink, exactly what they like to eat and get the best experience to groom them for further gambling.

Facial recognition technology was in no way a panacea or a prevention of gambling harm as the Labor Party has reported, as they wrung their hands and said that it was terribly hard for them but they came to this conclusion that they had to support the legislation because apparently the Labor Party had got some safeguards. The other safeguard was an inquiry into online gambling. Indeed, here we are in the upper house and the voices in opposition to the bill are quite willing to step up where the Labor Party's opposition has been found wanting yet again when it comes to the scourge of predatory gambling.

It is quite extraordinary that it has been 15 months since these deals were made, or perhaps more, because we know they were made behind closed doors and possibly well before the legislation came before this place. However, it is 15 months since the legislation passed this place and here we are, we are still waiting for the online gambling joint house committee to even meet for a first time, to even get the approval of this place.

It has sat on the Notice Paper, languishing, and those crossbenchers, including the Hon. Connie Bonaros and myself, have been scratching our heads and wondering what on earth was going on. We have seen revealed today what has been going on, which is that the Labor Party, with their handwringing and their facial recognition technology panacea that actually promotes gambling harm rather than prevents it, had never actually done a proper deal to stop online gambling harm either. They did not want the crossbenchers involved whatsoever and they sure as hell did not want the Greens or SA-Best on this committee.

The Greens are happy to help populate this committee. We will step up in leadership against the scourge of gambling if the Labor Party is unable to populate this committee. I am certainly indicating to the chamber that I am more than happy to serve on this committee to ensure that there is a balance between the two houses, given the Labor Party has been found wanting yet again on this matter.

I note also that the regulations under the new legislation, through the work of the commissioner and the Attorney-General, have sought to prevent facial recognition being used to groom gamblers, but they are only regulations and I certainly would not trust those regulations in the hands of a Labor government.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:10): I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out 'the mover' and inserting 'the Hon. T.J. Stephens'.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:11): I thank the Hon. Mr Stephens for moving it. It was my error in moving the motion. I used the standard template, which was two other members and the mover. It is not going to be me, it is going to be my very good friend and colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens. Obviously, I support the amendment that has been moved and I advise members, if they would not mind staying, that we need an absolute majority for the next motion after this should this motion be passed.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That it be an instruction to the joint committee that the joint committee be authorised to disclose or publish as it thinks fit any evidence or documents presented to the joint committee prior to such evidence or documents being reported to the parliament.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That Legislative Council standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the joint committee is examining witnesses unless the joint committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the joint committee is deliberating.

The PRESIDENT: I note the absolute majority.

Motion carried.