Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gambling - Mandatory Pre-Commitment System) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:52): I rise to speak on the suite of gambling reform bills now before us in this council. Before I do, can I acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her commitment to gambling reform. Since the moment she stepped foot in this place, she has worked tirelessly on this issue.

There are three pieces of legislation which, while absolutely well intentioned, I think together represent a piecemeal approach that focuses on the fringes rather than the real issue at the heart of current and future gambling harm in this state. The first bill, the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Mandatory Pre-Commitment System) Bill 2024, would compel all users of gaming machines in South Australia to register and use a card with a preset expenditure limit. While harm minimisation is an important principle, this bill is blunt and unbalanced. It would impose major compliance costs on hotels and clubs, many of which are small, community-based organisations. Our Casino would only be impacted in respect of machine-based gaming.

The bill also ignores the lived experience in New South Wales, where a proposed trial of mandatory precommitment struggled to attract meaningful participation. Reports show that even those who did participate often found the system impractical. This is the wrong lever to pull. We believe a one-size-fits-all limit might prevent some losses but could equally drive others to the unregulated online environment, where there are no spending caps, no player checks and no consumer protections. So I indicate that the Liberal Party will not be supporting this piece of legislation.

The second bill, the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Opening Hours and Signage) Bill 2024, proposes to further restrict gaming hours and impose new limitations on signage both inside and outside licensed venues. It would require a mandatory six-hour closure for all gaming machines.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Centofanti, you cannot really go on to the next bill. You cannot anticipate where we are at with that. You can indicate—

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is fine, Mr President; we will deal with them separately then. I will just place on the record that I indicate the Liberal Party will not be supporting this current piece of legislation—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —or the other two, but the piece of legislation we are currently dealing with, the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Mandatory Pre-Commitment System) Bill 2024.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:55): I rise to support this bill, and thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing it before this place. We know she has long worked to end gambling harm in this state and will continue to do so.

This bill introduces a mandatory precommitment system with a restriction that caps the amount of money a person can spend on poker machines within a set period. It is actually completely in line with the code that already exists around precommitment, but in a voluntary form. Far from being piecemeal, as the opposition has described it, I would have thought it was practical.

It ensures players are able to set their limits before they start gambling and help prevent those runaway losses. We know that precommitment schemes do provide a path for gamblers to set and track their spend, and we also know that gamblers often underestimate their gambling expenditure by substantial amounts, so this harm minimisation piece of legislation simply codifies what is already done voluntarily, and will go a great way to assisting people.

We also know that some 400,000 plus Australians are moderate or high risk gamblers, and the implications for a cohort of that particular group are things like homelessness, child protection issues, domestic violence, suicide, self harm, housing stress, poverty and relationship breakdown, so surely this is the least we could be doing. I would have hoped there would have been a position from the Liberal Party that accepted good ideas, no matter where they came from and no matter how large or small they were. While this might be a small measure right now, it would have a big impact on people's lives.

I am also interested to know whether or not the Liberal opposition has a conscience vote on this or a party vote. Historically this seems to have been a conscience vote on both sides; we now know it is no longer a conscience vote for the Labor caucus, but I had not heard it before that there was always to be a Liberal position as such. I would be interested if the Liberal Party could make it clear in upcoming debates whether their position is conscience or party. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber, and I look forward to seeing where the numbers lie.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:57): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Mandatory Precommitment System) Bill 2024, and want to thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her long standing advocacy in this area. I was going to have my remarks touch on the other suite of the bill but I just realised, based on your ruling, sir, that I will not be able to do that. That is okay; I will just quickly talk about this particular bill.

I understand there is a genuine concern that this bill seeks to address—specifically about problem gambling, etc. I certainly believe in harm minimisation initiatives that encourage and support responsible gambling practices, but I am very cautious that it may give rise to unintended consequences over regulation. I believe it is essential that the South Australian gambling framework strikes a careful balance between consumer protection and business viability, particularly for our bricks and mortar venues that operate under strict licencing accountability measures.

These venues are not the Wild West. They are regulated environments: they are monitored, they are staffed, they are subject to codes of practice. When we push people out of these controlled spaces through excessive restrictions, we risk driving them towards unregulated, unsupported platforms, including offshore online gambling sites where no safeguards exist.

The mandatory precommitment system proposed in this bill, while noble in its intent, raises serious concerns about privacy, feasibility and costs. Requiring every player to register, nominate a bank account and set spending limits may deter casual users and create barriers for responsible gamblers. It also places a significant financial and technological burden on venues, many of which already struggling. Turning to measures proposed, I will not talk about the bills because I cannot. That is alright, I am skipping that part.

The PRESIDENT: You can indicate very briefly whether or not you are going to support the other bills, I guess.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I indicate that, while I acknowledge all the good intentions of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I will not be supporting this bill or the other related bills.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:00): I rise to indicate my support for this bill and in doing so I want, as other speakers have done, to recognise the leadership of the Hon. Connie Bonaros as she has often been a lone voice, with the support of the Greens, pushing on this issue. I recognise her long-term advocacy in this space over the eight years that she has been in this parliament.

Gambling is a real scourge on our society, and over the years I have had the opportunity to talk to constituents who have had their lives literally ruined by gambling and these addictive practices. It comes at a huge social cost to our community, so I think we have an obligation to do what we can to try to put more guardrails around this behaviour and to try to reduce the exposure of people in our community to gambling-related harm and addiction.

The bill the honourable member is bringing to a vote proposes to introduce a requirement that it be a condition of a casino or a gaming licence holder that gaming machines and automated table games have a precommitment system. The system proposed in the bill requires that there be a registered user, who will identify who is using the machine. It will set a yearly expenditure limit of no more than $20,000, and it will require the player to have a break of at least two minutes in every one-hour period. The bill also imposes a penalty for noncompliance of $35,000. I really welcome that. I think that certainly would be a positive advancement and one that would help a lot of South Australians at risk of problem gambling.

I note the comments made by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, Leader of the Opposition, who indicated this is a piecemeal approach. I do not accept that. I think this is a circumstance where something is certainly better than the status quo. If one considers this within the suite of proposals that we are dealing with today, if one considers it within the context of the proposal to legislate the times in which gambling products, betting services and apps are not permitted to be advertised on television or radio, which I think is a really positive change as well, and if one considers it in the context of the proposal to restrict the operational hours of gaming machines and automated gaming tables between 2am and 8am, what we are dealing with is quite a comprehensive suite of measures.

I indicate that I will be supporting the Gambling Administration (Limitation on Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Opening Hours and Signage) Bill as well. I am mindful of your ruling, Mr President, but I am just indicating, as I am discussing the suite of measures in the context of the critique made by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, that I will be supporting those other bills as well.

This is an issue that I really want to continue to work on during my time in this place. The Greens are campaigning to axe pokies. We want to see them out of our pubs and clubs and recently I called for a commitment to phasing out pokies by 2030 and setting up a support package for those businesses. That is something I definitely want to continue to campaign on, but I certainly support these measures as a really important improvement on the status quo and commend the honourable member for putting them forward.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:04): I rise to speak on behalf of the government on all of the three bills proposed by the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC, first of all the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Mandatory Pre-Commitment System) Bill. I indicate that we will not be supporting this bill or the next bill, but we will be working to make amendments to the third bill when we get around to it.

The mandatory precommitment system bill aims to reduce gambling harm in South Australia, especially in relation to gaming machines in hotels, clubs and the Casino. In the second reading speech, it is noted that the honourable member indicated the bill is in line with the current voluntary precommitment code under the casino and gaming machines regulations. However, there are significant areas of uncertainty and potential challenges for the industry.

For example, the bill says the precommitment system must allow a user to set daily, weekly, monthly or yearly spending limits, but it does not require that a person must set such a limit. It is also unclear whether limits would apply across all venues. If that were the case, major system changes would be needed, and the cost timeframes for this are unknown.

Another issue is that the monitoring systems for hotels and clubs are separate from the Casino. For this reason, limits could not currently apply across those forms of gambling. Even if implemented, the bill may not achieve its intended harm reduction outcomes. A cost analysis has not been done for a mandatory carded or cashless system with precommitment, which is expected to cost several million dollars and take years to develop and implement. As stated, we will not be supporting this bill, but as stated we will be working with honourable members to amend the other bill. On that note, that is it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:07): First, I would like to thank all honourable speakers today. I do not know that the positions of honourable members are as honourable as their places in here, but certainly I—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not know if their position on this policy is as honourable as the title. I was very careful there. I think the position in relation to poker machines is far from honourable, but I will thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tung Ngo, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Robert Simms, particularly the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Mr Simms for the only contributions that actually made any sense to me.

Last year, South Australians lost a record $1 billion—$3 million a day—$24 million in Mount Gambier alone. That is kids and families across the great state going without food, off the back of poker machine addiction. Let's be clear: the majority of the losses that we are talking about do not come from recreational gamblers; they come from problem gamblers with gambling addictions. They come from our most vulnerable socio-economic areas across the state. Twenty-one billion dollars over 30 years; that is what poker machines have cost this state.

So here I was thinking that, with those political donation reforms that we moved earlier this year, we were finally going to get some movement in this space, we finally did not have to worry about the gambling lobby and its influence over politics. How stupid of me to think that we would be here today considering a package of bills that actually aim to address this issue. How could I overlook our over-reliance and our own addiction to the dollars that pour into government coffers off the back of problem gamblers in this state and actually think the government and the opposition would have the backbone to do anything about it? How stupid of me.

Far from reducing poker machine losses, as the government and opposition predicted, we know today that since note acceptors were removed our revenue for government is at a record high. It is $1 billion a day. It is the first time in history we have reached the billion-dollar mark: $1 billion from poker machines in South Australia. I do not exaggerate; that is what I am being told.

I still get reminded—I was promptly reminded by somebody in this place just a few days ago—of the 2018 election and the catastrophic consequences reforms like these could have on election day. That is the response I got to this bill: the catastrophic consequences these sorts of reforms could have if we actually flirted in this space and tried to bring in some reform.

I am not even going to talk about the opposition. I think they wear this as a badge of honour. I have sat through every contribution Rob Lucas has made in this place for years on end. I accept that the opposition have a position that they wear proudly in relation to poker machines and the gambling lobby in this state.

For this Premier to be so out of touch with public sentiment is beyond me. He is a smart man. He knows how to do a public sell. He knows—I know he is smart enough to know—that these things are on the nose, but ignore and deflect: that has been this government's approach. Just like those opposite him, he is not even willing to entertain a discussion. Ignore and deflect: that has been the motto when it comes to poker machine harm in this state. If I need to remind anyone in here who tells me to get off my high horse: $1 billion, that is the losses South Australians are incurring today from poker machines in this state alone.

We talk about Mount Gambier in here on every single given occasion, and the problems that regional town has. Just Mount Gambier is $24 million.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: It's an outrage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is an absolute outrage. So I am not going to be lectured to by anyone in here either on this. The public sentiment on this, let me tell you, is not on the side of the government, and it is certainly not on the side of the opposition. These things are on the nose in the community, and there is one thing and one thing alone that keeps them in our community, and that is our addiction to the revenue they bring in.

I will not forget the moment when last year I watched the then Treasurer give an outline of the budget papers. Huge slideshow; there it was, for all his sectors to see, and he proudly talked about the three biggest revenue streams that contribute to our state coffers, and in that top three was guess what? Gambling taxes from poker machines. It is one of the single pillars that we rely on for our budgetary outcomes in this state. That is a disgrace. That is nothing to be proud of. It is an absolute disgrace.

If I hear once more, 'Find me the money Connie, and we will get rid of poker machines'—because that has been the response I have received for the last I do not know how many years I have been around here. That has been the response for a very long time: 'Find us the money, and we will gladly get rid of them.' That has been the response to poker machines and gambling revenue overall.

The former head of the AHA in 2014, on the 20-year anniversary, spoke about the 20 years of poker machines in SA and said, 'Poker machines have delivered $5.7 billion in direct taxation in those 20 years. No other consumer product has done that.' Those words were profound for all the wrong reasons, but they are absolutely reflective of consecutive governments' over-reliance on what we all know is the single most harmful product in our community. It completely ignores the long-term impacts of poker machines and, worse still, the long-term costs, not only to our society and our community but to our budget. The long-term cost far outweighs the short-term sugar hit you are getting from your billion dollars a year in revenue from poker machine losses.

Let me end by saying, and reminding us all in this place, and the government and the opposition in particular, that the lack of appetite to do something about poker machines is at odds with every sentiment out there in the community. It makes me sick. We are elected by the people for the people and your actions in this place—or inactions in this place on this issue, I should say—clearly show that when it comes to this issue you are not here for the people, you are here for yourselves. That is the bottom line: you are here for yourselves, because if you actually cared about a single person who has been impacted by these things then you would consider, you would actually open your minds and entertain doing something different and actually making a difference.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.