Statutes Amendment (Gambling - Opening Hours and Signage) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2024.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:21): I rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill seeks to ensure that poker machines in this jurisdiction are turned off between the hours of 2am and 8am. It is a modest move, but an important one, especially when you consider the harm gambling causes, particularly in those late night and early morning hours when people are most vulnerable. The current requirement that exists in our laws is for venues to close their poker machine rooms for at least six hours a day.

There is also reference to signage in this bill. It is something that has been the subject of agreement in part before—again, like the previous bill. It is one of those things that everyone agrees is really good in theory but then when it comes to the practice, they do not want to do it, and they certainly do not want to legislate for it. I am interested that the Liberal opposition is possibly not even going to put anything on the record with regard to their position on this.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will take the interjection that they say they did in the first speech. We understand then that they are opposing this bill. I would say this is yet another small measure that could go a long way to addressing the harm. There is, indeed, over a billion dollars now being taken by poker machines in this state each year annually. A significant part of that does cause harm to people and that has social costs. So unless we are willing to do the bare minimum, and this is probably the bare minimum, I do not see that we should be taking what is effectively blood money in this state.

I also note that when we saw the most recent reforms, the whole-scale reforms to poker machines in this state, Labor and Liberal worked together to ram through legislation with the promise that there be a joint house select committee to look at online gambling and those harms. That has never eventuated, so how can we take you seriously when you say that you care at all about proper legislative reform on ensuring that we do not have gambling harms in this state.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:23): I touched on this briefly in my previous remarks, but I also support this bill and thank the honourable member for putting it forward. I really hope that the Labor and Liberal parties can drop the double act on this issue and actually put at the forefront of their decision-making the South Australians who have had their lives destroyed by pokies and other forms of gambling in our state. As has been mentioned in this debate, we lost a billion dollars on pokie machines in South Australia in the recent financial year for the very first time. That is a really grim milestone for our state and the Labor and Liberal parties are complicit in that.

I do not think it is ethical for the South Australian government to continue to take that revenue when we know it destroys lives, so let's do what we can to try to turn off the tap and I see this proposal from the Hon. Connie Bonaros as moving us in some part.

Might I also say that it is a false economy for the government to be so reliant on gambling and pokies revenue because we know that, for every bit of money that comes in through gambling, governments are required to spend a huge amount of money dealing with the terrible social mess. So I urge the two major parties to show some moral leadership on this. I know that many of you would disagree with the terrible social harm that is caused by pokies and by gambling in our society. Now is an opportunity to actually show some moral leadership on this question.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:25): I just feel that, given the confusion in the chamber, I should place on the record that, as I indicated in the debate on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling—Mandatory Pre-Commitment System) Bill, the opposition will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:26): I speak on behalf of the government on this bill. This bill seeks to address 24-hour gambling by preventing players from moving from one venue to another when one closes. Research cited by the honourable member indicates the highest risk period for gambling harm is between midnight and 8am. The bill also proposes banning external gambling signage, based on similar bans in European countries, to make gambling venues less enticing for someone who walks past.

Currently, casino trading hours are governed by the approved licensing agreement, which allows operation every day except Good Friday and Christmas Day and non-premium gaming areas must operate from 5pm to midnight daily. Under the approved licencing agreement, two privileges in place for SkyCity Adelaide include retaining exclusivity until 30 June 2035, including rights to 200 tables and 1,500 machines under the casino licence. Consequently, any legislative restriction could trigger a contractual event and lead to SkyCity Adelaide seeking compensation of up to $150 million.

The bill also proposes prohibiting gaming between 2am and 8am, plus an additional six-hour closure; however, the bill does not specify the timeframe for the extra six hours. The Gaming Machines Act already requires six hours of closure in each 24-hour period. By removing the 24-hour reference, we will create ambiguity. In addition to this ambiguity, implementing these changes would require the commissioner to amend every gaming licence, demanding major Consumer and Business Services' resources and additional funding.

While research supports late-night closures to reduce harm, South Australia already has measures in place which allow and encourage responsive, research-based restrictions. Consequently, the government will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:29): I thank the honourable speakers: the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Tung Ngo.

The biggest disappointment on this bill is not that the government and the opposition are not supporting the bill, it is that you have both missed an opportunity, an opportunity that has never arisen before and is canvassed in this bill. I will tell you why. There was actually an appetite by the AHA to engage in discussions on this bill. I had the discussions myself. I know that those discussions were had because I took part in those discussions. They were willing. They were actually willing, not that you would know because you did not engage, you did not ask, you just assumed that that was their position. They were actually willing for the first time ever to entertain and to have a discussion and to give a little on the issue of signage.

But the government would not know that because it did not think it was necessary. The opposition would not know that because they probably did not even check. There was absolutely no appetite from either major party in here to sit down, and not talk to me, but talk to the AHA about what we could do to address what even they acknowledge is problematic when it comes to signage in this state. Do you know what? I will go one step further. Without divulging private conversations, I will go one step further. I reckon there were other things that the AHA would have gladly actually given because they can see some problems that need addressing, and this would have given us an opportunity to address them.

Two missed opportunities, but none of you would know that because none of you bothered to check. None of you bothered to check with them to see whether there is anything in here. You can shake your head all you like, but I had the discussions and I know what was up for discussion and what was not. Opening hours, of course, is not up for discussion. We know that because we do not want a situation where we extend our closing hours beyond six hours in a 24-hour period.

We know why we have the six-hour period. We know that the person with the gambling addiction who is going to a venue to gamble in that six-hour window is going to gamble at one venue for three hours, and then as soon as they close the doors they know that down the road there is another venue that they can pop to, and they will gamble there for three hours, and then that venue will close its doors and they will go straight back to where they started.

We know there was no appetite to discuss that, but none of you even tried to have any discussions, not only about opening hours but about signage, the single thing in here which could be addressed. If you did not like it, and I do not know if this is news to all of us in here, but this is what we do. Government, when you introduce a bill, rather than me just saying, 'I am opposing it,' I come to you with amendments. That is how we deal with these things. There is another bill on the table. There are amendments that have been subject to discussion. You bring amendments and you try to deal with the problems that you have. Take out the opening hours provisions altogether. Get rid of them. Remove them and give in on the bits that actually help when it comes to signage.

There is a venue out at Smithfield, and as far as the eye can see, all you can see strewn across this venue is 'pokies'. The whole bloody building says 'pokies'. Everyone has acknowledged that that sort of advertising is obscene, absurd and unnecessary. If I want to find a poker machine, I know where to find one. The rest of us do not need it up in neon lights across South Australia. But we missed that opportunity because no-one bothered to engage in discussions that could have actually made a tiny dent in the package by engaging in discussions around the one element of this bill where there was some wiggle room. We will put that in the too hard basket, we do not care, it is not our job, job done. Well done to all of you.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.