HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GAMING MACHINES (HOURS OF OPERATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:46): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Gaming Machines Act 1992. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I indicate to the house that this is a private members bill and it requires a conscience vote and, therefore, should not be interpreted as the policy of the state Liberal Party. This bill simply changes the hours of operation for poker machines outside of the casino so that they cannot operate between 3am and 9am. Under the current provisions poker machines can operate for 18 hours in a 24-hour period, and the six-hour break can be made up of one six-hour period, two three-hour periods or three two-hour periods. What that means, of course, is that hotels and clubs can arrange their trading hours so that within suburbs there is always a trading venue open.

A couple of years ago the Premier made a big song and dance about reducing the number of poker machines with a view to reducing problem gambling. I raised, during that debate, this concept, and this legislation now brings to this chamber a debate about the concept of having one uniform closing period of six hours. I do not accept that the reduction in poker machines that has occurred in the past couple of years as a result of the Premier's legislation has successfully achieved what the Premier claimed it would; that is, a reduction in problem gambling.

I argued at the time, and it is still my belief today, that all that legislation did was provide a mechanism to take poker machines from low turnover/low profit venues (mainly regional areas, and in some cases city clubs) and get them placed in what will become, and have become, high turnover/high profit venues. As a result, there is a greater concentration of poker machines in the lower socioeconomic suburbs of South Australia.

I put to the house that, if all poker machines were closed for a uniform six-hour period in pubs and clubs, that would give a clear six-hour break for gamblers who might have a problem. It would also allow 18 hours for people who wish to gamble to do so. The question will be raised: what about the issue of shiftworkers? My answer to that is very simple: shiftworkers generally do not work 18 hours, seven days a week. There are still 18 hours in the day for anyone to go and play the poker machines, if they wish.

I think there is plenty of flexibility within that 18 hours for people to arrange their social time to go and have a flutter on the pokies, if that is what they desire. However, I do believe that a clear six-hour break is a better measure to try to address problem gambling than the measure that was introduced by the Premier and then voted on as a private members' matter.

Some people will say: 'What about the casino?' The casino has an agreement with the government that contains a compensation clause in regard to change of trading conditions, so I have left the casino out of this particular measure. My view is that if we can deal with the clubs and pubs, I doubt whether people from Noarlunga, Gawler and even the inner suburbs, are going to travel late at night (at 3 in the morning) into the casino to gamble. Indeed, I think there would be very few who would do that.

As I stressed: this is a private member's bill; it is not a policy of the state Liberal Party; it requires a conscience vote as far as the Liberal Party members are concerned; and I seek the support of the house. I think this measure will be of significant benefit to those in the community who are involved in betting on gaming machines, because I think that having them open all hours does create some problems. I think having access restricted between 3am and 9am is the minimum of what the gap should be. I know some would argue: why not make it 10 or 11?

The reason I have stuck to six hours is that there is currently a six-hour provision in the act, and I am trying to make it uniform. I also think there will be a simpler administration, because one would only have to worry about the one period. One would not have to worry about trying to supervise which club or hotel is closed, whether it is three lots of two hours, two lots of three hours or one lot of six hours—this makes it uniform. I think this brings an easier and simpler administration to the bureaucracy in relation to administering the act, and I seek the support of the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT