HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GAMING MACHINES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 November 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:24): When I commenced my contribution on Tuesday and then sought leave to conclude, I indicated that I wanted to place on the record some figures to support some of the arguments that I had developed on Tuesday. In the first instance, I wanted to refer to the level of gaming machine taxes collected in South Australia after the government took the decision supposedly to crack down, as the Premier said at the time, on problem gamblers in South Australia by slashing the number of gaming machines in the original estimation by 3,000 but, as it turned out and as we know, by just over 2,000. In gaming machine taxes, the estimated results for the financial year 2003-04 were $280 million; in 2004-05, it was $297.7 million; in 2005-06, it was $293.1 million; and, in 2006-07, it was $312 million.

As I indicated on Tuesday, soon after that there was a decline in net gaming revenue and also gaming machine taxes because of the introduction, at that particular time, of smoking bans in gaming establishments, in particular, in hotels and clubs; and that decision did see a significant impact, at least for the first few years anyway, after 2007. In that period during which the number of gaming machines was being reduced, there was still a modest but reasonable growth in gaming machine taxation revenue collected by the state government, as I said, from $280 million up to $312 million in that three year period, an increase of $32 million in gaming machine revenue.

Those of us at the time—and as I indicated I opposed the bill at the time—said it was political tokenism; it was a political stunt. It was claimed by the Premier and the politically correct at the time that this was going to do something about tackling problem gambling in South Australia. There was no evidence presented at the time for that and I think the facts speak for themselves, in terms of the NGR figures I tabled on Tuesday and the gaming machine tax figures that I have just listed today.

Since I spoke on Tuesday, there has been another (from my viewpoint, anyway) extraordinary story in this saga of pokie machines or gaming machines in Australia. I do not want to talk about the details of this case because it is only one of a number, but it does raise how the whole place has been turned on its head by the politically correct and those who want to attack the gaming industry specifically, and the pokie barons in particular.

This is this extraordinary notion that, for the unfortunate 1 or 2 per cent who are problem gamblers, or virtually in all circumstances if someone loses money on gaming machines, there ought to be some legal entitlement to take action in our courts against the proprietor of the gaming machine establishment or whoever the gambling provider might happen to be. We have the circumstance where someone is taking the punt, has an addiction or a problem, and the view of the politically correct and those who want to attack the people they refer to as the pokie barons is that there should be some right of recourse in the law and responsibility to take action against the proprietor of a particular establishment.

As I said, I am not going to enter the debate of this particular case in the last few days because I think it is still continuing before a court, but it raises the general question—and we are all aware of any number of examples in recent times where this sort of argument has now been developed.

I well remember one of the many disagreements I had with my very good friend and colleague, the Hon. Mr Xenophon, on gambling issues when, during the select committee which the Leader of the Government served on for a period of time, there was this extraordinary notion supported by him and other politically correct in our community that what we ought to be pursuing as a policy option was the option for people who take a punt to be able to void a loss that they incur on their credit card with a gambling provider, after they had lost.

So, they take the punt. If they win, I am sure they would not want to void the transaction, but then if they lost there should be some legal entitlement against the banks to be able to void the loss ex post the bet. That was just an extraordinary proposition, and it obviously has not yet transferred into policy action—but who knows at the federal level? I guess it is a pretty good deal if you are a punter; I am not sure that the gambling providers and the banks would be overly happy. I am sure that the punters would not want to void their transactions if there was a collect to be had. It is an extraordinary interpretation of what we ought to be doing in the world if somehow there is this argument that we ought to support some sort of policy notion like that.

It is just an example of what is wrong with this whole debate at the moment. As I said to someone yesterday, just give me a break if you are going to start that sort of argument in relation to the admitted problems of a small number of people in our community. It is a problem that they have. We as a community, as a government and as a parliament need to do all we can to assist them, but assist them is what we should be doing. We should have a sensible form of regulation, and we all support that, but sadly there are some in our community who want to take it beyond the realms of sensible regulation.

It is an easy headline. The politically correct know that sections of the media will jump on board the pokie barons headline. The Premier leads the charge on occasions, the Hon. Mr Xenophon leads the charge on other occasions, and there are any number of other fellow travellers who want to target the pokie barons. As I said, you can count on one hand—and you might not have all five fingers on your hand—the number of occasions you will ever see anyone stand up and support the industry, despite the fact that 98 to 99 per cent of people happily and without problems can gamble as a recreational pursuit.

As I argued on Tuesday, if I choose to spend $50 on the punt or a pokie machine as opposed to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire spending $50 down at the local hotel with a few sherbets and a counter tea, and if I get my jollies through having a punt as opposed to having a drink at the local hotel, then what is the problem? What is the problem? Of course, my $50 will go on the collections as a loss, and—shock, horror—you know I have lost $50, but the $50 that Mr Brokenshire has spent at the local pub on a few sherbets and whatever else is not characterised as a loss: that is a recreational pursuit that he has enjoyed and is entitled to, and we do not have the politically correct attacking his expenditure patterns as a result of that.

That is the problem with this whole debate. It has been the problem since the introduction of these machines in the early 90s and, whilst I never expect there to be a fair go in terms of this whole debate, because I am a realist—I know where the media interest is, where the media column centimetres will be in the newspaper, and the stories in the electronic media—I hope over the coming years there will at least be some in this parliament who on occasion will be prepared to speak up on behalf of the overwhelming majority of people (the 98 or 99 per cent) who quite happily want to have a punt.

It is going to become important because some of the changes being mooted may well impact significantly on the opportunities for the 98 per cent or 99 per cent to have a bet on gaming machines, if that is their preference, as a result of the federal government's deal with some of the Independents. The second area I said I would bring back some information on is the massive growth in sport betting. As I said, there is all this focus on the highly regulated gaming machine industry. Now, the punt is actually stabilising. It still accounts for the overwhelming majority of punting dollars in Australia but it is already starting to dip and we are seeing massive increases in online betting, and we are going to see that change in the coming years, mark my words.

As a result of having raised this issue, I thought I would bring to the chamber some examples. As I said, any person can sit in the privacy of their home, the parliament or their car with their iPhone, download an app and bet away their savings, and they can use credit on any number of betting options in South Australia, Australia, or around the world. Here is one example of an advertisement from Sportingbet. It says:

A bookie in your pocket.

Sportingbet is now available on your mobile!

Sportingbet mobile offers all racing markets for thoroughbred, harness and greyhounds with a large selection of betting products including Maxidiv, Exotics and MaxiFlex. Sports betting markets are also available for NRL, AFL, soccer, cricket, US sports and much more!

Simply enter sbet.mobi into your mobile browser and start betting!

That is all you have to do. It continues:

What is sbet.mobi?

sbet.mobi is a website designed for use by mobile devices. It allows you to bet using your mobile device 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Existing Sportingbet customers—Use your Sportingbet internet account details to log into sbet.mobi.

Try it now!—Go to the address—

and it gives the address—

on your mobile devices' web browser. Remember to 'save' the link so you can get there easily next time!

That is how easy it is at the moment. We are talking, this afternoon and however long this debate goes, about whether we should close down gaming machines from midnight until 10 o'clock or for three hours or three hours continuously, or whatever else; and, whilst we are attacking the pokie barons, the same problem gamblers can go and sit in their cars, homes, or whatever, and 24 hours a day, seven days a week punt on anything all the way around the world. Simulated gaming machine punts are available through various exotic locations and sites around the world also.

As I said, I do not have any figures on poker, but online poker is again available on your mobile phone. Since I spoke on Tuesday a number of people have spoken to me and said they know a bloke who is a professional (a lawyer) who works in one of the legal firms in South Australia at the moment who spends half his waking life (I am sure that is an exaggeration) whilst at work—and billing customers, I suspect—playing online poker at any hour of the day. These are the real world examples of what is going on at the moment, whilst all this focus is on gaming machines in pubs and clubs and the casino here in South Australia.

I want to quote from an article from IBISWorld in relation to this whole massive growth in sports betting. It says that IBISWorld looks into the gambling habits of our punting nation. The average Australian household spends 3 per cent of its disposable income on gambling. It says:

'Stronger growth in sports betting, punting on racehorses and purchasing Lotto tickets have been fuelled more by a shift away from spending on other gambling pursuits—such as casinos and gaming machines—than by any overall change in the amount we spend,' said IBISWorld General Manager (Australia) Robert Bryant.

We're seeing the knock-on effect from indoor smoking bans which have led to weaker growth in the casino and gaming machine segments, alongside the fact most states have capped the total number of gaming machines permitted to operate. However, despite this trend, gaming machines remain incredibly popular in this country,' he [noted].

Then, under the heading 'Betting on the ball', it goes on to say:

If it has a ball, or a scoreboard, it seems we'll bet on it, with IBISWorld figures showing sports betting has been the big winner of the past five years increasing market share of gambling spend from 1.1 per cent in 2004-05 to 1.9 per cent today. That translates into a current annual spend on sports betting of $2.9 billion, compared to $1.6 billion five years ago...

That is an increase in annual sports betting of $1.3 billion per year in Australia in the space of just five years. The quote continues:

'The rise of online betting sites has fuelled strong growth in sports betting with its quick, simple, do-it-yourself format appealing to an increasingly broad audience,' commented Mr Bryant. 'Sports betting, particularly in its online format, appeals to casual gamblers, who find it much less intimidating than casino tables or even betting with a bookmaker at the racetrack. People who wouldn't necessarily spend time at their local TAB and who may never have played a poker machine are having a go at sports betting online.'

'Casual gamblers seem to enjoy the fact that sports betting is more a test of knowledge than a mere game of bluff—like a lottery ticket or a poker machine—and the odds are often competitive since online operators don't have the high costs associated with retail premises,' added Mr Bryant.

IBISWorld believes another key contributing factor in the industry's stellar performance has been the proliferation of outcomes on which people can bet, such as first to score, highest score, margins—

clearly, from the Pakistani cricket experience, I do not think there is any more exotic bet than betting on whether or not a certain bowler will bowl a no-ball at the last ball of a particular over—

and the fact this betting can be done in real time, which of course makes watching the event more exciting (and potentially more expensive). 'We anticipate this year's Football (soccer) World Cup beginning in June will be a major factor driving growth in sports betting for the financial year as avid fans eagerly await—and bet upon—every golden goal, winning score and, of course, the team that eventually takes home what many believe is sport's ultimate prize.'

The final part I will quote from this IBISWorld release is under the heading, 'Girl power'. It states:

The rise and rise of poker machine gambling has seen women become a much more permanent—and big spending—fixture in the gambling stakes over the past decade, but it's in the sports betting field that female gambling is exhibiting healthy growth.

'Female gamblers who may perceive the TAB or oncourse gambling outlets are male-dominated bastions are finding their way to online betting sites, where they can not only bet on sporting fixtures but also non-sporting events such as the outcome of reality TV shows, election results, interest rate decisions, Logie winners and a range of other activities which have not traditionally been gambling fare,' said Mr Bryant. For more information …

All of that sort of exotic betting, not just on sports but on Logies and on interest rate decisions, election results, etc., is available 24 hours a day off your mobile phone application as you sit in the privacy of your home or your office.

Another quote from an Age story in 2009 quotes the draft Productivity Commission report, saying that in 2008 there were about 424,000 online sports wagering accounts in Australia and that had been a 100 per cent increase in just four years. I suspect that number in the last two years would have increased even more significantly. An October 2009 press release, entitled 'TABCorp eyes mobile and online gambling for future growth', states:

TABCorp managing director and chief executive [with the best name ever], Elmer Funke Kupper, has flagged mobile and online gambling as a major source of future profitability. Noting the company's investments there during the 2010 financial year at the company's annual general meeting, Funke Kupper said demand for mobile device-based gambling in particular was on the rise. 'During the year we continue to invest in online technology [and] we launched an app for the iPhone and the iPad, which so far has been downloaded by more than 100 customers,' he said.

So, here is Mr Funke Kupper saying in 2010 that their mobile phone app had been downloaded by more than 100,000 customers, and that is just TABCorp, and TABCorp alone is just one provider. There is a lot more in his press release, but it just highlights the massive growth they have been experiencing in online betting and what they see as the future for online betting. A similar story, 'Centrebet reports Australian online sports betting revenue up 23%', states:

Con Kafataris listed Australian bookmaking company Centrebet…has reported revenues from online sports betting, and racing in particular, were the star performers in its business over 2008-2009.

He goes on to say, 'Australian online sports betting revenues jumped 23 per cent for the year to $32.9 million'. Again, in his press release—the same as Mr Funke Kupper, on behalf of Tabcorp—he highlights the massive potential growth in online betting for their company.

Those figures and quotes are just a small selection of a very large number that I could have put on the record to demonstrate that, whilst all this focus this afternoon, in the last few years and the next few years will be on the supposedly evil pokie barons of the world and gaming machines, the whole world is going on around this whole debate. Yes, properly regulated industry is important, and we all support that, but the real world out there is seeing massive growth in sports betting and online betting, online poker and other gambling options, which increasingly have been taken up by individuals, women and young people in particular, as their preferred gambling option.

The final issue I will raise in my second reading is a brief outline of some amendments that I have placed on file to indicate the background to the reasons for some of those amendments. There is an unduly onerous approach to gaming machine regulation that we have in South Australia. In making that statement, there is no evidence given by the Hon. Mr Xenophon or the welfare sector (they call themselves the 'concerned sector'), or others to demonstrate that we have fewer problem gamblers as a percentage in South Australia than in any other state of jurisdiction on the nation.

Given all that focus we have had—we have had the No Pokies MLC, and now we have the No Pokies Senator—and given the controls in South Australia, which do not exist in some of the other states and territories, one would have thought that, if all of the claims that were being made about how successful these restrictions were going to be, someone would now be able to produce the evidence and say that we are much better performers in terms of tackling the gambling problem in South Australia compared to anyone else.

I have to say, having again read the debates in this chamber and listened to the debates recently at a national level, that there is no valid evidence to argue the case that we are better performers in South Australia as a result of all the things that we have been doing. One of the things that we have done relates to restrictions on the type of gaming machines we can have in South Australia. One of the issues that I am raising, by way of my amendments, concerns what is essentially accepted in most other jurisdictions in the nation in relation to gaming machines; that is, in most other jurisdictions—and I will outline that in a minute—you can not only put coins into the machines to have your punt, but you can also put in notes.

There is the capacity for a note acceptor in machines in many other jurisdictions. The advice that I have been provided with indicates that in New South Wales, for example, the gaming machines will accept notes up to $100. In Victoria, gaming machines will accept notes up to $50. In Queensland they can accept notes up to $20 and a maximum number of five notes at a time. In the Northern Territory, I think only in the casino, they can accept notes up to $100. The ACT can accept notes up to $20. In Tasmania, I think again only in the casino, they will accept notes up to $100. Western Australia, of course, only has gaming machines in the casino and I understand they accept notes up possibly up to $100. In New Zealand, I am advised that machines there accept notes up to $20.

In South Australia, of course, it is banned. South Australia would appear to be the only state or jurisdiction where there is a complete ban on note acceptors in a machine. So in essence, in South Australia, if you are one of the 98 or 99 per cent of people who does not have a problem and you want to put a $5 note in or a $10 note in and you do not want to run around carrying $5 and $10 bundles of coin all the time and you want to put your money in and have a punt, in South Australia, you cannot do it. In any other state, in either the casino or in some of the pubs and clubs, you are able to do it.

That does then create significant issues for gaming machine manufacturers as well. You have to provide different machines with different capacities and facilities in South Australia as compared to other jurisdictions. I am not doing this from the viewpoint of the gaming machine manufacturers. I have had no contact with the gaming machine manufacturers at all. I am really doing it as an example, I think, of where we in South Australia race down this path of everyone wanting to think up the next best restriction to place on the poker machine industry, never having to justify that it will actually work or do anything and never having a review afterwards to show that it has actually worked.

I acknowledge that there are varying conclusions being drawn from research around the nation in relation to note acceptors, some saying it has no impact at all and some arguing that they believe that it does have some impact. From my viewpoint, my argument simply is that, for the 98 or 99 per cent of people who want to gamble on a gaming machine and want to put a note in, most of the other states do have restrictions up to certain denominations of notes or whatever it might happen to be and certainly that would be part of the regulatory process in South Australia in terms of what that limit would be, so I am going to test the view of the committee by moving amendments along those lines as well.

I will canvass two issues in my amendments. Members can actually vote to allow note acceptors and just note acceptors into machines in the future in South Australia. The other option by way of a further and additional amendment with which I will be testing the waters in the committee stage is what is known as ticket-in, ticket-out which again exists in some other jurisdictions in Australia. Ticket-in, ticket-out is a technology used in most modern slot machines or gaming machines. I am told it was originally developed by International Gaming Technology and Casino Data Systems under the name EZ Pay.

A ticket-in, ticket-out slot machine prints out a barcoded slip of paper which can then either be redeemed for cash or inserted for play into other ticket-in, ticket-out machines. This particular machine utilises a barcode scanner built into the bill acceptor, a thermal ticket printer in place of a coin hopper (some rare machines are set up to play with coins if the payout is less than the payout limit and to print a ticket in situations where a hand pay would normally be required) and a network interface to communicate with the central system that tracks tickets.

Some of the advantages claimed for the ticket-in, ticket-out system are that the hopper fills are virtually eliminated, thus minimising cash flow, because each machine can hold up to $400 in coins. If you are managing a casino with whatever number they have (between 700 and 900 machines, whatever that number is), then you are talking about a significant number of coins being managed. If you are running a hotel with 30 or so machines, you are still talking about a significant number of coins being held and having to be managed. That is one of the advantages.

Patrons no longer will have to wait for an attendant to perform a hand pay for large payouts. That obviously reduces manual handling issues and makes multi-denomination gaming machines possible. Some psychologists who have argued about the design of gaming machines in the past have said that one of the attractions for gamblers is the sound of the coins hitting the bottom of the tray, that it is some kind of turn-on for the addicted gambler. I cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of these psychologists' claims that this is one of the features of gambling on gaming machines that turns on some problem gamblers. Evidently, the sound of the—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: I've never heard it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can't say I have heard it either. I have seen it on movies on television, but the sound of the coins hitting the bottom of the tray in large numbers is evidently a significant turn-on for some punters. So some who are arguing for the ticket-in, ticket-out system say that is one of the issues that will be removed.

I hasten to say that I am sure there are those who argue against the ticket-in, ticket-out system, saying it makes it easier for punters to gamble on gaming machines. Again, I do not think there is any evidence one way or another which indicates that any particular argument is right or wrong. There is certainly no evidence that has been presented to me which would demonstrate one way or another.

I guess the point I make in relation to these amendments and to many of the other issues involved in this whole debate is that, sadly, in many areas the evidence is lacking before we, the parliament, rush into even further restrictions on the industry. The reason we do rush into further restrictions is we know that it is politically correct, it will be politically popular, and we will get a head nod because we are cracking down on the pokie barons. There is not the onus of proof to require the parliament, the legislators, or those who say this is going to reduce the number of problem gamblers or assist problem gamblers, to do so before we head down a particular path.

I want to conclude my contribution by repeating something I have said on just about every occasion I have spoken on this issue, and that is that, in my humble view, the 1 or 2 per cent of problem gamblers would crawl across cut glass to pursue their particular gambling addiction. You can close down venues; it is argued that we should have fewer establishments so that they have to drive further or whatever. If we have 200 establishments instead of 400, if we have them operating for 18 hours instead of 24 hours, it will not make a scotch of difference to the 1 per cent or 2 per cent who have a gambling addiction.

Their addiction is so bad that they will crawl across cut glass to get to the venue that is open or they will wait until a venue opens, and they will still lose the same amount of money over the same period of time, or they will turn to some other gambling option or alternative. It is an addiction or a sickness that they have; they need to be identified and they need to be assisted. We can pat ourselves on the back and get the hurrahs from the media and elsewhere by thinking we are doing something about it but in five, 10, 15 or 20 years, with all these restrictions, if we cut down the hours even more, we will still have 1 or 2 per cent of problem gamblers.

When we had this debate back in the mid-1990s it was 1 or 2 per cent of problem gamblers, and in debating this in 2010 it is still 1 or 2 per cent of problem gamblers in the nation. It is the same numbers and same percentages we are talking about, and those same people have a problem and they will crawl across cut glass to lose their money, whether it be on a gaming machine, on the new options now in the privacy of their home or on their online mobile phone, or whatever it might happen to be.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Dawkins says that they used to get on bingo tickets or on Keno. They would sit down at their local outlet and be doing Keno, and that is growing again as well. There are any number of options, if you have a gambling problem, to lose your money.

With that I conclude my contribution. I am not holding my breath that my amendments at this stage will be successful in committee, but I will certainly be dividing the chamber to have people stand up and be counted in terms of where they are on the particular amendments. I would hope that would be the case on all other amendments as well so that we can get a sense of where everyone is on the amendments. Let us monitor this debate in five or 10 years, because this bill will pass in some form or another. I hope in the end I am wrong and that in 10 years, whenever the bill is next debated, someone will say, 'Well, this was a huge success: that 1 or 2 per cent is now only 0.5 per cent, and it was as a result of the legislation passed, despite your warnings in 2010.' I am not holding my breath.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:02): I rise to support the second reading of the bill and I thank the minister for the briefing provided to my office. Most here have a concern about problem gambling and the impact of pokies in South Australia on problem gamblers and their families, perhaps to varying degrees. I am encouraged that in this debate the people of South Australia are represented proportionately by this upper house and will vote on measures to set an appropriate course for pokies in South Australia.

I find it interesting to note that the Liberals have a conscience vote on this, which is good. I am not sure the government members have a conscience vote at all, and that is very unfortunate. Having had to set up the first portfolio of the office for gambling, I note that it is an interesting situation, because former and existing treasurers' main focus is on revenue into government coffers. I have to say that, sadly, it does not matter whether it is a Liberal or Labor government; the treasurer of the day is focused on how much revenue they can get out of gaming machines and from gambling generally.

When problems started to occur fairly early in the peace, after gaming machines came in to venues other than the casino in this state, they were genuine problems. They were not dreamt up, but were bona fide problems. There was an inquiry, and consequently we had a minister for gambling. The first one happened to be me. We now have the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, but those ministers have one arm behind their back, as the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis would know now, even to the point where neither a Liberal nor Labor government has given absolute control of addressing and managing the finances around problem gambling.

It actually goes off to an area within Families and Communities, to another minister, and that in itself is an absolute frustration, because the minister of the day gets all the issues around regulation and managing all the gambling areas and has to deal with all the problems and defend all the time in the media and other places the issues around the consequences for families who suffer through one of their members at least having a gambling problem, but the minister does not even have control over managing the programs. It is a dog's breakfast.

I know treasurers will always want to have that revenue and that will be their main focus, but if we were serious about addressing some of the issues of problem gambling, one of the things we would do is give the Minister for Gambling the responsibility for managing the budget when it comes to issues around addressing problem gambling. Family First—no surprise—in an ideal world would not have gaming machines in hotels. We would have left it with the casino as the place to have gaming machines.

People say the sky would have fallen in if the hotel industry had not had the opportunity for gaming machines, but in Western Australia it did not fall in. The only place they can have gaming machines in Western Australia is in the casino. In fact, with one venue controlling gaming machines in Western Australia, I am envious of what I see when I go to Western Australia—their roads, hospitals, schools and infrastructure. I think part of it gets back to management and that is where the problem lies here.

I have said before and I will say it again and put it on the record publicly, realistically I do not see that we are ever going to get rid of pokie machines. The fact is that they are here and they are here to stay. Realistically that is the case. People come to me and say, 'Let's get rid of all pokie machines.' I ask them how you could do it. How you could do it legally and how you could financially afford to do it. We have to do everything we possibly can, given that there will never be the numbers in the house even for those of us who may want to get rid of all pokie machines for that to occur.

As I read it, over the 15 years I have been here, realistically we have to get the government to be more focused on addressing allegedly the 1 or 2 per cent, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said. It is a lot more than 1 or 2 per cent. One or 2 per cent may be to the point where they sell everything and basically lose the shirt off their back, but believe you me, out there where the economy is a lot tighter now than governments would make us believe, a lot more than 1 or 2 per cent are missing out as a result of these gaming machines and a lot more will miss out—and I do not see representation from the Council of Australian Governments through premiers either on this—because, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, of modern technology and the new forms of gambling which we are going to see.

The Hon. Robert Lucas talks about five or 10 years with gaming machines. I shudder to think what we will see happen as a result of the information technology opportunities for gambling in your office or at home 24/7. Not too many jobs created with that one either. My point is that I have been very disappointed to see the significant increase in revenue—at least $1 million a day in net tax revenue to the government—but very little other than lip service has been done to address issues around problem gambling and early intervention.

The industry has led the way all the way. It has punched above its weight on a pro rata basis and it is unfortunate that here we are today in this chamber debating this bill, but we do not see the government putting in adequate funding out of the $1 million a day that it receives to help problem gamblers. Believe you me, they can be helped. I spoke to a lady from Port Pirie last year who had a serious problem. She was one of the 1 or 2 per cent. She had counselling services available. The government could not even manage the contract renewal on those and, as a result, the non-government organisation that was providing them had to stop the jobs and I understand she went back to her old habits.

This government needs to answer the community and the parliament about why it is so heavily addicted to gambling and particularly gaming machines. Its focus on the revenue from gaming machines is a bit like its focus on mining—pretty narrow-minded and it forgets to look at all the other broader issues that are involved. I think the minister at the time, the Hon. Michael Wright, made a lot of fanfare about the fact that we were going to see 3,000 machines taken out of South Australia. We would have been led to believe when we listened to the debate—and I was certainly there at that time—that we were going to see those 3,000 machines exit pokie venues fairly rapidly.

That was six years ago, and here we are today still considering ways of achieving that target. Personally, I think more than 3,000 machines could have been the target, but we accept that that was the state government's target. The problem is that now we still have a situation where we see them not able to deliver on the promise that made such big headlines in the media at the time.

Speaking to the elements of the bill itself, the social effects test that is a strong element of this bill is, from Family First's point of view, and my own, a very welcome improvement to the industry, as is also the approval of venues provision. We could have perhaps avoided the West Richmond/Norwood community club/SAJC debacle that occurred had that process existed at the time. Having had quite a bit to do with constituents around West Richmond who were concerned about the new super venue going in there, I am pleased to see that at least the social effects test is there, and I congratulate the government for having that provision in the bill.

A legislative process compelling all parties concerned with a new pokie venue to talk to the community about pokies coming into the area is the type of community consideration we expect government to be undertaking, and we welcome this initiative. It was farcical to have community consultation come through a quasi-judicial process of public notification, and then a hearing before the commissioner, after a venue had already gone to a lot of expense on architecture, planning, and approvals for the venue.

The SAJC, which we believe was the driver behind the West Richmond situation, had done a lot of work getting the venue plans drawn up which were ultimately defeated by community advocates who work with us, and I commend my policy and legal adviser, Rikki Lambert, for his expertise and work undertaken with other honourable members in opposing that particular proposed venue. They only had to go down the road to Morphettville racecourse and they could have gone into one of the super pokie machine venues, anyway, but they were specifically and strategically targeting West Richmond because they saw the vulnerability of families there.

I suppose that, stung by the cost loss through that process, economic rationalism has convinced some of those industry sector people to now go to the community first about its concerns. We at Family First are but hand in hand with putting the community first, so this is a welcome change and I commend the government again. I note that the bill seeks to restrict the operation of coin machines from 2am to 8am, but for them to be switched off during those late-night periods. I note that one of our colleagues, the Hon. John Darley, has some amendments that Family First will be supporting.

I will not speak in detail to the amendments. I did organise for an email to go to honourable colleagues to give them further background on my amendments, but I will be removing and then inserting one new amendment, which has already been tabled, regarding the intention in respect of gaming machine numbers. The issue there is just in the process around how we can actually get to that target, if indeed the target of 3,000 is not reached by 31 December 2011.

Regarding the provision of no gambling before 10am, I understand that in terms of mandatory time off from gambling, Queensland has the most, with a 10-hour break. Of course, there are ways that venues, in liaison with the regulator, can get around that, I am advised, so all these sorts of unintended consequences again will need to be watched with this bill. One of our amendments expands our limit from 6 to 10 hours and, like Queensland, fixes that 10 hours to the midnight to 10am period. I note that in New South Wales, even though they have a six-hour break, their venues open at 10am. I understand that the only people you will find in our venues in South Australia at 7 and 8am, when the pokies are open, are actually those playing the pokies, unless there is a business breakfast, or something like that, in the hotel.

There is no sound public policy reason to have pokies open before 10am, in my opinion. I had an electorate office next to a significant and successful tavern at Woodcroft for several years, and it was always concerning to me to watch mums and dads dropping off their children at the college next door and then proceeding straight to the poker machine venue. That was not only at the college but also the primary school down the road. I am not sure that was in their best interests or those of their family. I doubt it would have been.

The government pointed us to research on shutdowns of late trading venues and, as I said, I note our amendment would force a shutdown at midnight. It is interesting that the New South Wales research by Tuffin and Parr from April 2008, which was prepared for the gaming regulator and investigated the impact of the mandatory six-hour shutdown period implemented there since April 2003, showed that 78 per cent of the 272 problem gamblers interviewed—so this was where there were proper interviews done with these people—which is a reasonably good sample, supported the mandatory shutdowns, with 54 per cent of the problem gamblers in strong support and 68 per cent saying that if the machines shut down they would go home. The report states:

Evidence from the qualitative research suggests that many problem gamblers feel helpless to break their play of their own volition and welcome measures to assist them to do so.

The government may claim it did not reduce the level of gambling as a result. Of course, those of us who believe that this is a good initiative can obviously debate the other way. We think, though, that, in combination with our measures and those put forward by other honourable members, an expanded mandatory shutdown of midnight to 10am, as they have in Queensland, would be a good thing. We strongly believe that.

I turn to the topic of children impacted by problem gambling. We did note some advice that we received from the government on minors in premises. The government claims no minors have been detected in approved gaming areas statewide during the 2008-09 period. In fact, even in the SkyCity casino where there is considerable effort going into checking ages, as I understand it, six minors were detected in 2008-09 compared to five the year before. Only one of those who actually got into the casino, I understand, was found to be gambling.

The government also reports that 5,714 persons sought entry to the casino in 2008-09 alone, and it is a little hard to reconcile so much interest by minors in getting into the casino with across the state not one minor being caught in gaming areas. So what I am saying is the casino is clearly working hard to keep minors out of the premises with 5,714 seeking to get in, but only one found to be gambling. I am a country person and I am sure there must be quite a number of minors getting in in my own town. The gaming venue is immediately alongside where you eat and drink in the general bar area.

Our amendments are not about minors who get into gaming areas, but they highlight that there already seems to be quite an interest by minors in getting involved in gambling, and taking preventive measures is a good thing—early intervention. I would like to see a lot more work done. It is difficult for the schools because, always, politicians and governments tend to think the schools can do everything. However, 'a stitch in time saves nine' is true, and it would be good if more education was done in the schools about the risks in gambling per se. So, what we are advocating here is an initiative early in the piece to prevent children being impacted by potential problem gambling.

A May 2010 report for Gambling Research Australia by the Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre (a joint initiative of the Victorian government, University of Melbourne and Monash University) entitled 'Children at risk of developing problem gambling' indicated that children of problem gamblers are four times more likely to become problem gamblers themselves. That does not surprise me; you see the same thing with other addictions within families.

The report states that gambling is a socially normed behaviour for children in problem gambling families, and the report recommended that campaigns be conducted to encourage gambling parents to reinforce to children the negative outcomes gambling can have and discourage people from gambling with their children or with their children present.

I have on file amendments about child play areas, which I hope the council will support. I acknowledge the amendments of my colleague the Hon. John Darley in relation to protecting children from exposure to gambling, amendments for which we have considerable sympathy.

I will touch briefly on the issue of forcing the 3,000 reduction target, and I will speak more about this during the committee stage. I have highlighted my concern that the model pushed by the industry in 2004 for a fixed-price regime has failed. If members look at the Hansard debate on this issue in 2004, I am pretty sure I am on the record as talking to the industry sector at that time and expressing concerns about whether or not the process that was being put up by the industry and government would work. We support the market price mechanism set out in this bill; I would have liked to see that from day one. However, we do not want to be back here again in six years' time, with the industry cap in hand saying, 'This didn't work either. We still have hundreds in circulation, so we need another mechanism.'

South Australia has waited so long for the government to deliver on its promise, so to help the government get on with it the amendment sets a 31 December 2011 deadline for the removal of 3,000 machines—and I understand that will be seven years since the commitment was made by this government. If government policy has changed and it is backflipping on the 3,000, it should let the South Australian public know. Just as justice delayed is justice denied, policy delayed, in my opinion, is policy abandoned.

With respect to better reporting, the last of our amendments improves the reporting on barring orders and other compliance activity. I believe that is straightforward and will give parliament better reporting on what regulatory activity is going on in the industry. I again remind my colleagues that the industry sector itself initiated voluntary barring way before the government came in with its policies. We believe that it would be a good thing for all South Australians if we had more transparency in reporting on issues around the success or otherwise of barring orders and the number of barring orders that are put in place and other compliance activities in order to provide more transparency for the parliament and South Australia as a whole.

In conclusion, I have some questions on notice for the minister. Clause 2A of the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice, which is headed 'Intervention Initiatives', enables gaming venues to get around legal obligations: to screen the sights and sounds of gambling (clause 4A); to restrict coin availability (clause 5A); and regarding loyalty programs (clause 6A(b)). To achieve this, the venue must have an approved intervention agency agreement. My first set of questions for the minister's officer arise from this situation, as follows:

What is the current list of approved intervention agencies?

Are any others seeking to become approved at this point in time?

How many venues, as a number and as a percentage, have approved intervention agency agreements (AIAAs) in place?

Has the government conducted investigations into compliance with the AIAAs?

What noncompliance with AIAAs has been identified and, in those cases, what action was taken by government and/or the venue in rectification?

The Ministerial Council on Gambling issued a communiqué in Brisbane on 10 July last year. In part, the communiqué reads, 'Minors should not be allowed to gamble or be exposed to gambling areas within venues.' My questions are as follows. In the 16 months since that communiqué was signed, what action has the minister taken, specifically on preventing minors being exposed to gambling within venues? How many machines short are we right now of the 3,000 machine reduction target? If I understand correctly, we still have some 750 to 800 gaming machine entitlements still in circulation since the debate in 2004, when I recall strongly opposing the fixed-price buyback model we ended up with.

Clubs SA has written to us with some concerns about the possible reduction of machines, the principle concern being the dilution of the number of machines in the club sector. Family First does preference clubs and family-owned hotels to the trend that we are seeing now, where Coles' or Woolworths' only interest, I believe, is the returns to shareholders and investors and not the prevention of problem gambling. That is why we understand some of the issues raised by Clubs SA as a sector, which is definitely community-based.

My question to the minister is: what legal protection is there for the clubs sector to ensure that the trading round for the 3,000 machine reduction will not see all the buyback machines disappear from the clubs and possibly end up in the ownership of Coles and Woolworths, which already have a massive duopoly, the way they are heading with hotel ownership?

Further, will the minister comment on the clubs' request that Club One be the bidder of last resort? That is, if a club wants to sell through the market process prescribed in this bill and the only buyer is a hotel, the clubs want Club One to be able to step in and buy it at the price agreed between the hotel and the club. That is their request.

I sympathise with the clubs' desire, but wonder if that is a workable process. I seek the minister's view based on what Clubs SA has said not only to me but I am sure to all colleagues. I then turn to the Productivity Commission's recommendations and ask: what is the government's progress with the $1 bet limit, coupled with a reduction in volatility of losses to no more than $120 per hour, and full precommitment?

With those questions on the record, and acknowledging there are a great number of positive initiatives in this bill, for which we congratulate the minister and the government, I trust that in this council, where we do have a majority of members with a conscience vote, we will be able to work through the amendments and hopefully come up with some further improvements.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (16:27): I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. Before I answer some of the issues that have been raised in the previous contributions I would point out that, in relation to Mr Brokenshire's comments, if there are any matters that I do not cover in my speech I will seek to have answers when we move into the committee stage.

Mr Lucas did mention that I was a member of the select committee that was looking into gambling, and that is quite true. Just in case it is misinterpreted, let me indicate that I supported the introduction of poker machines way back in the 1990s, and to this day I still agree with that decision. I still do not regret having made that decision. However, we do of course have to deal with the consequences of problem gamblers. We have always known that, and we address it where we can.

I agree with Mr Lucas's comment that there is significant growth in exotic forms of betting, particularly online betting. As I said, I was a member of the select committee some years back now and we considered those, and they have obviously grown since then. He said that, while most of the focus is on poker machines, there are also other forms of betting which are growing without control, and I think he makes a very significant point there. However, let me go on to address issues that were raised by members in their contributions previously.

This bill proposes amendments to the Gaming Machines Act 1992 to create better responsible gambling environments in South Australia, to reduce the cost and risk associated with regulation and for a number of administrative improvements. This bill signals the government's first steps in addressing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. During the second reading contributions a number of issues were raised. Subsequently, a range of amendments to the bill have been proposed, which I would like to address now.

The Hon. Mr Darley is proposing an amendment to the bill to make it explicitly clear that objectors would be entitled to be party to any appeal proceedings. The government intends to support this amendment. It is considered that a court would accept that individuals and community groups that have objected to an application for a grant or transfer of a gaming machine licence are entitled to be a party to any appeal proceedings. This amendment proposes to make this explicitly clear in the Gaming Machines Act, and therefore the government supports it.

There were a number of issues raised in relation to the proposed approved trading system for gaming machine entitlements. This bill proposes to remove the fixed price for gaming machine entitlements in order to stimulate the market. The fixed price was identified by the Independent Gambling Authority as the reason some venues do not want to sell their machines. In 2005, there was a compulsory reduction of 2,168 gaming machine entitlements. Three trading rounds were held on 11 May 2005, 21 September 2005 and 16 April 2007 that resulted in a further reduction of 50 entitlements, with 21 venues selling all of their entitlements. This leaves a further 782 gaming machine entitlements to be removed before the 3,000 target is achieved.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is proposing an amendment to the bill so that, if the target of reduction of 3,000 in gaming machines is not achieved by 31 December 2011, the government must figure out a scheme for acquiring the outstanding gaming machines with compensation at a price fixed by the commissioner. The government intends to oppose this amendment. We are confident that the amendments proposed will significantly accelerate the reduction in gaming machine entitlements. More importantly, the trading system provides an avenue for venues that want to exit the gaming machine industry.

This was a key objective of the Independent Gambling Authority's original recommendations. Setting an artificial deadline could have the reverse effect. It would create uncertainty in the market affecting decisions on whether to buy or sell gaming machine entitlements and for how much. The point is to open up the market, not introduce further controls that could end up becoming a new impediment. It should also be noted that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is asking the parliament to reverse its clear intention, documented in section 27E of the act, that no further compulsory reductions, compensated or otherwise, would be contemplated until at least 2014.

The Hon. Stephen Wade in his second reading contribution asked: is the government committed to active engagement of community interest in the development of the regulations for the electronic gaming machines entitlement trading arrangements? I can assure the Hon. Mr Wade that the government is indeed committed to active engagement of community interest in the process of working through the proposed details of the approved trading system. Public consultation on the proposed details of the approved trading system for gaming machine entitlements closed on 3 September.

Five submissions were received, which are publicly available on the Department of Treasury and Finance gambling policy website. A subcommittee of the Responsible Gambling Working Party was established to work through the submissions and the proposed details of the approved trading system. The subcommittee of the Responsible Gambling Working Party includes two members who advocate for the community and gambling help services as well as two members who advocate for the club sector, including Club One. Industry is also represented.

The Hon. Tammy Franks in her second reading contribution said that she would like to see the establishment of a register of gaming machine entitlements. I can advise that clause 21 of the bill requires the commissioner to keep a register of licensees holding gaming machine entitlements and cause the register to be published on a website to which the public has access free of charge. The commissioner must record on the register the number of gaming machine entitlements held by each licensee and the premises to which the gaming machine entitlements relate.

The Hon. Tammy Franks proposes an amendment to the bill to differentiate between gaming machine entitlements in the register on the basis of whether they were purchased or granted before the reduction in the number of gaming machine entitlements. The government intends to oppose this amendment. A gaming machine entitlement is a gaming machine entitlement regardless of how it was obtained. There is therefore no point in distinguishing on the register between entitlements granted and entitlements that were purchased. They will all have the same value, which will be determined through the approved trading system.

The Hons Mr Brokenshire and Mr Darley have proposed amendments to the bill to require common closing hours. The government intends to oppose these amendments. Common closing hours are not as effective as other measures. Programs like Club Safe and Gaming Care are genuine attempts by the industry to provide for better responsible gambling environments. The bill includes additional responsibilities for late trading club and hotel gaming venues so that the customers during off-peak hours are able to have access to early intervention and other support measures for problem gambling that are at least as good as those available during other operating times.

The government's proposed extra responsibilities for late trading venues are aimed at resolving problem gambling behaviour rather than shifting the behaviour to another time of day. The government considers that this approach is more effective at addressing problem gambling behaviour. The Hon. Mr Darley has proposed an amendment to the bill to impose additional requirements on licensed venues at all times. The amendment would require a licensed venue always to have a manager or employee on site who has completed advanced problem gambling intervention training and to have arrangements in place to immediately refer a person identified as engaging in problem gambling to a service to address the problem, not just during late trading hours.

The government intends to oppose this amendment. These requirements have not been subject to consultation and the regulatory impacts are not known, although I am advised that the industry sector has indicated that this is likely to be a considerable burden for some of the smaller venues. Those smaller venues would not operate during late trading hours. The government's proposal is a targeted regulatory response that is relative to the risk to problem gamblers during late trading hours.

The Hon. Mr Darley has also proposed an amendment to the bill to prohibit cash facilities, and another amendment to automatically implement section 51B of the Gaming Machines Act. The government intends to oppose these amendments. Section 51B of the Gaming Machines Act limits cash withdrawals from ATMs located on licensed premises to $200 per transaction, with only one transaction allowed per day. This section has not yet been proclaimed due to technological constraints with ATMs in the past.

The newly established COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform is considering several of the Productivity Commission's recommendations, including a recommendation to limit cash withdrawals to $250 per day from ATMs or EFTPOS facilities at gaming venues, clubs and hotels. It is understood that this is now technologically feasible. The newly established COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform is considering this approach with a view to implementing a national approach.

Any changes to ATM withdrawal limits will be included in the next bill after public consultation, which should be undertaken in order to fully understand the impacts of such proposals on gamblers, venues and any other stakeholders, and to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. For example, the wording of the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment extends further than just banning ATMs from gaming venues. Licensed premises refers to the premises licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act. Cash facilities are defined in section 3 of the Gaming Machines Act and include EFTPOS facilities. Therefore, under the proposed amendment, it would not be possible to pay for a restaurant bill by EFTPOS for those restaurants on licensed premises that include gaming venues.

The Hon. Mr Darley has proposed an amendment to the bill to prohibit coin dispensing machines at all times, not just late trading hours. The government intends to oppose this amendment. The Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010 proposes to prohibit coin machines during late trading hours—that is, 2am to 8am—as well as other measures that are aimed at early intervention and harm minimisation for problem gamblers. It is not proposed to ban coin machines at all times of the day. This may be considered in the future; however, public consultation on any proposals for reducing the use of coin machines should be undertaken in order to fully understand the impact of such proposals on gamblers, venues and any other stakeholders.

The Hon. Mr Lucas has proposed amendments to allow note acceptors and ticket-in, ticket-out systems, which are also known as TITO. The amendments would allow note acceptors and TITO in clubs, pubs and the casino. The government intends to oppose these amendments. The fact that our gaming machines only accept coins, not notes, is a significant harm minimisation measure to protect people from problem gambling. Ticket-in, ticket-out would be a significant change to the way money is inserted into gaming machines. It is premature to implement a measure of this nature without considering the potential impacts in detail. As such the government has no alternative but to oppose these amendments.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has proposed amendments to the bill to prohibit the location of child play areas near gaming areas, 10 metres or line of sight. The government intends to oppose this amendment. Under the Gaming Machines Act 1992, the holder of a gaming machine licence can be fined up to $20,000 for allowing a minor to enter or remain in a gaming area on the licensed premises. In addition, section 15(4)(g) of the Gaming Machines Act states that 'a gaming machine licence will not be granted unless the applicant for the licence satisfies the commissioner, by such evidence as the commissioner may require, that no proposed gaming area is so designed or situated that it would be likely to be a special attraction to minors'. Section 15(4)(g) provides the necessary protection that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is looking for and provides sufficient guidance from parliament to the commissioner to deal with a range of circumstances, including child play areas.

The Hon. Mr Darley has proposed an amendment to the bill to prohibit replica gaming machines throughout South Australia and machines termed 'gaming machine precursors' in licensed premises. The government intends to oppose this amendment. The government intends to prohibit arcade games that are essentially similar to electronic gaming machines. This will be achieved under existing provisions of the Lottery and Gaming Act 1936. The regulatory approach and statutory instruments will be subject to consultation to ensure that we get the details right and that the regulatory impacts are fully understood.

The Hon. Tammy Franks has proposed an amendment to the bill to establish a consumer advocacy committee. The government intends to oppose this amendment. We already have the responsible gambling working party. The working party membership includes representation from gambling help services and the community, as well as industry. The then minister for gambling established the responsible gambling working party in November 2006. Its scope is much broader than that proposed by the amendments tabled in response to this bill.

The working party is transparent about its work, regularly releasing progress reports that are publicly available on the internet. It routinely undertakes structured discussions with external parties, such as groups or individuals from government, industry and the community to inform its work. The key focus areas under which it works were developed following regional discussions with a range of stakeholders that included community and industry. The Hon. Tammy Franks has proposed an amendment to the bill to retain the review period for codes of practice at two years rather than the five years proposed by the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. The government intends to oppose this amendment.

The proposed change in the review period for codes of practice from two years to five years reflects practical experience from the Independent Gambling Authority. The process of reviewing codes of practice under all the gambling regulation acts is a substantial piece of work that requires the authority to undertake extensive consultation at the early conceptual stages, as well as when the revisions to the codes of practice are developed. For example, the review that commenced in early 2006 resulted in revised codes of practice that commenced over two years later on 1 December 2008. It is important to note that the proposed new section does not prevent the authority from conducting reviews on a more frequent basis.

The Hon. Mr Darley has proposed an amendment to the bill to specify some of the details of the social effect principles. The government intends to oppose this amendment. Parliament has given the Independent Gambling Authority functions and powers as specified in the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995 and other gambling legislation. This includes the power to approve codes of practice and prepare guidelines that are disallowable in parliament.

Section 11(2a)(a) of the Independent Gambling Authority act 1995 specifies that the Independent Gambling Authority must have regard to the fostering of responsibility in gambling and, in particular, the minimising of harm caused by gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts of gambling on communities. This object will guide the Independent Gambling Authority when it undertakes consultation, as required by measures in the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, to develop the social effects inquiry process and the social effects principles.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has proposed an amendment to the bill to specify some of the details that must be included in the commissioner's annual report. This includes information about expiation notices issued, prosecutions commenced and information on barrings. The government intends to oppose this amendment. Section 74(2) of the Gaming Machines Act states:

The Commissioner must, no later than 30 September in each year, submit to the Minister a report on the administration of this Act during the financial year ending on the previous 30 June.

The act currently does not specify any details that are required to be included in the annual report. Expiations have been introduced in this bill and I expect that information about expiations will be included in the commissioner's annual report—it is not necessary to specify this level of detail in the act. Prosecutions are dealt with by the courts not the commissioner.

Regarding barring, a consultation paper will be released in the coming months on proposed amendments to address the IGA's recommendations from its inquiry into barring arrangements. Any amendment relating to barring should be dealt with as part of that process. The Hon. Terry Stephens raised the recent agreement between the Prime Minister and Independent MP Andrew Wilkie. This will be considered as part of the next round of amendments to gambling legislation.

The next round will address some of the changes necessary to gambling legislation to allow a national response to be developed to the Productivity Commission's recommendations. The measures in this bill are not inconsistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations and there is thus no need for this bill to be further delayed. The Hon. Terry Stephens also raised a concern about the proposal in the bill for the commissioner to approve the form of a contract when the State Procurement Board's role in procuring gaming machines is eliminated.

The commissioner's approval of the form of a contract is a more flexible approach than the current State Procurement Board process. Because inducements and kickbacks are not desirable, the government is proposing a cautious approach by requiring the form of contract to be approved by the commissioner. The purpose is to make sure that gaming machine licensees control gaming in South Australia, not gaming machine manufacturers, in order to balance the negotiated positions between gaming machine venues and gaming machine suppliers.

Clause 28 of the bill does allow for discounts based on the number of machines, components or items of equipment to be supplied. The Hon. Terry Stephens raised the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund in his second reading contribution. While the Minister for Families and Communities is responsible for administration of the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, I am happy to provide some background information.

The Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund receives a total contribution of $5.955 million per year. The contribution comprises $3.845 million (65 per cent) from the government and $2.11 million (35 per cent) from institutional members of the gambling industry—the Australian Hotels Association, licensed Clubs of SA and the Adelaide casino. The Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund is administered by the Department of Families and Communities to fund agencies to provide services for problem gamblers.

Providers of gambling help services engaged by the department include non-government organisations and government service providers, as well as private suppliers that are used for information products and advertising services. I understand that the government has regular contact with the gaming industry and has received positive feedback about the gambling help services, including one of the largest statewide services, which is hosted by Flinders Medical Centre. This service employs psychologists as therapists. These people are public sector employees under the Health Care Act 2008.

The breakdown of funding from the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund is roughly: 57 per cent to non-government agencies; 27 per cent to government gambling help service providers; 11 per cent to the Department of Families and Communities for community education programs, as well as coordinating and managing gambling help services; and the remaining 5 per cent is yet to be allocated to problem gambling services for this financial year. The Hon. Mr Lucas was concerned about balance in the gambling debate between different forms of gambling. The Productivity Commission has stated that:

The risks of problem gambling are low for people who only play lotteries and scratchies, but rise steeply with the frequency of gambling on table games, wagering and, especially, gaming machines.

The Productivity Commission has focused many of its recommendations on electronic gaming machines due to the increased risks of problem gambling with this form of gambling.

The Hon. Mr Lucas questioned what harm minimisation measures are currently available for online sports betting. The outcome of the Betfair High Court case in Western Australia was that South Australia could not prevent interstate betting operators from providing online betting products to people in this state, provided that they are authorised in another state in Australia. Legislation was put in place in the Authorised Betting Operations Act to ensure that adequate harm minimisation measures are in place to protect consumers.

In South Australia interstate betting operators must give notice to the Independent Gambling Authority if they wish to conduct betting operations in order to be authorised in this state. Authorised interstate betting operators must comply with the requirements in the act and subordinate legislation, including the advertising and responsible gambling codes of practice. They can only provide betting on contingencies that have been approved by the Independent Gambling Authority.

Authorised interstate betting operators must provide a precommitment scheme that is linked to each gambling account. They must also provide regular activity statements, monthly, two or three-monthly, or annually, depending on the amount of activity on the account. This is specified in the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. They must also have sufficient identification and verification measures in place to ensure that minors cannot open a gambling account.

The Hon. Mr Lucas also asked about the measures in place regarding online poker. Online poker is prohibited under the commonwealth Interactive Gambling Act. The Productivity Commission recommended that online poker should be permitted and be made subject to a regulatory regime with strict probity standards and high standards of harm minimisation. However, the commonwealth government issued a media release on 23 June 2010 advising that it does not support the liberalisation of online gaming, including online poker, as was recommended by the Productivity Commission.

The ministerial Select Council on Gambling Reform issued a communiqué on 22 October 2010, which stated that the council agreed that the forward work agenda will include the regulation of online gambling, so more work is being done in this area on a national level. I acknowledge the support from members for the implementation—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: What about the question on the conscience vote? I asked you what's changed.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The usual practice of the Australian Labor Party, in relation to when poker machines were introduced, when there was an extension of gambling, is that it was a conscience vote, but the normal practice of the party is, when you have what are essentially administrative measures—and these are—those administrative measures, which have been well considered and debated within the caucus, should be supported by members.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Rann said in 2004 that it was a conscience issue.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, if there are measures that involve a major extension in gambling, that is one thing.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That was the cutback to 3,000.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have to go back and look at the record, but it was my understanding that in that particular case caucus members supported that. I do not believe that, at that particular time, when the first amendments were introduced, there was any call within caucus for a conscience vote on the particular matters. I am not sure that there was a decision on it. That is my recollection of the events at the time, but in relation to these matters, they are essentially administrative measures.

I do not intend to continue to debate this matter. I have put the position of the government on the record in relation to this matter and I look forward to the debate during the committee stage. Can I just say in relation to that, given the time and given we have a couple of other matters on the Notice Paper, my intention would be to adjourn the debate after the second reading, but I hope that when parliament resumes on Tuesday week that we will be able to deal with the committee stage in a block at that time.

Bill read a second time.

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