HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:02): I continue my remarks in relation to the contribution clubs make to the community and the potential impact of the legislation on clubs. There has been some criticism that the clubs industry is only being represented by the South Australian National Football League-type clubs and others, and I wanted to put on the record (and I thank Clubs SA for this) an example of a metropolitan-based club and a rural or regional-based club in terms of the contribution they make to their communities, which is significantly impacted by the revenue they generate from gaming machines.

The first one to which I refer is the Marion Sports and Community Club, which was established in 1908 to develop and maintain recreational community facilities and amenities and to promote recreational and community sporting activity. They say that, as a not-for-profit organisation, all the proceedings from their gaming machines are put back into the club for its members and the public by providing the best possible sporting facilities for: the Marion Football Club, Marion Cricket Club, Marion Tennis Club, Marion Lawn Bowling Club, Marion Croquet Club, Marion Trotting Club, Marion Swimming Club, Marion Women's Soccer Club, Sturt Marion Thunder Men's Soccer Club, Atlantis Masters Swimming Club, Marlin Masters Swimming Club, Arista Marion Korfball Club, South City Chiefs Gridiron Club, Glenelg Rebels Softball Club, Over 60s Cricket Club, and South Adelaide Basketball Club.

They also provide the use of community and recreational facilities free of charge, including: two cricket ovals with turf centre pitches; two turf practice cricket pitches; two hard practice cricket pitches with fully enclosed soft netting practice facilities; six change rooms; a football oval; two soccer pitches; a trotting track; floodlighting for night soccer, tennis and football; five bowling greens and clubrooms; four croquet courts and clubrooms; six tennis courts and clubrooms; two meeting rooms, two large function rooms, or four medium-size function rooms, complete with integrated audiovisual; training areas for softball and gridiron; and a fortnightly market.

All of the club's open space grounds are made available to the general public for recreational use. They also provide support and services to the community for other not-for-profit organisations such as: Novita, Kanga Cricket, Auskick, Brighton Lions, Mitcham Kiwanis, Marion Probus, Ladies Keep Fit, COTA, Holdfast View, Marion View, Brighton Rotary, Brighton Kiwanis, Holdfast JPs, Marion Lions, Sunrise Christian School (for everyday oval use), and the Adelaide Rock 'n' Roll Club.

The second club I want to put on the record is the Renmark Club. They write:

The Renmark Club was established to create an environment for the community to meet together and enjoy each other's company away from the everyday grind of the workplace environment. With a membership of nearly 3000 people, the local community support us very well, as well as the tourists that come to the Riverland for Holidays.

As a not-for-profit organisation, all the proceeds from our gaming machines are put back to the club, for its members and the public, by providing:

Sporting facilities—our sponsorship donations for each year to sporting clubs are over $38,000

Community and recreational facilities. We are in liaison with the Renmark Paringa Council with the Town Square upgrade and our commitment is $90,000 which involves a boat Mooring out on the Murray River and Pavers in front of the club

Services to the community e.g., meeting place for over 10 sporting and social clubs each month, as well as community donations.

Support for other not-for-profit organisations e.g. the Renmark Club and the Renmark Community Hotel along with the local Council hold annual events between the 3 Venues for the benefit of the Riverland

I have a long list of others, but I am not going to put them all on the record; I just wanted to put forward those two as an example that we are not just talking here. Those of us who are concerned about this legislation and the government's policy being a club killer, we are not just talking about the big South Australian National Football League clubs; we are talking about small to medium-size clubs right across the state—right across the metropolitan areas and, in particular, in the regions—who service, as in the Marion example I gave, dozens and dozens of sporting, recreational and community clubs and organisations that make use of the facilities the clubs are able to provide.

That is why there is the concern in relation to the legislation that we have seen. A number of members of parliament have received in recent days a letter from Clubs SA—again, it is some five pages and I am not going to read all of it—signed by Cameron Taylor and Bill Cochrane on behalf of Clubs SA. They summarise their position pretty clearly:

It should be noted that the government has not done any modelling of the impacts of its proposed changes on clubs with gaming, clubs without gaming, or the club industry generally. It seems that this government simply does not care about the consequences for sporting and community clubs...

In summary, the changes proposed by the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2013 pose an enormous threat to the viability of gaming clubs, and as a consequence the many other sporting and community clubs that benefit indirectly. It will favour the expansion of the largest and wealthiest venues, the Adelaide Casino, Woolworths-Coles and the commercial hotel groups, and force out not-for-profit sporting and community clubs.

At a time when the club industry is already under pressure as a result of government policies and rising costs, the impacts of the bill on clubs, the impacts of the bill on club gaming venues must be considered more carefully. We urge you to split the bill to allow for that proper consideration.

That summarises the clubs' position. Before turning to the issue of specifically how this measure is meant to be tackling problem gambling and some issues there, I do want to raise my concerns about the way the government and its representatives have operated in terms of trying to intimidate stakeholders and others into supporting the legislation.

As I said, for two years the government ignored the clubs industry and its representatives in terms of consultation. However, in recent days I have become aware that the chief of staff to minister Rau, Mr Danny Romeo, has been making threatening and abusive calls to representatives of the clubs industry, seeking to intimidate them into changing their position on the legislation.

The clubs industry generally is big enough and ugly enough to look after itself, and it is for them to do so. However, I want to express my concern—and I think this is one of the problems we have with this government—that we have non-elected spin doctors, wholly-owned subsidiaries generally of Labor factions (such as Mr Romeo, who has attracted controversy in the past) who, rather than treating stakeholders and others who might have differing views with respect, seek to be abusive and threatening and, in this particular case, threatening retribution to the clubs industry that if it does not change its position the government is in a position, obviously, to impact and influence the clubs industry in the future.

Minister Rau, in my view, is on very dangerous ground if he is going to unleash the dogs within his office onto stakeholders in the industry to, as I said, seek to intimidate, threaten or be abusive in relation to the position on this legislation. This is not the only example in relation to this. There was a recent example also in relation to the real estate industry, where exactly the same tactic was used, same behaviour, same individual, same minister. Ultimately, minister Rau has to accept the responsibility for what he endorses his staff to do in terms of handling relations with stakeholders.

I hope that this government would at least pause and reflect on the way it goes about seeking to intimidate those who have views different from its own. As I said, this is not the first example; this is, at the very least, the second example in recent times where exactly the same sort of behaviour has occurred. That is not the way to win friends and influence people . All it does, in my judgement, is harden opposition to both the government and its policy position in relation to these sorts of issues.

I want to turn to the issue of problem gambling and the claim that this particular bill is going to impact on that matter. My questions to the government are: can the minister present hard evidence to this chamber—not just claims from commentators and others—that increasing the number of machines in the Casino by 505 will lead to a reduction in problem gambling? Can he provide hard evidence to this chamber that increasing by 50 per cent the maximum number of machines in a venue, from 40 to 60—with the resultant impacts that a number of stakeholders, including clubs, have warned about in terms of greater concentrations of influence within the gaming machine industry—will lead to a reduction in problem gambling?

Can he provide hard evidence to the committee that warning signs flashing across screens will lead to a reduction in problem gambling? Will he provide, on behalf of the government, the evidence that a voluntary precommitment scheme will lead to a reduction in problem gambling?

I think it is important, in relation to the voluntary precommitment scheme, to be aware of exactly how that is intended to operate and that is, essentially, an individual can go and set their own voluntary precommitment, which can be $1,000, $100,000, $200,000 or whatever it might happen to be, and only when you reach that particular self-imposed voluntary precommitment will actions then occur. Those actions will be someone, as we understand it, approaching the particular gambler indicating, 'You have reached or you are approaching this particular voluntary limit' and the gambler can then indicate, 'Well, thank you very much for that. I am now going to set a new limit for myself' and double that particular limit or just ignore the warning advice anyway.

I accept, in relation at least to the voluntary precommitment issue, that this is something which is being imposed nationally, albeit further down the track, as part of national changes. If I had been in the federal parliament, I would have been putting the same question to the federal government and that is: where is the hard evidence that this is actually going to make a significant difference in terms of the number of problem gamblers?

There is a range of other provisions in the federal legislation and in the state legislation as well where I think the same challenges should be put to the government and to say, 'Well, at least share with us the hard evidence that you have got that this will actually achieve a reduction in problem gambling.' I think, if we are frank about it, the brutal reality is that governments of all persuasions and over a long period of time believe they need to be seen to be doing something in relation to problem gambling. That means there are some things which clearly can have an impact, and that is money being spent on the 0.4 per cent of people with a gambling problem, in terms of additional counselling, assistance and all those sorts of things that you can endeavour to do.

As I said last night, my view is that problem gamblers will crawl over cut glass to get to a machine, a venue, an outlet or an option to satisfy their addiction. Many of the things that we are talking about will not stop the problem or the addiction, but governments will be able to pat themselves on the back and say, 'We are attempting to do something about it.' That is why the hard evidence is important in terms of: what is it?

Short of banning gambling full stop and somehow being able to impose or enforce that, which, again, as I have indicated before in the many arguments I have had with the Hon. Nick Xenophon over the years, the simple fact of purporting to ban gambling in the modern day and age where you can access gambling options from anywhere around the world at the click of a computer screen or your mobile phone is farcical and has been for many years. These are clearly the issues that confront legislators such as ourselves and in the federal parliament.

Given the federal parliament is actually imposing these conditions over a certain time frame, the Responsible Gambling Working Party last year basically said, 'Well, if it is going to be imposed federally, let us stick to those sorts of time lines,' but this government now believes it knows better or wants to be seen to be doing something, so it is now saying, 'Blow the community clubs; we are not worried about them. We need to be seen to be doing something and we will bring forward the dates different from and earlier than the dates that have been imposed by the federal legislative changes.'

The member for Davenport pursued this issue of the extent of problem gambling with the government, and he was provided very recently with a copy of a letter from Robert Chappell, the Director of the Independent Gambling Authority, to Treasury and Finance on 8 May this year. The question the member for Davenport put to the government was: what is the extent of problem gambling in South Australia and how does it compare to the other states and territories? I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a purely statistical table on problem gambling.

Leave granted.

Year of publication Jurisdiction PGSI 3-7 PGSI 8+ PGSI 3+/SOGS 5+
2001 South Australia 2.00
2001 Australian Capital Territory 1.90
2001 Queensland 2.70 0.83 2.53
2003 Queensland 2.00 0.55 2.55
2003 Victoria 1.22
2003 Victoria 0.91 0.88 1.79
2005 Northern Territory 1.06
2005 Northern Territory — 0.64 —
2005 Tasmania 1.02 0.73 1.75
2006 New South Wales 1.60 0.80 2.40
2006 South Australia 1.20 0.40 1.60
2007 Queensland 1.80 0.47 2.27
2007 Tasmania 0.86 0.54 1.40
2008 Victoria 2.36 0.70 3.06
2009 New South Wales 1.30 0.40 1.70
2009 Queensland 1.58 0.37 1.96
2012 New South Wales 2.90 0.80 3.70
2012 Queensland 1.90 0.48 2.38


The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When members have an opportunity to have a look at this table provided by the Independent Gambling Authority, what it shows is a series of studies done since 2001 through to 2012—so they are not all done at the one time—and it indicates the extent of problem gambling in each of those jurisdictions. I note in one of the explanatory notes:

The Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (PGSI) was introduced into Australia in 2001 and has now been agreed by Australian gambling ministers as the standard screen for population work. This 9 item questionnaire gives scores in the range 0-27, on which a score in the range 3-7 is described as moderate risk and 8+ is described as problem gambler (high risk). For the South Australian study published in 2006, the group in the community in whom we were interested was regarded as the PGSI 3+ group (that is, the moderate and high risk groups combined). PGSI numbers are shown in bold text.

The PGSI 8+ number, which is the Problem Gambling Severity Index agreed by all gambling ministers, shows that on the most recent measure in South Australia, which was done now six or seven years ago in 2006, the measure in South Australia was 0.4 per cent. That is the figure that I have referred to on a number of occasions in this contribution—0.4 per cent problem gamblers in South Australia. So 99.6 per cent of the population are not problem gamblers.

What it shows is that in New South Wales, for example, the problem gambling index, the same measure there, is double that, at 0.8 per cent. In Queensland it is higher; it is at 0.48 per cent in 2012. In Victoria in 2008 it is higher; the measure there was 0.7 per cent. In 2007 in Tasmania it was 0.54 per cent. So on all those measures, we in South Australia, whatever it is that we are doing here, on those numbers, provided by the Independent Gambling Authority, have the lowest problem gambling problem of all the states and territories.

As I said, the number of problem gamblers is 0.4 per cent of the population. That is contrary to the views that many in the media and many of the anti gambling campaigners would lead you to believe. They will take higher numbers, because they will take it as a percentage of gamblers, for example, or adults, or adult gamblers, or whatever it might happen to be, so that those percentages can be increased. Then they will multiply the numbers by the number of people in the family, to indicate that a number of other people are influenced, or potentially influenced, by the problems of the problem gambler. Certainly, I acknowledge, as I said in my opening contribution, that the problems of the problem gambler, sadly, often do flow on to family members and to friends as well. I acknowledge that.

What the official statistics show is that our problem gambling index is the lowest of all states and territories. When you also compare it with the prevalence of poker machines in the community, as the member for Davenport highlighted there in his contribution, in states such as Victoria, which has a lower level of poker machines per head of population than South Australia, the problem gambling rate on those figures was nearly twice as in South Australia. So in Victoria they have a lower level of poker machines per head of population, but their problem gambling rate is twice that of South Australia.

Tasmania also has a lower rate of poker machines per head of population, and the problem gambling index is 0.54; it is again higher than South Australia. What the figures also show is that the reverse occurs in some other jurisdictions, so I am certainly not arguing the case that having a lower percentage of gaming machines leads to a higher problem gambling rate.

What it shows is that this view is not conclusive. It is the accepted wisdom of the government here—because it was announced as a publicity stunt a number of years ago, 'We shall get rid of 3,000 machines because that will help problem gambling in South Australia'—but there was never any hard evidence produced for that. It was a feel-good policy announcement at the time. Everyone has said, and rightly, that they have not delivered on that since then, and the minister now says, 'We are going to try to deliver on the 3,000 eventually.'

The reality is that if you actually go back to the original policy promise, there was never any evidence presented that indicated that reducing 3,000 would actually reduce the number of problem gamblers anyway. It was just an announcement, and the government hoped it would convince people that it would reduce the number of problem gamblers. The figures I have indicated show that there is no simple causal link between the prevalence of gaming machines in some jurisdictions and the extent of problem gambling in those jurisdictions. Clearly, there are other, more significant issues at play than just the number of machines.

That is my argument, in particular. As I said, if you have a gambling problem, if you are one of the 0.4 per cent who have a problem, you will find a machine wherever it is. People will crawl over cut glass to get there or they will move to another gambling option that is provided on their mobile phone or on the internet, if they have a problem or a need they have to satisfy.

In relation to gambling issues, my view has been driven by the fact that any policy should be targeted at those who have the problem. Why unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the 99.6 per cent of the population who do not have a gambling problem, in terms of their access to gambling options? They are quite happy and able to manage in terms of what they seek to do with their dollars and their life.

I am not sure about you, Mr President, but those with younger family members and friends will know that a much more prevalent issue these days is sports betting. Sports betting is done over people's mobile phones, through their computers or television screens, and for a number of acquaintances of my family members—who are much, much younger than I am—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Most people are.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That's true. Their gambling options of choice are moving towards sports betting, and it is being done on their mobile phone or their internet gambling account, or a whole variety of other options that are being done that way. That is not to say that there is not still an issue in relation to the 0.4 per cent of the population who have problem gambling issues in relation to gaming machines, but if we are going to do something, do it on the basis of hard evidence that will actually achieve something rather than just dressing it up so that it appears as if you are going to do something.

The final issue, in relation to the extent of problem gambling—and I guess this is the challenge I put to the minister in terms of providing the hard evidence—is when one looks at the budget papers just released. Page 45 of Budget Paper 3, Volume 3, which is the revenue section, shows the take from gambling taxes predicted by Treasury and government. If you look at the tax take from gaming machines it was estimated at $287 million for last year; the government estimates that after this very (as they would portray it) significant crackdown on problem gambling, the gaming machine tax take would increase by $47 million to $334 million over the forward estimates period.

Whether or not you believe the Treasury estimates is an interesting issue. I know there are some stakeholders within the industry who would say, 'Don't believe what Treasury are predicting,' but nevertheless that is the Treasury estimate on the basis of implementing this particular legislation and its impact on gaming machine revenues.

When one looks at the take from the Casino, which is separately listed as opposed to gaming machines, the tax take from the Casino will double from $22 million to $45 million over the forward estimate period—an extra $23 million from the Casino in terms of the total take. The take from the South Australian TAB, obviously, will be at a much lower level, and that from South Australian Lotteries will be significantly reduced as a result of the recent privatisation by the Labor government.

The evidence would appear to be the contrary; that is, it is indicating that the extent of the tax take is going to increase significantly. That does not prove that there are going to be more problem gamblers. It does not prove anything other than the fanciful notion that in some way what the government is doing here is going to influence in a negative way the tax take coming in—because it is not: it is going to influence it in a positive way—or it will reduce the number of problem gamblers. As I have said, there has been no evidence given by the government that it will do that.

I asked earlier if the minister would provide in her reply the members of the Casino task force; I just repeat that particular question. I asked the minister, in relation to the gaming machine revenue estimates that Treasury has done, whether she is prepared to provide advice from Treasury on what basis they have estimated such significant increases in gaming machine revenue and whether or not they have had advice from stakeholders in the industry that they do not believe the accuracy of those particular estimates as well.

In one of the press releases issued by minister Rau in the last week, he indicated, for example, that 'The Liberals' amendments mean no reduction in venues, no reduction in the number of machines.' Clearly, the minister is saying that there will be a reduction in the total number of machines under this particular measure. Can the minister indicate what the government estimates what total reduction in the number of machines will be?

Clearly, if an extra 505 machines are going into the Casino, I am assuming the government is telling us that they are going to be reducing the number of machines through their other measures by a number greater than that. So, to see whether or not this particular claim from minister Rau and Premier Weatherill is correct, that their measures will lead to a reduction in the number of machines, my question to the minister is: what are the government's estimates on the number of machines for each of the forward estimate years? With that, I conclude my contribution to the second reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:33): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2013. The bill covers two rather contentious issues, the first being the so-called statewide cap on gaming machine entitlements and the second being the Casino expansion.

In relation to the first issue, the bill seeks to establish a statewide cap on gaming machine entitlements that covers all gaming sector venues. As such, the Adelaide Casino will be required to purchase additional gaming machine entitlements it requires through the approved trading system. However, according to the government, SkyCity may require certainty as to the regulatory framework and operating capacity to underpin its investment in an expanded Adelaide Casino.

The bill also provides that, if agreed targets for the Casino obtaining gaming machines are not achieved, the government can provide these entitlements directly to the Adelaide Casino. Gaming machine entitlements obtained this way are not transferable outside of the Adelaide Casino and can only be used in premium gambling areas.

Despite the ability to provide these entitlements directly to the Casino, the government maintains that the statutory target for the number of gaming machines operating in South Australia will not change because they will be offset by additional forfeiture through the approved trading system over time. Indeed, the government appears confident that the inclusion of the Casino in the approved trading system, combined with other proposed changes, will accelerate the overall reduction in the statewide gaming machine entitlements cap.

To suggest that the government is being overly optimistic is an understatement. To be perfectly frank, I think I have more chance of winning the New York Marathon before the target of reducing the number of poker machines to 3,000, trumpeted by the government 2004, is achieved. The deal to give the Casino extra entitlements may as well be a gift wrapped with a 'with compliments' slip from the government. Even blind Freddy can see that the casino stands to gain from this agreement at the expense of the targeted reduction of poker machines. To that end, I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment that provides for a ballot scheme aimed at achieving the target of reducing the number of poker machines to 3,000 within two years of the act passing if the target is not achieved through the trading round. This will apply to all gambling venues, including the Adelaide Casino.

If the government is serious about reaching its 2004 target, in my lifetime at least, then there ought to be no reason why it would not support this amendment. In addition, I will be proposing that the provisions that allow for the gift of more poker machines in the Casino's premium gambling area be deleted and I will also be opposing a proposal that would allow the Casino to vary the terms of its licence via the approved licensing agreement.

I remain completely gobsmacked at these two changes in particular. On the one hand the government is saying that we need gambling reform to address the issue of problem gambling yet, on the other, it is saying that the Casino can do whatever it likes when it comes to high rollers. It is effectively giving the Casino the green light to adopt different rules for premium gambling areas over the rest of the Casino. Not only can the rules be different, they can also be entirely inconsistent with the act. In short, members are being asked to sign a blank cheque to be paid for by problem gamblers.

The other proposed changes in the bill include differentiating between major and minor poker machine venues, that is hotels and clubs, with vastly different levels of regulation applying to each. Briefly, major venues will be those with 40 to 60 poker machines, while minor venues will be limited to a maximum of 20 poker machines.

From 1 January 2014, major venues will be required to have both precommitment and automated risk-monitoring systems in place. The precommitment system will be voluntary for patrons. That is, even though venues will be required to operate machines that offer precommitment, it will not be mandatory for patrons to sign up to any such scheme. This completely defeats its purpose.

From 1 January 2016, only major venues with these systems in place will be able to retain loyalty programs and current opening-hour arrangements. From 1 January 2020, only those major venues that have complied with all these requirements will be able to retain automated coin machines. By 1 January 2017, major venues will also be required to install more sophisticated poker machines that comply with modern standards and are capable of being remotely controlled, receiving and displaying on-screen messages and being limited to a $5 maximum bet. Major venues that comply with these requirements will also be able to offer account-based cashless gaming, and those customers who register for such an account will have access to the precommitment system and be monitored using the automated risk-monitoring systems.

Of course, there are a number of other changes that will accompany the distinction between major and minor venues, but I will not go into all of these at this stage other than to say that they are, according to the government, designed to reduce the harm caused by problem gambling, a claim which is, at best, wishful thinking. Members would have no doubt received correspondence and/or met with representatives from the concern sector, including SACOSS and Uniting Communities (formerly known as UnitingCare Wesley), about this bill.

Members will also no doubt be aware that I intend to move a number of amendments aimed at dealing with the issues raised by some representatives of the concern sector that actually have half a hope of addressing problem gambling. Those amendments include removing the distinction between major and minor venues. They also include limiting cash facility withdrawals within the Casino to $200 per transaction per card per day; limiting the return-to-player rate of 87.5 per cent to within a calendar year rather than having it open-ended over the life of the machine; providing for $1 maximum bets and capped jackpots in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations; introducing a mandatory five-second break in play; and limiting cashless gaming.

If those amendments are not supported, and I am not holding my breath, I will be moving an alternative set of amendments aimed at making all poker machines and poker machine venues subject to the same level of regulation. In other words, the bans on coin machines and loyalty schemes, the requirement for pre-commitment schemes, the limits on cash facility withdrawals, and the requirements in relation to opening hours and the like would apply to all venues irrespective of whether they are major or minor venues. The amendments would also reduce the number of machines allowable in a major venue to 40, as is presently the case, and minor venues to 10.

In terms of the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, I will be proposing that a gambling advisory committee be established in order to advise the minister on the performance of his or her functions in applying the funds towards programs for or related to minimising problem gambling and rehabilitation. That committee would also have the power to provide advice on its own initiative to the minister or the authority on any other matters relating to the gambling industry.

It is not very often that we see the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and Clubs SA disagreeing over poker machine reforms but in this instance I think it is fair to say they are divided. Clubs SA have voiced their very strong opposition to the proposed changes and have advocated strongly for the bill to be split, allowing the amendments relating to the Casino to be dealt with separately to those relating to poker machine reforms. The Hon. Rob Lucas has outlined their case very well.

From their perspective, dealing with the bill in its current form will only serve to encourage the expansion of the largest and wealthiest sector of the industry—that is, the Adelaide Casino, Woolworths, Coles and other commercial hotel groups—at the expense of sporting and community clubs. That view is obviously shared by most, if not all, of Clubs SA members, many of whom have written to me as well as honourable members about this bill.

It should come as no surprise that the only thing that the concern sector and Clubs SA appear to agree on in relation to this bill is that lack of adequate public consultation in the lead-up to its introduction. Interestingly, and perhaps for the first time, the AHA appears to have remained rather silent on the proposed reforms at least insofar as lobbying for or against the proposed changes.

In relation to the Casino expansion, the bill proposed to make amendments to the Casino Act to enable the Casino to offer what the government refers to as internationally competitive gaming product comparable to interstate and overseas competitors. To my knowledge, the Adelaide Casino masterplan incorporates a hotel, car park, more gaming facilities, VIP suites, restaurants, and even a rooftop spa and pool, all aimed at attracting high rollers to Adelaide.

The fact that the bill introduces a distinction between the Casino premises and gambling areas to allow children into the non-gambling parts of the Casino certainly tends to suggest that the Casino is looking to incorporate many facilities such as those that exist, for example, in Melbourne's Crown Casino. For those members who are not aware, the Crown Casino has a number of retail outlets, eateries, restaurants, nightclubs and bars. It also has a cinema and rather large children's entertainment venue or gaming arcade, the Galactic Circus, within its premises.

Galactic Circus is said to be Australia's largest indoor theme park and, from what I understand, children of all ages can enter, irrespective of whether they are accompanied by an adult. I do not know whether the Adelaide Casino intends to incorporate these very sorts of facilities, but the proposed amendments in the bill will certainly enable it to do so. Of course, I cannot be sure of any of this (and this applies to other members as well) because many of us have been kept completely in the dark about the Casino expansion. The information provided by the government certainly does not go into any detail about the redevelopment.

Indeed, there has been some suggestion that this is not the appropriate forum for a detailed discussion about the Casino development. The Hon. Rob Lucas, on behalf of the opposition, has certainly expressed that view. With respect, I strongly disagree with the position, particularly if we, as I understand it, are being asked by the opposition to consider splitting the bill so that the Casino-related provisions can be dealt with separately. Given that the opposition intends to support those provisions, we will be none the wiser, at least in the short term, as to detail of the expansion if this goes ahead.

Members may recall that in February this year I asked the Premier and Treasurer a series of questions on this very issue, which to date remain unanswered. By way of background, I explained that in December of last year the former treasurer announced that the government had struck a deal concerning the future of the Casino, which would give SkyCity Entertainment Group's casino exclusivity until 2035, but they would pay more tax. Treasurer Snelling said that the deal would see SkyCity's tax arrangements on a more equal footing as those currently paid by South Australian hotel owners.

In addition, the Casino would be allowed to operate 1,500 gaming machines, up from 995, and 200 table games, up from 80. The government claimed that in return the Casino would have the strongest possible responsible gambling measures applied to any casino in Australia. I will be seeking a response from the government to all the questions I asked in February before proceeding any further with this bill.

In particular, I think it is absolutely critical that we know: what parts of the Casino's master plan have been agreed to, if any, and what are the details of the plan; what this plan will mean in terms of the heritage areas at the rear of Parliament House and within the existing Casino building; what, if any, considerations have been given to safety issues around Parliament House; whether the master plan seeks to incorporate a multilevel car park and how this will impact on existing heritage structures; and, perhaps more importantly, whether there has been any consultation or feedback from the public regarding the Casino's redevelopment plans and, in particular, the proposal to erect a new contemporary-style building that is to extend to the River Torrens, adjoining the existing heritage building.

I will also be seeking a more detailed explanation about the proposals to allow the Casino to vary its licence via the ALA and to receive extra entitlements for premium gambling directly from the government. It is absolutely critical that the government and, indeed, the Casino put all their cards on the table so that we can all make an informed decision on this issue, rather than speculating on what the redevelopment will and will not include and what the government has or has not agreed to with the Casino in terms of increased gambling facilities, premium gambling and the like.

On the issue of splitting the bill, I will say that I think the opposition is trying to have a two-way bet on this bill: on the one hand, they are trying to deliver to the Adelaide Casino its expansion wish list on a silver platter, and on the other they are trying to overcome the need for adequate regulatory restrictions and consumer protection measures around poker machines in clubs and hotels.

I do not agree with some of the comments of the Hon. Rob Lucas regarding the lack of consultation and the like on this bill. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if the bill is split the opposition will oppose any proposal aimed at reducing the harm caused by problem gambling. Some of the amendments on file clearly demonstrate this. Whilst I have serious concerns about the government bill, I have even greater concern about what is being proposed by the opposition. Taking the lipstick off the pig is not the solution. For the record, although I do not necessarily agree with the way this bill has been presented, I am not supportive of having it split. We have come a long way in terms of addressing problem gambling in this state, but there is a very long way to go. I urge the government and other honourable members to give consideration to my amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:49): I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our position on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reforms) Bill 2013. I indicate that at this point we will support a second reading vote, but we give no guarantees of support for a third reading of this bill. According to the report, this bill:

...takes a holistic and consistent approach to responsible gambling environments across the Casino, clubs and hotels. It seeks to integrate advances in technology with customer care and service that are the hallmark of the hospitality industry.

We also have the background that the commonwealth's proposal for reform of the gambling industry has settled, and that the South Australian government is working with the industry, union and community sectors to deliver practical benefits to the South Australian community. My first question of the minister is: what liaison is being undertaken with what sectors of industry, which unions and what parts of the community sector, and in what way are they delivering practical benefits to the South Australian community?

The bill contains a number of provisions. Certainly, those who read The Advertiser would have thought that this bill guarantees a reduction in the number of poker machines in this state. Of course, anyone who reads the bill quickly realises that that is in no way guaranteed. Again, my question to the government is: should the Casino's 505 extra entitlements not be found through the trading rounds, will that mean that these extra entitlements will simply stay in the system, and does that put lie to the government's claims that this bill reduces the number of poker machine licences overall in this state?

We are also told that it will eliminate the need for gaming machine sale and disposal approvals, introduce a consistent code of practice and conditions across all sectors of the gambling industry including wagering and lotteries, extend expiation fees to all licence conditions, extend the rights and responsibilities of licensees to landlords in possession of a gaming venue, and change the tax collection arrangements for casino taxation so that they can be administered by the Commissioner of State Taxation. Obviously, this will not be commencing, as the bill originally intended, from 1 July 2013.

We are further advised that the bill will streamline and simplify recognised training requirements with a greater focus on responsible gambling, simplify and standardise barring arrangements across all sectors of the gaming industry (including wagering and lotteries), and simplify signage requirements to provide for more effective, responsible and problem gambling messages, as well as introduce online employee notifications.

We have heard from previous speakers. I requested to speak after the Hon. John Darley, and I would simply say that the Greens would look favourably on his amendments. We thank the Hon. Mr Darley's office and staff, and also Senator Nick Xenophon, for the work that they have put in to ensure that this bill, by the end of the third reading stage, will do what Premier Jay Weatherill has said that he believes the bill does. The Premier issued a little poster that is doing the rounds on Twitter, which reads:

Problem gambling continues to adversely impact too many South Australian families.

That's why I want the South Australian Parliament to support the following reforms...I support problem gambling reforms. Do You?

My challenge to the Weatherill Labor government is to support reforms that will actually address problem gambling, and indeed support those who support problem gamblers. Yet, we see a bill that largely addresses the needs of the Casino. Yes, the Casino redevelopment will be very important, I think, to the future of jobs and economic prosperity of the Riverbank development; that is a decision that the government has chosen to pursue and a course that they are taking, but they cannot take that course without ensuring that they are also really addressing problem gambling.

Poker machines are a vexed issue; we all know that. This place has seen three members of parliament elected on a platform of opposing poker machines. I think South Australia, having poker machines far later than my home state of New South Wales, certainly saw that political debate in a much more heated way than I did when I was growing up. However, having been in South Australia for over two decades, I am no stranger to the history of the various reforms intended to minimise harm from poker machines; to extend the profits of those machines to particular sectors to address the harm that they cause directly by supporting problem gamblers; and to ensure that we have great supports in grassroots sport and recreation and, indeed, live music, which is a particular element of the South Australian legislation which I will focus on later.

Of course, poker machines do cause great harm. Four per cent of the adult population play poker machines at least weekly and around 95,000 of those 600,000 Australians are in that group of weekly players who are defined as problem gamblers and, indeed, a further 95,000 are at risk of falling into that category. It is estimated by Uniting Communities that there could be up to 160,000 Australian adults suffering significant problems from gambling and another 350,000 who are vulnerable.

It is said that problem gamblers account for around 40 per cent of total poker machine spending and weekly players spend, on average, $8,000 a year. That is a sizeable share of the income for a household and it is a cause of harm for some people who cannot afford that amount. Poker machine players, it is said, regularly underestimate their spending and for each problem gambler so many others are affected—their family members, their friends, their employers and their colleagues.

The social costs of problem gambling are serious and they include depression, relationship breakdowns, lower work productivity, job losses, bankruptcy, crime and, indeed, sometimes suicide—unfortunately not all that rarely do they include suicide. The social cost of problem gambling is estimated to be around $4.7 billion a year.

Let's not look at this bill as all revenue; indeed, there are large costs associated with this industry and we should have those in mind—certainly the Greens have those in mind. We take umbrage at the Premier's claim that if you oppose this bill you do not support addressing problem gambling. We do not think this bill goes far enough; we do not think this bill is strong enough; and we do not really think that this bill does everything that it could do to address problem gambling.

Uniting Communities have welcomed this legislation because they welcome the removal of an additional 700 poker machines. Again, I reiterate: what happens to the 505 extra entitlement should they not be found through the trading rounds? Do we simply have them in the system as additional, and does that put the lie to the government's headline media grab on this bill?

This bill does not address dollar bet limits. I note that the Hon. John Darley will be moving amendments on that. The government has claimed that dropping $10 limits down to $5 limits is a great step forward, and it is a position that the Greens have long held. Certainly Senator Richard Di Natale has long championed dollar bets. We will continue our position to support a drop to dollar bets.

I acknowledge some of the words of the Hon. Rob Lucas, that it is something that has not been modelled and something that has not been tested or costed. It has, however, been recommended by the Productivity Commission but it has been blocked at a federal level from having been costed and modelled. The Greens have done their utmost, in terms of moving for further research and information in that area, and we will continue to do so.

We will continue to take on board the care sector, as the government has been calling it in this debate, although I would call it the community sector, and also the words of groups like Communities Against Pokies who call for dollar bets. We are told in our consultations—and on this bill they have been quite extensive—that dollar bets may kill the industry. That may or may not be true. I guess what we really need to be evaluating is how this industry affects South Australia, how it affects our community, how it affects our sport and recreation, how it affects our culture and, of course, how it affects those people who are unfortunate enough to have a problem with their gambling, and indeed their friends, families and colleagues.

The Greens have long highlighted—and this has not yet been raised in this debate, so I will go into some detail on this point—that SACOSS which is, of course, the South Australian Council of Social Service, which we do rely on to provide researched advocacy in this area, has never received funding. In October 2011 I raised with the then minister, minister Gago, when she was the relevant minister in this area, whether or not she was concerned that the SACOSS submission to a 2011 code of practice review consisted of 1½ pages which essentially said that they were unable to provide input because they did not have the adequate resources to do so. This was quite concerning because they were the only non-gambling industry body to make a written submission to that particular review.

I would have thought at that point that would raise alarm bells with the government, but when I raised this question with the minister—why the community sector was not being adequately resourced to ensure that we had the wide range of voices that we need for a healthy democracy—she said that they could get an extension. At the time I pointed out that I thought she was missing the point and drew her attention further to the words in the letter:

The sector recognises the importance of the codes of practice under review and has concerns particularly around the regulation of gambling advertising. However, SACOSS is unable to put a submission or any information to the review at this stage. This should not be interpreted as a lack of concern from the sector about the issues, nor an endorsement of the current guidelines and practices.

SACOSS receives no funding from the IGA or from government for gambling advocacy. We have on many occasions over the last year made representations to government alerting them to the fact that we do not have the resources to keep relevant members informed of IGA and government processes and to aggregate and articulate the sector's position on gambling regulation. We believe this creates a serious imbalance in public policy. In other industries where there is a similar asymmetry of power and resources between industry and consumers (e.g. utilities), funds are made available to underpin consumer advocacy so as to ensure the interests of vulnerable consumers are recognised and represented. This is not the case in relation to gambling, despite many key reforms currently under consideration.

We are aware that some organisations in our sector will put in submissions to the review and we welcome their work...

I move away from the letter at that point and note that, in fact, SACOSS was the only organisation able to make a submission to that review that was not from the industry. It continues:

However, we remain concerned that the voices of many organisations in our sector, particularly smaller service providers and consumer groups, will not be heard in this review (and in relation to gambling regulation more generally) because of lack of resourcing.

The very disappointing response from the then minister has certainly not been rectified under the current ministerial arrangements and, indeed, the SACOSS submission to the gambling reform bill before us starts with the words:

There was no public consultation in the lead up to the introduction of the Statutes Gambling Reform Bill. SACOSS and a limited number of other stakeholders were consulted confidentially, but in its response SACOSS was clear that we were not in a position to provide a detailed response to the proposals. We did provide formal feedback with a number of proposals. None were adopted in the Bill. However, other changes have been made which weaken the reforms in favour of industry interests.

That to me rings alarm bells. I would have thought that it would do with government as well. Again, they go on to say:

Due to lack of resources, SACOSS has not been able to evaluate all clauses in the Bill or consult with the sector on the implications of the proposed changes. Accordingly, while the comments here are based on our established policies and concerns around gambling regulation, the particular comments are tentative and not necessarily the final SACOSS position on the specific proposals.

So it should come as no surprise to government that a party like the Greens, which does indeed liaise quite strongly with the South Australian Council of Social Service, and the community sector and those who stand up for problem gambling and, as I say, Communities Against Pokies, will have great concerns about this bill and will ask many questions in the committee stage. We will seek not to rush this bill through according to the timetable of the Casino, but to ensure that this bill does what the Premier said it would do on Twitter and actually support a reform of the industry to support problem gamblers and to eradicate problem gambling. SACOSS goes on to say:

SACOSS has long believed that the community would be better served by fewer gaming machines and fewer venues. To the extent that the current proposals will see a boost to trading in entitlements and therefore the compulsory surrendering of some entitlements, we support the broad direction of the proposals. Similarly, if the proposed scheme results in fewer poker machine venues because the trading scheme sees bigger venues entering the market to take advantage of the increase in the number of machines allowed at a venue, then this too would be welcomed.

However, I do ask the government how it guarantees that under this bill, and I will certainly ask it to address that in its second reading summary. SACOSS raises specific issues about the bill and says quite clearly and starkly:

SACOSS supports the Productivity Commission recommendation of a $1 bet limit.

It also goes on further to say there should be no exemptions to the bet limit. It addresses another area which I understand is the subject of some amendments which have been moved by the Hon. John Darley. It also goes on to say:

…we maintain our broad concerns around cashless gambling, but if it is to be introduced as part of this integrated system, it should be available only to those who enter the pre-commitment system.

Certainly, we have thanked SACOSS for the work that it has been able to do in addressing this bill. Given the role of advocacy in a healthy democracy, I would have thought that the government would have ensured that the only voice that is currently in a position to be making a submission in most of the reviews would actually be ensured to have the resourcing to do so in a much stronger way than currently exists in our state.

I will go further into some of my concerns about advocacy near the end of my speech, but I will move on to clubs, which, of course, have been well addressed here. I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for reading out some of the work of clubs, because I would have done so, had he not. I have been greatly concerned with the level of consultation with clubs about this bill and the nature of the consultations in general. 'Decide and declare', we were told, was a hallmark of the Rann government and not the Weatherill government, but when you consult but do so in confidence, and do so without adequate resourcing, that is not true consultation.

I agree that you do not have to take on board each idea that somebody puts forward as part of the consultation process, but you do have to have a transparent process, and I believe the lack of transparency here has gone a long way to eroding faith in the consultation processes that were undertaken. The clubs, of course, have written, I believe, to all members, certainly all members of the opposition and crossbenches, in this place, and they have put a case, quite strongly I believe, that they do not fare well as a result of the changes under this bill. Their concerns are for their grassroots activities, and my concerns in particular are for that community activity that they engender and the sport and recreational activities of our state.

It is no secret that our sport and recreation funding has been falling in this state for some time. Indeed, current minister Bignell was quite critical, prior to his elevation, of the parlous state of funding to sport and recreation. I hope that he would rectify that situation now that he is in the exact position he needs to be in to ensure that we have a healthy sport and recreational culture in our state.

I will highlight some of the work of some of our South Australian clubs. The Central District Football Club spends more than a quarter of a million dollars each year on sporting facilities. These include gym and training facilities to develop the game of Australian Rules football in the northern community, from Auskick through to under 15s football, and it conducts development squads for under 13s, 14s and 15s. Its services to the community, through allowing other sporting codes to use the Playford Alive Oval and the promotion of schools' football programs, are well valued by the northern community. Sponsorship of many other sporting codes is also part of the work of the Central District Football Club; indeed, its donations of funds and merchandise are in excess of $45,000 each year to schools, churches and charities.

Not to be too partisan—although, 'Go Doggies'—the Norwood Football Club, which is doing far better on the ladder this year (but they are certainly not my team) provides great support for its local communities as well. It provides community and recreational facilities for community sporting clubs and locally zoned schools, and these include daily use by primary school children from the Norwood Primary School. Its support for affiliated clubs includes a partnership arrangement with local netball clubs and an arrangement of mutual use and support with community groups via the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council and the Norwood RSL.

The North Adelaide Football Club also provides sporting facilities for young players and coaches. The club engages in community and recreational provision of facilities, providing personal training and expertise as well as entertainment through member and partner engagement. It runs football schools and clinics, and junior development clinics in the holidays. It supports other not-for-profit organisations, it offers a function facility, and it donates the time of its players and supports opportunities at its own matches for other community groups.

The South Adelaide Football Club is very similar. Again, it supports its local community through the provision of community and recreational facilities. It also maintains the children's playground next to the club and maintains the community function centre.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It has some interesting things and, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire says, it is a good club. It has a Panther Be Your Best education program, in primary schools, and the Southern Man Made program, which provides mentoring to young boys in the community aged 11 to 16 who do not have a father figure. Having worked for an organisation that ran Big Brothers Big Sisters, I know that is an area of great need in our community, and I certainly commend the club for that. It also supports fundraising activities on game days, and it has community events and Christmas carols functions each year.

The Sturt Football Club provides sporting facilities, including a gym and grandstands, and community and recreational facilities in their admin building. It provides services to the community through its charity partner, the Childhood Cancer Association; indeed, that association has raised more than $175,000 in the last four years. It also supports other sporting organisations, including Sturt tennis, bowls and cricket clubs.

The West Adelaide Football Club, again, provides facilities. It also supports women's football. Its community and recreational facilities are used by its zoned clubs, including the Riverland, Mallee, Roxby Downs and Coober Pedy. Services to the community include the St Martin's Aged Care Facility and Western Futures, and it also works with other not-for-profits, including Mission Australia, Woods Panthers Netball Club, Adelaide Lightning Basketball, and the South Australian Gridiron Association.

The Woodville West Torrens Football Club is similar again, supporting junior development and providing support to the community at large. It provides its facilities and, in conjunction with the City of Charles Sturt, provides a major sporting hub as well as meeting and conference facilities. It also holds regular bingo sessions and has, for over 20 years, provided a social gathering for the local elderly community.

The Marion Sporting Club's facilities are utilised by the Marion Football Club, the Marion Cricket Club, the Marion Tennis Club, the Marion Lawn Bowling Club, the Marion Croquet Club, the trotting club, the swimming club, the women's soccer club, the Thunder men's soccer club, the Atlantis Masters Swimming Club, the Marlin Masters Swimming Club, the Arista Marion Korfball Club, the South City Chiefs Gridiron Club, the Glenelg Rebels Softball Club, the Over 60s Cricket Club, and the South Adelaide Basketball Club.

They also provide community and recreational facilities free of charge, including the oval pitches, clubrooms, trotting track, function rooms, and a fortnightly market. While all the open-space grounds are available to the general public for recreational use, their support for non-profits include Novita—as I believe the Hon. Rob Lucas has already commended them for—Kanga Cricket, Auskick, Brighton Lions, Mitcham Kiwanis, Marion Probus, Ladies Keep Fit, COTA, Holdfast View, Marion View, Brighton Rotary, Brighton Kiwanis, Holdfast JPs, Marion Lions, the Adelaide Rock 'n' Roll Club, and Sunrise Christian School through everyday use.

There are similar supports given, as highlighted by the Hon. Rob Lucas, by the Para Hills Community Club, the Renmark Club—which must have special mention made of their $90,000 commitment to Renmark's town square upgrade and 10 sporting and social clubs meeting in that premises each month—the Roopena Football & Sporting Club, the Mount Gambier Community RSL, Squash SA, and Adelaide Juventus Sports & Social Club. The list goes on and on of clubs that impact on our local communities.

Clubs are greatly affected by this bill, and we have strong concerns about that. We have those concerns because we do not want to see measures taken here impact on the provision of community supports and, as I say, in particular, sport and recreational supports in our state, where we have, indeed, such a parlous state of funding under the current regime.

I also want to move on to the current situation with problem gamblers. In the course of this bill and briefing myself, I contacted Communities Against Pokies, which I have previously worked with on other issues. I want to thank, in particular, Shanika, Sharon and Julia. Julia may be known to many of you as the woman who runs Pokies Anonymous. I want to draw members' attention to the fact that Pokies Anonymous is currently operating on a shoestring budget out of Julia's pocket. It is not receiving any government funding.

Given the millions of dollars associated with the distribution of funds that are supposed to address poker machine harm, it defies belief that Pokies Anonymous is run by one woman, out of her own pocket, from the Thebarton Community Centre, and she is unable to actually pay the phone bill at times to keep that service going. This is a service that saves lives, this is a service that helps those most in need, and it is a service that in previous years has received some small amount of government funding.

I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but I think amounts of around $20,000 have been allocated from the relevant fund, but those small amounts of money come with strings attached, so Julia is not prepared to sign the publicity clause that goes into those contracts that would effectively, in her words, 'gag her' from providing advocacy and comment on problem gambling from the mouths of problem gamblers and those who support them most directly.

I call on the government to ensure that there is no publicity clause inserted into any contract that supports those who support problem gamblers. I draw the government's attention to the fact that they do not resource SACOSS, they do not resource advocacy in this area, and they seek to gag, through their publicity clause, even the smallest of organisations, such as Pokies Anonymous, which might actually provide an independent voice in this debate.

I will have further questions in the committee stage about the state of funding and the various revenue streams that were set up under the act. I ask the government to provide this council with the originally allocated amounts for the Sport and Recreation Fund, the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund, the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund and the Community Development Fund. I would like the government to then also compare those originally allocated amounts with the amounts that were allocated in the last financial year and provide that transparency.

I am aware that under the Community Development Fund falls a live music fund, and the act provides that 'at least $500,000 must be applied from the fund in each financial year towards programs that will be of benefit to the live music industry'. Certainly that $500,000, since the fund's inception 10 years ago, has not been increased; it sits at $500,000. I asked the library to calculate the amount had it been increased according to CPI and it was a little over $844,000.

I will be urging the government to ensure that it at least looks at increasing the fund to $850,000, given the effect that the poker machine industry has had on live music in this state and given that, when we first introduced poker machines into this state, it was recognised that the effect on live music would in fact be detrimental. Also, let us provide some transparency about how much money we have been diverting into the supports to address the harm that we know is significant and, indeed, the supports that we need to ensure a healthy sport and recreation sector, as we were promised. Let us pick apart those funds.

I also ask the government to provide information to this council on the organisations that have received funding and the amounts they have received over the past 10 years, since the funds' inception. That would also be helpful to the debate in terms of whether or not we are distributing the revenue from these licences in the way that reflects what this council previously decided and whether some new decisions need to be made about addressing areas of need.

The Casino does stand to benefit significantly from this bill, and we will certainly be seeking further details from the government regarding the arrangements it has with the Casino and, indeed, the revenues it expects to receive as a result of this bill. We asked the government to put on the record the amount in gaming-machine revenue that it expects to receive in this financial year and in the next two financial years and how that correlates with its claim that we are reducing gambling harm with the passage of this bill.

With those remarks, I look forward to a robust and detailed committee stage. I would like to believe the Premier's words when he says that he will be leading the charge to address gambling harm and ensure that these reforms really do so. With that, the Greens will support the second reading but we reserve our judgement on the third.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:23): I will speak at the second reading stage of this debate with many questions rather than a resolution of my exact position on this bill. It is nearly two decades since we introduced gaming machines into this state, so it was not long after I commenced my junior years at primary school. I know there are many people like myself who rue the day that these machines were introduced. The battle against them has, of course, launched the political careers of some, such as Senator Nick Xenophon and other colleagues in this very place.

Perhaps it would have been better if state parliament had never legislated to allow them, but the fact is that we have gaming machines (or pokies) in South Australia and, despite some reductions, I understand that there are still more than 12,800 poker machines currently operational around the state, with more than 90 per cent located in hotels, including the Casino.

At this point I thank Brad Green from the Attorney-General's office for the comprehensive and frank briefing he provided to my office staff on this bill. It is appreciated, and the complexity of this issue is, of course, not lost on me. I also thank Bill Cochrane from Clubs SA for briefing my office and me. I also thank the many sporting clubs that have contacted my office, raising their concerns over this bill. They have mainly been SANFL clubs. I appreciate the concerns they have but note that these would be the wealthier clubs that stand to lose from reforms in this bill, whereas I have not heard from some of the very small grassroots clubs such as the Glenelg Women's Soccer Club about what they believe the impact of this bill would be on them. I would hazard a guess that they would, one, have much tighter finances than your average SANFL club and, two, have less awareness on their voluntary management boards and committees of the reforms and fewer resources to lobby their local state MP. I certainly appreciate those pressures.

I think it is essential that the government takes the small sporting clubs that support children, people with disability, women, and migrant and refugee communities with, say, a soccer club and the impact that this has on their financial viability. All four of these sectors in our sport and recreation community are marginalised in some way in their ability to access sport and recreation options. They have fewer financial resources and receive a tiny portion of corporate sponsorship dollars committed to sport in this country.

The people in communities I am referring to are not professional sportsmen—and I say men because so few women receive any sort of wage or sponsorship dollars in the Australian sporting environment at present even when they perform successfully at the same level as their male peers. I would like to know what modelling has been done by the government to assess this bill's impact on these communities.

At this point I note the total value of grants from the Office for Recreation and Sport stands at only $6.7 million, yet I understand that the state government profits about $270 million from poker machines and it seems a huge disparity in profits versus what is given to sporting and recreation clubs. I believe those grants can only be given to clubs which do not have gaming machines. This state government is now in a situation where it is very dependent on the profits it draws from poker machines and as other revenues fall. Despite there being obvious harms involved in those who end up with problem gambling habits, it puts any government in an obvious conflict of interest situation.

I have some concerns that the SkyCity Casino and other large venues will now have increased capacity to offer gaming machines, and I believe this should be of concern to us all. Intuitively I would have thought it a preferable scenario if more clubs with smaller numbers of poker machines were allowed to have them rather than large venues with hundreds of poker machines run by pokie barons, but I understand that the expert research in relation to problem gambling arguably shows otherwise. It seems more people sharing in smaller amounts of profits would make better economic sense but, as I say, apparently this does not stem problem gambling.

I have a few questions that I would like answered about this bill before I make further deliberations on it. For example, what is the total revenue on gaming machines in South Australia? What is the total profit to state government from gaming machines in this state? How much is spent on support programs and financial management training intervention and support programs for problem gamblers? Why does this bill not have a $1 maximum bet as recommended by SACOSS and Uniting Communities?

For small clubs that will lose gaming machine revenue as a result of these reforms, what other funding mechanisms will the state government implement to ensure that these community organisations can still be financially viable and provide support and services to their local communities? Given that we are discouraging sports clubs from entering the gaming machine market, or reducing their interest if they are already in the market, why has the overall funding for sport and recreation grants through the Office for Recreation and Sport been cut in the past six months? What percentage of gaming machines in South Australia are owned by multinational companies, and when will the state government agreement with the Casino regarding the increasing of gaming machine numbers from 955 to 1,500 be finalised?

That is all I have to say for the moment. I have more questions than a statement of position at this point, and I look forward to further discussions with the government on this bill and also the opposition and the Hon. Mr Darley, who I believe both have amendments to the government's bill that are at least worth considering.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:30): There are quite a few things Family First wants to put on the public record and in Hansard during the second reading of this bill. First, we would have preferred a parliamentary select committee rather than the mess we now have that we are trying to manage in the parliament. The reason is that, if you go back to the mid-1990s, the then responsible minister, the Hon. Graham Ingerson, as the transition into gaming through poker machines came to be a reality from the debate in 1993 through to existence, it was clear there were problems. The select committee, where all parliamentarians and the public had an opportunity under privilege to put forward their concerns, I believe gained a lot, including the first minister for gambling, which was my privilege to be able to take up and set up, and of course the IGA and Rob Chappell, who is still there as the head of that today.

I think down the track now some 15 years or more, 17 or 18 years in fact, we should have had a select committee that was open and transparent. Unfortunately, we have seen six years of hard work by all sectors involved directly or indirectly in a profitability exercise or in picking up the pieces where the damage of gaming and gambling addiction occur, putting in six years of goodwill and effort, only to be overridden by the government at the end of the day and now forcing us to debate a bill fairly quickly.

I say at this point that the government was happy to procrastinate for at least two years when it came to the original proposition that the Casino put forward for expansion, but all of a sudden, I know for a fact, SkyCity, its directors and the parent company in New Zealand, where all the profits ultimately go back from Adelaide to deliver fatter wallets and purses in New Zealand, were getting very frustrated with the procrastination of the government, but suddenly we have to fast track through this legislation.

It is with regret that a government, which now says that it actually consults, considers and then announces, basically totally ignored the responsible gambling working party, and to me that is disappointing. The select committee would have been a way forward to come up with long-term planning and strategy for this industry and those affected adversely by the industry.

One of the things that frustrated me when I had the privilege of setting up, as the first minister for gambling, is that Treasury always kept control of the financial revenue. Since then and to this day you have the Treasurer, who is the Premier, controlling what happens with the revenue from gaming, but you have a minister trying to manage the damage that occurs daily throughout the community and society, and really we should have given the government of the day—and I appeal to this government to reconsider this—full responsibility for the portfolio of gambling to one minister, rather than splitting the role. We all know who wins in cabinet, and it is the Treasurer, the Premier and the Deputy Premier over and above the portfolios which individual ministers may have.

It is worth putting on the public record that it was actually the former Labor government that decided the policy would be to have gaming in both pubs and clubs; many of us would prefer that there was not any gaming at all. There are a lot of people who come to Family First and say that they would like to see all poker machines removed from the state, but the reality is that that is not going to occur; therefore, we have to deal as best we can with the situation as we see it today and for the future.

Gaming machines and gambling will continue in clubs and pubs into the very long-term future, as I see it. What we will be looking at and considering as we hear the debate from colleagues in different parties will be what is possibly achievable within this bill based on the premise that gaming and gambling are here for the long-term future, and how we can best manage the industry on that premise.

One of the things on which I want to take issue with the government is that one of the strong debates from government has been, 'Well, with this legislation that we are putting up now, we will give the Casino another 505 machines,' and they will also be able to set up these super venues—I call them 'mini-casinos'—of up to 60 machines. I do not see those being set up in the country, because I do not think there would be a significant return in the country for those machines and the capital cost involved in developing them.

Certainly, we would, if this legislation goes through, see super venues. The government says there will be more responsible gambling management as a result of that. I ask the minister, when we get into committee, to actually table the scientific evidence they have around where there will be more responsible management of problem gambling with those bigger venues.

It is my observation, whilst I will not play and do not enjoy gaming machines at all, when you go into the local tavern like the one in my home town of Mount Compass, where they have around 12 machines, that those owners are very responsible when it comes to keeping an eye on people. They know them well, and they know when they may have had enough. I do not see that as being a strong argument at all from the government that, by setting up these super venues, the smaller hotels and clubs are not as responsible. I ask the government to actually table the evidence and research with that information.

One of the things that Family First has been really critical of has been the issue around the buyback. I just want to put on the public record a national story that I was involved in on the ABC's 7:30 Report, together with Mr Geoff Tester from the Peterborough Hotel. During that interview, Mr Tester said:

I can't sell the hotel because the hotels aren't selling at the moment. There's no money around, banks aren't lending money, so the only option we've got really is to sell the poker machines. Once I've sold the poker machines then I've got a freehold hotel that you could probably sell for two or three hundred thousand, without any problems.

The interviewer then said:

The licences for his 16 machines are worth close to a million dollars, but to sell them the odds are stacked against him. He's up against the most restrictive trading laws in the nation. Other states like New South Wales and Victoria allow operators to offload pokie licences whenever they like, but the South Australian government only permits two trading rounds a year.

Mr Tester, to this day, still has not been able to sell those machines. I would have thought it would have been a good situation for Peterborough to have had a reduction in machine numbers available to their community like any other town or metropolitan area, but the reality is that he just cannot get a buyer.

I believe this government has committed to the state's longest-ever broken election promise, failing to deliver the full 3,000 poker machine reduction target. In fact, this government, as of today, is now eight years late in delivering that reduction; they are about 800 machines short, and that has been the case for some time. The trading rounds are critical for that reduction, with every fourth machine sold by hotels cancelled, and every fourth machine sold by clubs and community hotels transferred to Club One.

In the recent June trading round, 57 entitlements were sold, seeing six hotel entitlements cancelled and nine transferred to Club One—six entitlements cancelled when the government is almost 800 short of the 3,000 reduction target from 2004. When this was supported through both houses of the South Australian parliament, then minister Michael Wright was adamant that we would see that reduction occur in a fairly quick amount of time. As I say, that is over eight years ago.

At present there are still only two trading rounds per annum and yet, as I said, it is unrestricted in New South Wales and Victoria. Labor have also mucked about with a fixed price and finally at a floating price but the trade is still far too slow. The convenient thing for the government, of course, that we probably miss, is that the longer it mucks about and dithers the more revenue it gets from machines that it should have removed eight years ago.

In 2010-11 the government made $291 million in gambling taxes; $290 million in 2011-12; and was estimated to be $287 million this year. In 2013-14, at the completion of this financial year, they estimate that it will be $300 million, rising to $311 million in 2014-15, $331 million in 2015-16 and, in the most outward year of the forward estimates, it will be $344 million in 2016-17. These figures include contemplations of this regulatory regime. Clearly, as Budget Paper 3 states:

The revised growth projections reflect the maturing nature of the market as well as the introduction of regulatory reforms within the industry.

The structure of this bill is in response to the Casino's demand to be given an extra 505 gaming entitlements to support its approximately $300 million redevelopment. As we see it, to make that work under the existing restrictive trading round system, the government needed to create a stimulus to entitlement trade by giving entitlement owners opportunities to trade machines.

They have done that by creating a time frame with a deadline of 2017 by which time venues will either have to be under 20 machines and operate under existing regulation or have a right to have as many as 60 machines but be ready for greater regulation. Of course, for the right price paid by the Casino, the trade will get underway. If they bid high enough, sellers will trade.

The clubs industry is happy to expand the Casino's entitlement but not allow the other part through, as I understand it, hence the Hon. Rob Lucas talking about splitting the bill. The clubs industry is very concerned about consultation—and I will not go into that further because the Hon. Rob Lucas has outlined it at length. I understand the government does not want to split this bill.

I am negotiating at the moment with people within my own party about other ways that we could look at improving the issues around problem gambling and the stalemates that are clearly before my colleagues in this chamber. However, again, we do need to see the reduction of poker machine entitlements to 3,000 and put the interest of communities first in how we make the ultimate decision on these issues.

In completing this, I want to put a couple of other points on the record. During committee I said that the minister needed to explain very precisely and clearly the different tax regimes for hotels, clubs and community-owned hotels and for the Casino. We need to get absolute clarity on what the situation is because, from documentation that I have, it appears that the Adelaide Casino is doing very well and will do even better with the propositions that have been signed off by the government regarding its tax rates compared to others.

For a profit venue, every dollar of net gaming revenue over $3.5 million is taxed at 65 per cent plus 10 per cent GST of the total $1; in a non-profit venue, they are taxed at 55 per cent; but in the Casino on non-VIP machines, every dollar of NGR from zero and beyond $3.5 million, with no maximum threshold, will be taxed at only the average of the hotel/club sector to a maximum of 41¢ plus 10 per cent. In the Casino on the VIP machines every dollar of NGR from zero and beyond $3.5 million, with no maximum threshold, will be taxed at only 10.9¢ plus 10 per cent GST. Any for-profit venue seeking to move from 40 to 60 machines would obviously be paying all additional revenue generated at 74¢ in every dollar; however, the Casino machines in the VIP area—up to 1,500 of them—will only be taxed to a maximum of 50¢ in every dollar. That is how I understand it from advice given to me and I ask the minister to confirm that. I want to place on record some questions for the minister:

1. To what extent does this bill reflect the findings of the Fifth Report of the Responsible Gaming Working Party?

2. Is it correct that the precommitment component of this bill, or accompanying this bill, will see South Australia as it currently stands be the first in the nation to implement precommitment in 2017, ahead of the national phase in 2018?

(a) Was that the Responsible Gaming Working Party's recommendation?

(b) What reasons—our government may have good ones—does the government have for going into that arrangement earlier or is it just as the Hon. Rob Lucas has said, calling it a race to be first?

3. What is the current tax rate for the Casino on all their gambling products?

4. What is the basis for a person to qualify as a high roller to come within that taxation regime and could it be that a South Australian citizen spending as little as $1,000 in a year could qualify to go into the high roller new venue development?

5. It has been said—and I have seen the evidence of this—that $20 million is going to come to the government if this bill goes through now. If so, what commitments has the government given to the Casino on that front? My understanding is that the government is going to get an up-front $20 million cheque from SkyCity if this bill goes through.

I ask colleagues to cast their mind back a little bit to what happened when we were asked to push through the expansion of Roxby Downs. Whilst the government hid behind commercial confidentiality, a deal was done there where the government was to get kickbacks. The government can table the evidence and if I am wrong I will apologise to the government, but I do not think I am wrong with this.

What I am worried about, under the democratic processes of the Westminster system, is there tends to be a trail now looming where this government sits down with the private sector, signs off on a commercial in-confidence agreement, gets a kickback or an up-front amount of money to help it offset its mismanagement of its budget or to put assets into marginal seats before the next election, and then expects us to rubberstamp it. I want to see what the truth is behind this and I want to see it tabled in Hansard for every South Australian to see. What I want to say is, if this is true, then the community and the media and all of us as parliamentarians need to know exactly what deal was done.

In conclusion, we will listen to the rest of the debate. We will make our decisions based on what develops over the next week or so until we come back to sit, because I assume we will not get through this bill today, but there are a lot of answers the government needs to put on the table transparently with respect to this legislation proposal.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:48): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill. This bill amends various acts, with the stated aim to reduce harm from gambling. The government intends for these measures to commence on 1 July 2013. The government also intends to introduce further measures aimed at responsible gambling to commence on 1 July 2014. These will include a simplified barring system, and the government proclaims that these will create the strongest gambling measures in Australia.

The government is seeking to introduce precommitment legislation so that by 1 January 2016 only major venues that have implemented both precommitment and automated risk monitoring systems will be able to retain loyalty systems and current opening hours. By 1 January 2017, only major venues will be allowed to operate more than 20 gaming machines, and by 1 January 2020 only major venues that have implemented both precommitment and automated risk management monitoring systems will be able to retain automated coin-operated machines.

In addition, it is intended that by 1 January 2017 machines will have a $5 maximum bet. This bill also proposes to make amendments to the Casino Act 1997, the intention being to enable the Casino to become an internationally competitive premium gaming product, comparable to those interstate and overseas. As part of the changes to the Casino, it will be required to purchase additional gaming machines entitlements through the approved trading scheme.

This bill also provides for minor gaming venues. These are characterised as venues that achieve responsible gambling outcomes by the removal of a range of automated systems, along with an increased focus on staff and customer interaction. Minor gaming venues will be limited to no more than 20 machines.

Just to go back to the intention of reducing gambling in this state, if we believe that this bill is focused on that particular outcome I think we should be saying our name is Billy not Silly because we all know that to decrease or reduce any kind of addiction—and that is what problem gamblers are: they are addicts—funding rehabilitation, counselling programs, whatever, would be the way that we would truly tackle problem gambling but, as we heard from the Hon. Tammy Franks, the service Gamblers Anonymous is not funded at all by the government and struggles to keep its doors open.

This is a theme with this government—talk big, talk compassionate, but do very little to achieve those outcomes. As I have said in this place many times, it is a government of paper policy. As long as it reads well in the newspaper, sounds good over the airwaves, that is all that is really required. It never, never puts its money where its mouth is. We are talking about the cost to human lives in this particular place.

The Hon. Iain Evans in the other place indicated that the opposition had received briefings from Clubs SA, the AHA and the government itself. They were incensed that the government had pushed the bill through so quickly. Apparently, the Independent members had not even been briefed. As we have been informed by Mr Bill Cochrane, the AHA and Clubs SA were not consulted until late in the piece. It is clear that they had a draft bill, which was essentially presented as a fait accompli, but it was embargoed so they could not even discuss it with their own membership. It appears that Clubs SA were only able to discuss the bill with their members two or three days before the bill was introduced.

It was also rightly pointed out that there is nothing urgent in any of the provisions of the bill—none of the provisions relating to clubs or pubs, or the gambling tax, or the precommitment scheme, or the responsible gambling measures, or the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommendations, or the powers of the commissioner, or the Independent Gaming Authority. The opposition suggests the only urgency the government needs is a private sector project to be announced before the election campaign.

I remember when I came in here that I spoke to someone in the hallways, and they said, 'Give it time and you'll become another cynic.' I said, 'Oh, no, not me. I don't believe that I could ever be that cynical.' But here I am, just 7½ years later, and I believe absolutely nothing this government says to try to push through its legislation or to push through policy that sounds warm and fuzzy on the outside. At the end of the day, it is all about money: it always is and always will be with this government.

I was absolutely horrified, when Mr Bill Cochrane came to see me, to learn of the attempts that were made to have talks with various members of the government in order to discuss this bill and perhaps negotiate a reasonable position for the clubs to be able to survive. I will put on the record just what those measures were that were taken by Mr Cochrane and others from Clubs SA:

on 31/5/2011, Clubs SA wrote to then treasurer Snelling seeking a meeting;

on 16/11/2011, Clubs SA again wrote to then treasurer Snelling;

on 17/11/2011, Clubs SA received a letter from then treasurer Snelling, but no meeting occurred;

on 5/1/2012, Clubs SA wrote again to then treasurer Snelling;

on 6/6/2012, Clubs SA wrote to then treasurer Snelling;

on 6/9/2012, Clubs SA wrote to then treasurer Snelling;

on 16/12/2012, Clubs SA wrote to then treasurer Snelling;

on 16/12/2012, Clubs SA also wrote to Premier Weatherill, the Deputy Premier, and ministers Kenyon, Hill, Hunter and Wortley;

on 5/12/2012, Clubs SA called Treasury and Finance to inquire whether the government was preparing a white paper;

on 20/12/2012, Clubs SA met with Treasury and Finance and confirmed that a white paper was being prepared to be released in the new year;

on 25/1/2013, Clubs SA wrote to Premier Weatherill seeking urgent dialogue with government in relation to the club industry;

on 4/2/2013, Clubs SA received correspondence from Treasury and Finance with the draft bill, and an explanatory note, embargoed until further notice;

on 12/2/2013, Clubs SA wrote to the Deputy Premier expressing concern over the absence of consultation—another absolutely regular theme when government wants a bill pushed through;

on 26/2/2013, Clubs SA wrote to the Deputy Premier expressing concern over lack of consultation;

on 27/2/2013, Clubs SA received a letter from the Deputy Premier acknowledging the letter of the 26th;

on 5/4/2013, Clubs SA wrote to the Deputy Premier regarding the draft bill, noting changes and outlining other changes sought; and

on 9/4/2013, Clubs SA received a letter from the Deputy Premier committing to work with Clubs SA and Sport SA to address industry change.

Clubs SA has attempted to consult with government over that two-year period, and what did it get? It got a copy of the bill two to three days before it was ready to be introduced into parliament. That has been the extent of the consultation, according to Mr Cochrane.

We have the lowest allocation of revenue to sporting clubs from poker machines in the country. As a matter of fact, in New South Wales it is about 75 per cent to clubs and 25 per cent to hotels; in Queensland, it is 55 per cent to clubs and 45 per cent to hotels; and in Victoria it is legislated that it is exactly a fifty-fifty split. In South Australia, I think they get 7 per cent.

These sporting clubs, whether members in here on the government side want to acknowledge it or not, keep our junior sporting clubs going in our communities. I will give you a very typical example of where they step in and help. In my son's soccer team, we had three players of Sudanese background who were dearly loving to play soccer. Their family did not have a car and those kids were not able to get to the away games for soccer. I was told last Saturday that the club received a cheque in support of these three kids to provide them with transport and also pay their club fees for them.

That is gold. That is gold to a small club and it is gold to kids who want to get out there, kick a ball, have some fun and meet other kids in their neighbourhood, but this government has no view of anything that small anymore. It has no sense of community and no sense of community support. I know, from speaking with Mr Cochrane that, if this bill goes through in its current form, the clubs are going to suffer and those sorts of little helping hand gestures will not be able to happen.

We need to really pull our heads in here. I am supporting the Liberal Party and their suggestion to split the bill. It should have been done. It should have been dealt with as two separate issues: pubs and clubs and get the Casino stuff through. I will support any amendment that gives the sporting clubs in this state a fairer go than what they are going to get if this bill goes through. I would like to say that I am surprised or aghast at how this government conducts business, but I am not. This is not the first time that we have had a really bad piece of legislation put before us that we are expected to make a judgement call on very quickly.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Is the Hon. Ms Bressington about to conclude?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Thank you.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will support the Liberal Party amendments and I will consider Mr Darley's amendments. Anything that makes it tough for this bill to go through the way it is, I will gladly support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.


[Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:15]


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