HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gambling Measures) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 3, lines 4 and 5—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to this section, this Act will come into operation on the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

(2) Part 2 (other than sections 5A, 5B, 9A and 10A), Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5 will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

I am advised that these amendments are necessary by virtue of the fact that there is currently no maximum bet limit prescribed in either the Casino Act or the Gaming Machines Act. Members will recall that, when we debated the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Amendment Bill in 2013, we amended both these acts to introduce a maximum bet limit of $5 for hotels and for the Casino. Those amendments were ultimately accepted by the majority in this place despite my attempts to further reduce maximum bets to $1.

The sections of the amending act do not commence until 1 January 2017. It is therefore necessary to commence these uncommenced sections before amending the maximum bet limit from $5 to $1, as per my amendments Nos 2 and 9. Proposed section 3B, in amendment No. 2 to the Casino Act, and proposed section 10A, in amendment No. 9 of the Gaming Machines Act, deal with this commencement issue to ensure that the maximum bet sections of the government's 2013 amending act commence so that my amendments can, if passed, have effect, thereby reducing the maximum bet limit from $5 to $1.

The other reason for this amendment is so that, if all my amendments pass, they come into operation on assent. This is to ensure the commencement of these amendments and to prevent the delay tactics of the government on deferring, sometimes indefinitely, the commencement of provisions of the Casino Act and Gaming Machines Act passed by the parliament. Given this reasoning, I will use this amendment as a test clause for amendments Nos 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10.

Members will note that amendments Nos 2 and 9 also deal with the issue of mandatory breaks in play. Amendment No. 5 deals with the transferability of gaming machines for those licensees who have 20 or fewer poker machine entitlements. Amendment No. 2 provides for $1 maximum bets and for mandatory breaks in play. In terms of maximum bets, it seeks to replace $5 maximum bets on poker machines with $1 maximum bets. It is identical to that moved when we last considered the issue of poker machines in 2013.

As I mentioned a moment ago, during the 2013 debate the government moved to reduce maximum bets from $10 to $5; that proposal was ultimately agreed to by a majority of members despite my attempts to reduce bets even further to $1. As we all know, both the government and the opposition flatly refused to entertain that proposal. This is despite the fact that $1 maximum bets have been recommended by the Productivity Commission, which argues that there are strong grounds to reduce the maximum intensity of play per button well below the current $5 and $10 regulated limits, and a limit of $1 would strongly target problem gamblers, with little impact on other recreational gamblers.

At the risk of repeating what I have said on the public record before, the Productivity Commission has previously confirmed that even at $5 our bet limits are too high to be effective in constraining the spending of problem gamblers, given the speed and intensity of play that a modern poker machine allows; that has not changed. The fact remains that this is the single most effective measure in terms of reducing the harm caused by poker machines. If played at the faster allowable rate, lowering the maximum bet from $5 to $1 will result in losses reducing from $600 an hour to $120 an hour.

As I have said previously, $600 hourly losses are a far cry better than $1,200, which is what we had previously, but it is still extraordinarily high. If we are going to constrain the spend rate of problem gamblers without affecting other recreational gamblers, who typically bet at low levels, we need to implement the $1 maximum bet. I am pleased that the Greens have adopted $1 maximum bets as a policy issue not just in South Australia but in all jurisdictions, and I am grateful for the continued support of the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Mark Parnell on this very important issue. I remain hopeful that the government and the opposition will see sense and give serious consideration to these reforms.

I would also ask the government at this stage to advise the house of what the projected compliance rate of poker machines is likely to be when $5 maximum bets come into operation. In terms of mandatory breaks in play, the amendments seek to mandate an interruption in play of at least five seconds at regular intervals of 30 minutes' play. As I have stated on the public record previously, it is widely accepted that providing a break in play provides gamblers with the opportunity to rethink their options in terms of whether or not to continue gambling. Five seconds is not a long time. If someone cannot handle a five-second break after sitting in front of a poker machine for 30 minutes, I dare say that they may be at risk of developing a gambling addiction if they have not already.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to enable a person who holds 20 gaming machine entitlements or fewer to surrender those entitlements and be compensated an agreed amount. The aim of this amendment is to encourage and assist small venues to get out of the poker machine industry. It would also go some way towards meeting the government's 3,000 machine reduction target set back in 2004. Despite changes to the trading system over the last 11 years, we still have not achieved this target; if anything, the total number of entitlements in the system has increased because of the deal done with the Casino.

Over the years, my office and that of my colleague the Hon. Senator Nick Xenophon have been contacted by operators of small hotels, particularly in regional areas, who have effectively been locked out of the trading system because of the fixed price that used to apply. Even with the removal of a fixed price, it is still not financially viable for many such operators to get out of the game despite their wanting to do so. By the same token, they have invested in their entitlements and cannot afford simply to give them away. This amendment would enable them to get out and for compensation to be negotiated with the commissioner on the surrender of their entitlements. I urge all honourable members to support these amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. We also see it as a test for most of the Hon. John Darley's other amendments. This amendment proposes that additional clauses proposed by the Hon. John Darley commence in operation on the day on which the act is assented to by the Governor. It is difficult to consider this amendment in isolation from the other amendments proposed.

Amendments Nos 2 and 7 seek to lower the maximum bet and introduce mandatory interruptions in gaming and machine play at the Casino, clubs and hotels. These proposed changes were considered in this place back in 2013 and were not accepted. The government's position on this matter has not changed since that time. Amendment No. 5 introduces the ability for a gaming venue with 20 gaming machine entitlements or fewer to surrender those gaming machine entitlements to the Crown for compensation.

The government considers that the existing approved trading system can facilitate the venue exiting the gaming machine market provided the seller bids a sale price that reflects the value the market places on gaming machine entitlements. The government does not support the use of government funds to buy back gaming machine entitlements, and it is for those reasons that the government continues to oppose these types of amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens rise to support the amendments put before us by the Hon. John Darley and, as they have been presented as somewhat consequential, I will address them in that way. The Greens, as the Hon. John Darley mentioned, have a policy position of dollar bets being the maximum bets, and it is also the recommendation of the Productivity Commission. We were pleased to introduce into federal parliament legislation to attempt to effect that—obviously unsuccessfully—but, with the inquiry into that legislation, stood with Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon, and our leader Senator Richard Di Natale championed that cause, and I commend him for his work on the area. We voted for it in 2013, we moved it in 2013, we will support it today and we will continue to support it because we have actually seen independent evidence that dollar maximum bets is one of the most effective things we can do to curb problem gambling.

In terms of suspensions in break of play of such a small amount and further incentive for small operations to ensure that they are removing those particular machines from the system, we think the government should be welcoming these moves if they were serious about addressing problem gambling. We will be supporting these amendments today, and I am sure if they are not successful we will be back supporting them until we get there.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will not be supporting the package of amendments being moved by the Hon. Mr Darley. As the government has made clear, the government's position is in opposition to the amendments as well, and the package of measures that this parliament has been asked to consider in this bill was actually a set of amendments that had been agreed by all stakeholders in the Gambling Reference Group, and that includes those from the clubs and hotel side but also from the welfare sector. Relationships Australia, as I indicated in the second reading, represented the welfare sector, and the package of measures before us was an agreed package which, given this difficult area, in terms of trying to reach agreement on anything, was an achievement in and of itself.

The parliament is confronted with the situation where, while I respect the fact that we have widely divergent views on the issue of gambling—and my views are probably at the other end of the continuum to the views the Hon. Mr Darley (and before him the Hon. Mr Xenophon), the Hon. Ms Franks and others might have in relation to gambling and gaming machines—certainly within the major parties I am sure there are a variety of views as well in relation to some issues that relate to gambling and gaming machines; in fact, even the basic question of the advisability of whether or not they should have been introduced into South Australia.

The reality is that there is an agreed package of measures before us, which all stakeholders on the Gambling Reference Group have agreed to, and the parliament is confronted with the situation of either accepting an agreed package or essentially voting it down on the basis of trying to impose a new set of views on what has been an agreed package. The position the Liberal Party has adopted is that we will not be supporting the package of measures.

As the Hon. Ms Franks has indicated, if unsuccessful on this occasion those who put forward those views will continue to try to prosecute their views. I am sure that will be the case, and I am sure that those who do not support the views will continue to prosecute that case as well. That will be for another occasion: it may well be through private members' legislation that a member or members may move to test the views of the parliament.

As the Hon. Mr Darley indicated, some of the measures we only recently approved as a parliament a little over a year or so ago are still being phased in and actually have not occurred yet. The parliament has recently expressed a view on a number of these issues. Time will tell, in terms of the potential impact of those changes, but it does seem slightly pre-emptive, if the parliament has just expressed a view about what should be done. Those changes are still to be phased in.

I think it is sometime in 2017 when we will see some of the major changes to which the Hon. Mr Darley referred. But it does seem pre-emptive that even prior to that occurring the parliament could, in essence, change the rules again before those particular rules have been implemented. For all those reasons, I will not support this amendment and the package of amendments that will ensue.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First have consistently argued that we need to do whatever we can to address what is a real problem for a sector of our community. Quite a substantial number of people and their families are affected by problem gambling. We are still not convinced that the government's focus is on addressing issues around problem gambling as much as it is focused on its own gambling addiction, which is to return as much money as possible to Treasury.

We will be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's amendments, but I note that both the major parties—the government and the opposition—will not be, so it appears that on this occasion, again, the numbers will not be there. In the future, when other opportunities come up that either we or another party or member of parliament puts up, we will be proactively seeking initiatives that will see a reduction in problem gambling and less harm to families.

I would call on the government to actually, rather than wait for all these amendments that we have already passed to come through in 2017, do an audit this year and just see what impact there is on problem gambling in South Australia, and make that public and have a debate on it so that we have a chance, with some proper research and information, to address what initiatives can be implemented to further address problem gambling, not the least of which would be proactive programs that actually nip it in the bud early, and increased rehabilitation and support for those who are problem gamblers.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I did ask the minister whether there was any indication of what the compliance rate might be if $5 bets came into operation, and I have not received an answer.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We expect 100 per cent compliance because it is the law.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: The government bill seeks to remove the requirement that currently prevents venues from offering EFTPOS facilities in gaming areas. In the government's words, and I quote:

It is considered that there is a better chance of appropriate intervention [by trained gaming area staff] when the gambler is exhibiting problem gambling characteristics if the EFTPOS facility is located in the gaming area.

I appreciate that these changes have been drafted in consultation with the regulators, but I remain to be convinced that this is the right way to go. As I alluded during my second reading contribution, venues have been trying to get around changes aimed at restricting access to cash at gaming venues for years. This plays right into their hands. As such, I will be opposing these provisions.

Again, as I mentioned during my second reading contribution, it is important to remember that, in many instances, EFTPOS facilities are provided just outside the door of the venue's gaming area, and patrons are still served by the same trained gaming staff who monitor patrons' gaming behaviour. It is the same staff serving patrons irrespective of where they are.

I do not accept that this makes monitoring gambling behaviour more effective. If a person wants to access an ATM, they still have to leave the gaming room. How do trained staff monitor these people? There is no question that easy accessibility to cash has a significant impact on problem gamblers. That is why we have moved down the path of removing ATMs, removing EFTPOS facilities, restricting access to credit and restricting the use of cheques in gaming areas. All these measures combined serve a very real purpose. Why on earth would we want to undo them?

At the very least, having facilities located outside the gaming areas provides for a break in play, and we know that for many problem gamblers that break in play can mean the difference between losing a little bit or losing a lot. I urge all members to support my amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. We understand that the proposal in the bill can appear to be counterintuitive from a responsible gambling perspective, but the government is of the view that it will result in a better outcome. Hopefully, the following points will illustrate this:

under the Gaming Machines Regulations, an EFTPOS facility can only be offered if the person operating the EFTPOS facility confirms a withdrawal amount with the person obtaining cash from the EFTPOS facility immediately before the amount is withdrawn;

cash may only be obtained directly from a person operating the EFTPOS facility or from a dispenser in the immediate vicinity of the EFTPOS facility (not being a dispenser that forms part of an automatic telling machine);

the Gaming Machines Regulations enshrine the requirement for face-to-face interaction with customers using EFTPOS. What the bill seeks to do is make sure that the customer is face to face with an employee who has benefited from recognised training. This training is required under the Gaming Machines Act to address gaming operations, responsible gaming and problem gambling identification, including automated risk monitoring and precommitment. The advanced training includes low-level intervention and referral to gambling help services; and

an EFTPOS facility outside the gaming area is not necessarily operated by a person with recognised training, nor are they in a position to observe behaviour in the gaming area. This could result in a situation where some problem gambling risk factors may not be observed by those trained to identify and respond to them.

It is for these reasons that the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons I outlined earlier—and this issue will be addressed in the second reading explanation as well, so I will not add to those particular comments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We understand that the government is attempting to improve the situation, and the face-to-face contact may well be effective. I also understand the concerns put forward by the Hon. John Darley, but following our consultations with various groups, whilst there has been a divergence of opinion, we will let the government enact this; hopefully, if it does not have the effect that the government seeks to have and it is not an improvement, we will see further reform.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 22 passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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