Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill
04/07/2013
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.
