Matter of Interest - Break Even Gambling Network

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
30 May 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I want to raise questions of funding for those groups providing services to people with gambling problems. The Break Even Network has sent me correspondence under the name of Neil Forgie which I think would be of interest to this place. At this stage an additional $311 000 is being sought for the Break Even Network immediately, just to meet basic demands for the agencies serving people with gambling problems. The Productivity Commission noted that 2.1 per cent of adults are estimated to experience significant problems with their gambling, and still others are at risk. There is a higher prevalence of problem gambling for regular players of gaming machines, raising Casino table games and the average duration of gambling problems is around nine years.

There is also a well established direct correlation between the level of gambling turnover and the level of problem gambling. Every increase in the volume of gambling turnover results in an increase in the level of problem gambling. In South Australia there has been a 57 per cent increase in turnover for gaming machines in the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000. The turnover for all gambling during that same period was 40 per cent. Break Even services, particularly in the Adelaide metropolitan area, are now forced to maintain waiting lists to manage burgeoning demand, with waiting lists of up to four to five weeks becoming increasingly common.

The increase in demand can be explained by two major factors: first, the direct relationship with demand for gambling services from problem gamblers and their families growing as levels of gambling activity grow, noting, also conservatively, that at least five people are affected for every problem gambler; and, secondly, the comparative newness of gaming machines in South Australia, coupled with the Productivity Commission evidence that there is an average duration of problem gambling of nine years. That means there are many more new clients than clients leaving services with their problems resolved.

The base funding levels in real terms have remained static for at least six years. Some agencies have received small, add-on funding components. These have been netted out in calculations to determine real levels of funding. Taking base funding levels also means that the four largest providers of direct services are comparable. The locus for real funding for agencies is calculated from base GRF funding to a metropolitan service. I have been sent a graph with years on the horizontal scale and the Break Even base funds and the electronic gaming machine turnover on the vertical scale. What we see is that the Break Even funds remain static whilst the growth in turnover is about 40 per cent. It clearly shows the additional pressure being applied to Break Even services.

I understand that the government may consider providing extra moneys to gambling services generally, recognising the changes in legislation which went through this parliament only last evening. What is important is that at the very least there is an increase in funding to the Break Even services-those at the coal face-of around 40 per cent which, on the calculations of Break Even, is about $311 000 a year.

I think it is important to note that in conversations I had with agencies right from the very beginning they indicated that they were not receiving sufficient funds to supply their services and were dipping into their own funds to do so. So, gambling services provided by churches were not reliant just upon moneys coming from the government or the amounts coming from the hotel industry: they were always dipping into their own funds as well. With this significant increase that we have seen in turnover and therefore in terms of problem gamblers, it is apparent that even just the request of $311 000 for coal face delivery of services really is not enough, but anything less than that will mean that they are worse off than they were when these services were first established.