 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to support the second reading of this Bill. I understand in conversation with the Hon. Nick Xenophon that it is his intention not to go beyond the second reading stage and for us to return to debate this, if it passes the second reading, when Parliament resumes in September. In indicating that I will be supporting the second reading, I will be looking for a number of substantial changes and some not so substantial changes to the legislation. Perhaps I will work my way through some of the major points in the legislation.
The Hon. Nick Xenophon proposes a gambling impact authority. I have for sometime on behalf of the Democrats promoted the idea of a gaming commission—a gaming commission that would operate not under the auspices of the Treasurer or Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing but under the Minister for Family and Youth Services, as he is titled today. I do not oppose gambling, but I do think it is something the Government should seek to regulate. When we first introduced the TAB and when we first introduced the Lotteries Commission, both of those were acknowledgments that gambling occurs and that people in the community want to gamble, but the Government was seeking in some way to regulate it. I believe that that regulation in those two cases did not go far enough and in fact things have got more out of hand since. Before the TAB was commenced, gambling was still occurring at a significant level in this State. It was happening with SP bookies, often operating through the front bars of hotels and, try as they could, the police simply could not control it, and the Government's view was that perhaps if you could not control it by simply making it illegal, then perhaps you legalised it. They established the TAB— The Hon. Nick Xenophon: The SP bookie never took your home away! The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will get to that. The idea at its simplest level was quite a good one, but where the Government went astray was that it got hooked on the income, bit by bit. The TAB saw it as a positive thing, if it did more business this year than it did last year, and more business that year than the year before. Of course, government loved it because it just continued to bring in more and more revenue. The Lotteries Commission also came in with, I suppose, similar thinking. South Australians were buying tickets in Tattersalls and other operations running interstate and the argument was, `All this money is going interstate'—gee, it is starting to sound like gaming machines—`it is best that we keep it here in South Australia and it will be for a good cause, because all the money we make we will put into hospitals.' That sounded fairly reasonable, so another little empire was set up. It thought it was doing good business if it did more business this year than last year and more business that year than the year before.The Government thought that that was not a bad thing and at that stage it started to lose sight of things and established a Casino. It was established under separate authority, each year seeking to grow business on the previous year. They all operated on good business principles and probably ran into each other's market from time to time. Each of these separate kingdoms was steadily trying to gain more territory and saw success as a growth in gambling because, the greater the turnover, the more they were getting. They were on a guaranteed take every time. They were set up not to lose. That is how anybody who seeks to profit from gambling works, but it is the mug punter who always ends up losing.
None of these bodies had any social responsibility, and that is where the real failing occurred. It was not wrong to set up a TAB, a Lotteries Commission or a Casino. However, none of those was established with any sort of social policy in mind. They simply sought to regulate something that the Government could not control otherwise, in the case of the TAB and the Lotteries Commission, although I suspect that the Casino was a straight-out case of wanting to make some money. That is probably also true with the introduction of gaming machines. I am sure that Mr Blevins in his time in Treasury thought about good ways of making money and realised that gaming machines were one heck of a good way of doing so.The Hon. T.G. Cameron: I can't believe that they ever saw any projections on revenue from poker machines! Would they have done that?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am absolutely certain that they would have. Even in their wildest dreams gaming machines brought in more than they expected. The failure in each case was that there was no requirement for social responsibility. It is for that reason that I believe that a single body should have oversight of all gambling activities in the State. It should report not to the Treasurer or the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing but in the first instance to the Minister for Human Services. It is the Minister for Human Services who theoretically picks up the pieces, although some would argue that is not happening. I suggest that a gambling impact authority, which has been proposed by the Hon. Nick Xenophon, is heading in the right direction, but I would like to give it a lot more teeth. For instance, in relation to gaming machines, I would give the GIA, the gaming commission or whatever we end up with power to regulate the advertising which occurs under the various gambling codes. I would give it the power to regulate the games that are played with gaming machines, scratchie tickets and lottery games of other sorts. It would certainly operate under a set of objectives.This Bill should contain a set of objectives for a gaming commission or a gambling impact authority which gives it a very clear direction, and one of those objectives would be to seek to minimise the harm caused by gambling in South Australia. Having given a commission that objective and having given it power to regulate games, one hopes that, if gaming machines were not removed totally, the games would be modified to regulate the size of bets, how quickly punters can bet, and require the machines to make regular payouts, not accumulate points. A whole lot of things can be done to regulate the game so that those people who say they are just having a bit of fun and for whom money is, in effect, tokens, can have fun with a gaming machine, but they could not lose the quantum of money that they are losing at present.
There is one person quite close to my family who has lost horrendous amounts of money. I will not say more than that, otherwise it will identify the individual, but I have been simply appalled at the behaviour of the hotels at which this person has been gambling. Effectively, they have just had a direct electronic link between her bank account and their bank account with an arrangement that money can flow only in one direction.
That is precisely what has happened and virtually everything that this person and her partner had in life (and they did have a bit) has been lost, and lost, so far as I am concerned, without a modicum of morality in terms of the behaviour of the people in the hotels who give free birthday dinners and various other things to this person to make her feel especially welcome in the hotel. Of course, they are especially welcome because there is still a little bit of money left and they might as well get hold of that as well. I am concerned by the gross immorality of some of the people running these hotels. Certainly, providing entertainment for people is quite different from knowing that you are milking them and continuing to do it for all it is worth.
The Hon. Nick Xenophon: It's predatory.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is predatory. I would hope that a gaming commission would have responsibility for monitoring the behaviour of groups so that, if there was a code of conduct, it would be enforceable. The AHA has a code of conduct now but it is not an enforceable code and there is no obligation for people to act according to it. Indeed, having a code of conduct which is implemented by a gambling commission or whatever is one thing but, if it is set up by statute, it would also open up other legal avenues. The behaviour of individual outlets has been such that they might set themselves up more clearly for legal action if they do not behave in a proper and responsible manner.
That can happen: hotels already face such threats in relation to serving alcohol and it is not unreasonable that, if they have behaved wrongly—we would have to spell out what that meant—they face up to those other activities. The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I agree with that: it is not impossible but it might be tricky.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Nothing is beyond the wit of man and woman given sufficient time and goodwill. The general concept of a gambling impact authority is something that I support. I suggest that I would beef it up a lot more and give it more responsibilities than it currently has. I also support the idea of a gambling impact fund. Political donations are an interesting matter and one need only look at Catch Tim and various other fun and games that go on in this place to realise that no matter—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There are so many contrivances available to people who decide that they are prepared to use them that it is probably true that this clause will turn out to be ineffective. After all, the people who own gambling entities probably often own other businesses as well and would find all sorts of routes to channel the money in. Probably, that would be an unenforceable provision.
I am moving fairly quickly through the Bill because we will not resolve it in this session, but I refer to the phasing out of gaming machines over five years. I know what the cost of keeping them is: what I do not know is the cost of getting rid of them; that is, the cost in terms of what the obligations to the State would be in terms of payouts. The Government, in first allowing this legislation to go through, created an enormous capital gain for owners of hotels. Certainly some of them made major investments but, on top of all that, I have heard suggestions that many hotels increased in value—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, a Labor Government, with just enough Liberals prepared to cross the floor to guarantee that it happened. It was one of those curious little things that the numbers were exactly right at the end of the day.
An honourable member: Why would that surprise you?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not surprised. It is a cynical exercise because it is quite plain that gaming machines in particular are the most regressive form of taxation that exists in Australia. There is no question about that at all. Only a couple of days ago I was looking at some data which effectively shows that those in the lowest income groupings are spending close to about 4 per cent of their income on gambling, whilst those in the highest are spending, as I recall, about 1 per cent.
The Hon. Nick Xenophon: And that's the average.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: And that is the average; that is right.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No. It is all very well to say that people do it by choice, but one also has to look at the practical reality of what is happening. Do not just get theoretical: let us talk about what is happening in the real world. In the real world, the average low income person is losing 4 per cent of income in gambling and the average—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Absolutely, but it is an absolute cop-out to say that it is choice alone. The State has done everything to allow gambling—and as a libertarian I have no problems with allowing gambling. However, it has positively encouraged gambling to occur, and it views it as an industry that should be encouraged. I make a comparison using the view that I have had in relation to drugs. I have never said that we should ban tobacco, but many years ago I sponsored a Bill to ban tobacco advertising because I saw a huge difference between people choosing to smoke and people being induced to smoke. I also supported a ban on products that were being aimed at minors. For instance, I supported a ban on chewing tobacco, which was not in demand in the general community but was being promoted heavily among teenagers—The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It actually has been successful. Tobacco consumption is in decline. There are no miracles; many other forces are at work. Again, since we are digressing, I note that tobacco companies have found another way to advertise and that the actual amount of smoking occurring in films emanating from the United States has doubled in the past four years—
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: —because the companies are sponsoring the making of the movies and they are getting the stars to smoke. I would have no problems if the State decided to intervene in terms of the level of smoking that was allowed in movies, particularly movies that were being given a G rating.
The point is that the responsibility of the State is not necessarily to stop people from doing things, even though we believe them to be harmful, but the State does have the responsibility to recognise that harm can occur and it should seek to minimise that harm as best it might. In saying that, my first approach in relation to gaming machines, recognising that removing them may cost more than this State can afford at this point in time—
The Hon. Nick Xenophon: Assuming that compensation is payable.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am assuming that compensation is payable, and I have not seen definitive information on that. Certainly, that is an assumption that I have made. However, I would have no compunction, as I said earlier, in the State's intervening in the way in which the machines operate. For instance, I am prepared to look at the hours that they are opened, the size of the bets, the accumulation of points (which is money), forcing the machines to pay out more regularly and slowing down the machines. I think that there is a range of things we can do which would make them less addictive in their behaviour. To some extent, it would be a bit like setting a content of nicotine that was allowable in a cigarette, which would be one way of reducing their addictiveness.
So, in a very quick excursion over a couple of the issues I have indicated support for the direction in which the Hon. Nick Xenophon wishes to move. I indicate my preparedness during the break to consult further with the Hon. Nick Xenophon and with anybody else who wishes to do so to see whether we can find a Bill that might negotiate its way through the two Houses. It seems to me that, when there is a conscience issue and when we now have a multitude of Parties and Independents, the longer and more complex a Bill, the chances of getting enough members to agree with the total Bill (as distinct from getting its various amendments up and then finding at the end members will not vote for it because they disagree with some parts of it) are much slimmer. It might be easier to have a much simpler Bill and to do it in bite sized pieces, if you like.
Perhaps we should tackle the issue of the Gambling Impact Authority almost as a single issue on its own, and the issue of gaming machines themselves, their numbers, etc. might be an issue on its own. The more complex we make the Bill, the more difficult, particularly in terms of the conscience issue, it will be to get enough consensus in the Parliament to get it through. I indicate support for the second reading but intimate that when we undertake the Committee stage, which I understand will be in September or October, I will be looking for some significant amendment.See also Sandra Kanck's speech on the same Bill: 28 July 1999
