 |
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 |
|
GAMBLING INDUSTRY REGULATION BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the second reading. I support some of the notions contained in the bill but will not be supporting others. Underpinning this bill as a whole is the thrust that gambling overall is capable of causing problems: it does not just isolate poker machines as the root of all evil. Whilst I opposed the introduction of poker machines because I did anticipate that they would grow like Topsy, as they have, I recognised that the level of regulation within the gambling industry in South Australia has not been particularly good.
We introduced each gambling code for very good reasons. For instance, the TAB was instituted because there was already very active SP bookmaking in many hotels and through phone betting, and the government decided that it was better to take control of it and try to regulate it via the TAB than to allow SP bookmaking to continue with the many associated problems. We also introduced lotteries into South Australia on the basis that South Australians were buying large numbers of lottery tickets from Tattersalls and other interstate operators, and it was argued that, if people were going to gamble, they may as well be buying South Australian lottery tickets as interstate lottery tickets, and the revenue thus generated would stay within the state.
All of that was done for good reason. Whilst I opposed the introduction of poker machines, my big fear about their introduction was that, as with the other forms of gambling, while they might have been introduced for very good reasons, the government simply let them run rampant, recognising that, whilst many people who gamble do not have a problem, there is a significant minority who do have a problem. While they might add up to just a small percentage of gamblers overall, the impact extends more broadly than to just those who directly have a problem: it extends to their families and their employers, thus there is a far greater impact. I have a view that we should seek to minimise harm, not to ban gambling, because I do not happen to believe that you can successfully control behaviour in that way. But I do think it is reasonable to regulate, and the only debate then relates to the form that the regulation takes.
I have argued for a long time that we really should have a gambling commission. I guess to some extent the gambling impact authority proposed by the Hon. Nick Xenophon in this bill takes a similar track. There should be a body that oversights gambling in the state and then provides advice to government. I am not sure that I have picked up the minister responsible. It is not clear to me on reading this bill. It is my view that gambling is social behaviour. Yes, it does happen to generate wealth for the government, but in the first instance it is social behaviour and as such should be under the minister responsible for various forms of social services-the one who eventually has to pick up pieces, in some cases.
I would expect that, if you have such a body, it would be providing advice as to what we would do to help the victims of gambling. At this stage, I think the only code of gambling that is providing any money at all is poker machines. That is just blatantly a nonsense. The TAB, the Lotteries Commission and so on should all be making contributions towards funds which will help those who end up with a gambling problem. That case has been made by the hotels, and they are absolutely spot on in that regard. So, a gambling impact authority or a gambling commission, or whatever else in the first instance, could have oversight. It could provide advice in terms of a gambling impact fund and how moneys might be directed to assist those who have problems with gambling, and it might provide advice in other ways that me might seek to control harm.
I note that there are other behaviours which are legal but which we sometimes choose to regulate. Smoking tobacco is a classic example of that. Let people choose to do it by all means, but we certainly have chosen to regulate who can sell, and I suppose in many ways we are regulating gambling to the extent that there are licensed outlets. We also choose to regulate advertising. In relation to tobacco, there happens to be an outright ban. In relation to gambling, one might not seek to ban the gambling opportunity but would seek perhaps to control the forms of advertising which provide the wrong sorts of inducements in relation to it.
If we say we accept gambling, I think we are also saying that we would be seeking to encourage responsible gambling. Part of the encouragement of responsible gambling would be programs in schools. When I visited the Netherlands last year I found it very interesting. I was speaking to some education experts there on the issues of drugs and they got out a range of booklets they were using. They got out a booklet on cannabis, one on heroin and another on amphetamines, and the next one they pulled out was on gambling. In fact, the Dutch treat gambling in exactly the same way as they treat those other forms of behaviour and run education programs directed to young people at the same time. I guess they recognise that many people will use drugs and will not have a problem but that they must make sure that they have educated people about the dangers, the risks and so on, and that it should be the same with gambling.
People need to be aware that, whilst many people do not have a problem with gambling, some people do. They need to know what sorts of behaviours are problematic so that, if they know about it before they become involved, they might recognise it in their own behaviour. Many people who have a gambling problem are in absolute denial. I have one relative through marriage who in a very short number of years playing the poker machines has managed to lose two-thirds of the family farm, and the last third has almost gone. She does not have a problem, as far as she is concerned.
The Hon. Caroline Schaefer: They probably had a run of bad years.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I can assure you it has been poker machines; there is no question about that whatsoever. The really unfortunate thing about that is that she uses only two outlets. Unfortunately, those two outlets have a channel running directly into their bank account. They encourage her and behave most irresponsibly. That is why I support the notion of having more than just a voluntary code of conduct.
As far as I am concerned, it is not unreasonable to have a code of conduct that is enforceable. We have a code of conduct which prohibits serving alcohol to minors or a drunk person, and that is enforceable. If you have a regular client you will know whether or not that person has a gambling problem, and I think it is possible to come up with appropriate reactions to problematic gamblers. Having a code of conduct suggesting that you might do something like that is not enough because in any business-it does not matter what it is-there are some people who are unscrupulous. Effectively, that is the reason why we end up having laws.
It could be argued that we could live by the 10 commandments if everybody behaved themselves, but the fact is that people do not, so we end up spending a lot of time making all sorts of laws in this place and trying to get people to treat each other decently. The notion of a code of practice being enforceable is something that I find attractive.
I do not intend to speak at any greater length. I have indicated that I find attractive the notion of a central gambling authority of some sort and have advocated it for a number of years. The idea of a fund I also find attractive, and I suggest that its source of income should not be just the poker machines but also the other forms of gambling. I frankly think the section on political donations will not work; Catch Tim proved that there are all sorts of ways of disguising moneys coming in, and that is the issue we need to tackle. As long as you know who the donors are you are in a position to expose what is driving the behaviour of individual politicians or parties, and I do not think this bill is the appropriate place to tackle that.
I have already said that I support the notion of regulation of the gambling industry, but I do not agree with a number of the regulations that are being proposed here. Frankly, a prohibition of interactive gambling simply will not work. However, I would seek to introduce codes of conduct for companies which are involved in interactive gambling. Certainly, before the government set about licensing or allowing such industries to operate in South Australia, I would like to see a gambling authority of some sort established within the state to provide oversight and to try to enforce codes of behaviour with those sorts of operations. We will have ample opportunity to address the detail during the committee stage. So, with those words I indicate support for the second reading.
