Mr BAYLEY – We had the information from community advocates earlier in the week, I think it was around $1.4 billion being lost to pokies since the 2018 election. I’m interested if Treasury’s done any modelling on the cost to Tasmanians from poker machines, and modelled what you believe the savings would be going forward. We had the conversation earlier around taxes and what’s in the Budget and so forth, and it being flat, but have you done any modelling on the real‑time harm that’s happening to Tasmanians from poker machines and the impact of this scheme when it’s implemented.
Mr STREET – To start with, I know for a fact that part of the community support fund is used by Treasury to fund the social and economic study that’s undertaken. I believe the frequency of those has changed. I think it’s been lengthened out to try to improve the data and the ability to compare across time. I’m more than happy for Gary or Jonathon to add to that in terms of the research they do as part of their work.
Mr ROOT – As the minister said, the principal piece of work that’s done is the social and economic impact study. Those studies have looked into the economic impact of gambling in the past, and I have to say, they’ve been fairly equivocal on whether it’s a net positive or a net negative.
Mr BAYLEY – The impact of gaming?
Mr ROOT – As an economic impact across the economy, because obviously there’s economic activity and there’s the cost of the harms that are caused. Past studies haven’t been clear. They’ve tended to give ranges that have been from negative to positive. There will be another SEIS due in 2026, and that’ll certainly be in a position to look at the impact of this.
Mr BAYLEY – How often are they?
Mr ROOT – They’re every five years.
Mr BAYLEY – And they’re publicly available?
Mr ROOT – That’s correct. It’s an independent study. We engage experts in this area to undertake it. The base study is done on a fairly consistent basis so that we can look at longitudinal impacts of initiatives, and the impacts and harm on individuals and families.
Mr BAYLEY – Do you plan to conduct these more frequently in the wake of implementing the scheme so as to be able to properly track the efficiency and the effectiveness of it, and make sure that it’s actually having the impact you want?
Mr STREET – The next study is due in 2026. I don’t know whether there’s any intention to change from that particular schedule in light of the changes that we’re making, is there, Jonathon?
Mr ROOT – That’s right. When the legislation was amended as part of the gaming reforms, the period for the SEIS was actually pushed out. The reason for that was that the time taken to undertake – it takes about 12 months to do the study – there are a lot of interviews with gamblers, there’s telephone surveys and things like that that go into it. By the time we’d work through a process of doing the tender, appointing an operator, getting the study done, considering it, the government responding to the findings, then evaluating the nature of those responses, we’re already deep into the next SEIS.
It was extended to allow for a more rigorous understanding of the impact of initiatives. I think the 2026 one will be a very useful baseline and, whether there are further studies done, it would be a matter either for the gambling support people in Health and DPAC or the government itself to determine. The SEIS is a major study, but there is other research going on frequently, as you know.
Mr SWAIN – Minister, I thought you might be interested, if you haven’t seen it already, that the last survey found that 0.4 per cent of Tasmanian adults were classified as problem gamblers, which I think goes to the minister’s statement of government intent to identify problem gamblers but not prohibit people who don’t have a problem with it.
Mr BAYLEY – I guess this goes to the concerns in terms of the economic modelling and how wide it reaches. It looks at the cost. We know this is having a significant cost. The economic modelling is one thing, but then the human suffering and –
Mr STREET – That’s why it’s referred to as the Social and Economic Impact study, because obviously it needs to consider both.
Mr BAYLEY – Yes. It’s hard to hear that you’re willing to trade off the economy versus some of those social costs though – the very real human costs of this industry. That’s effectively what this study does, doesn’t it? It takes into account the economic benefits of jobs and services and turnover and the like, and then it might stack it up against the social impacts of it. But I’m hearing –
Mr STREET – Not ‘might’. It does.
Mr BAYLEY – I guess the question is: how do you value them? People do, I know, but how do you value a life that’s ruined by these machines?
Mr SWAIN – I take the point, but there are lots of activities that we engage in routinely that have the same features. Driving a car is the most obvious one where there’s a significant economic and social benefit, but there’s also an extreme cost to individuals.
Mr BAYLEY – I don’t necessarily accept the analogy, Mr Swain, but I see what you’re getting at. These are machines designed to addict. They’re put in our most vulnerable communities and at the end of the day, they’re stripping millions and millions of dollars out of people’s bank balances.
Mr STREET – The reason that we’re introducing the PCG is reduce the harm that these machines cause to people who have that problem.
Mr BAYLEY – Yes, I understand that, but the reason we’re so concerned is that we’ve now seen a delay announced. I take your commitment to it, but we know the power of the pokies lobby. We know the influence it’s had. We know the amount of money that it’s given to the Liberal Party and others over the years. We know that they’ve had taxpayer funds returned, literally, to their organisation. We’re now hearing that the CSL is going to be raided in order to implement this policy.
Mr STREET – To go back to that, when I mentioned the CSL – there is no intention of raiding the CSL or jeopardising the harm‑minimisation programs that are funded out of the CSL by accessing money out of that. I simply wouldn’t sign off on a bid that did that.
Mr BAYLEY – You give your commitment here that implementing the card and making sure that it is rolled out across every poker machine in the state will be paid for outside of the CSL?
Mr STREET – No, what I’m saying is that it is only one option that is on the table. When the government has worked through the total cost of implementing this, there will be a number of discussions around how we pay for it.
