House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Entertainment Facility ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY Ms THOMPSON House of Assembly Reynell Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (17:18): Over the past two years I have been involved in a range of community activities representing many constituents who, for a range of reasons, are objecting to a new entertainment facility that is proposed for a certain site in my electorate. Over 1,000 people have given me written information about their objections—in fact, nearly 600 people have signed forms authorising me to speak on their behalf in whatever forum necessary in order to prevent this facility going ahead. It was somewhat surprising for me to hear at a council meeting recently that other motives were being imputed to my engagement in this activity. On advice, therefore, I want to put the record straight in this house. I think the easiest way to do so is to read to the house a copy of the letter I sent to the relevant organisation. It is a letter dated 1 February 2008 addressed to the President of the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club, and it states: Dear President, At a meeting of the City of Onkaparinga Council on 22 January 2008, members were addressed by Mr Leon McEvoy (Managing Partner, Clelands Lawyers)on behalf of the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club. Mr McEvoy spoke to council about the application before the Licensing Court to remove a liquor licence from the club's Doctors Road premises to 120 Main South Road. The council subsequently made a decision to withdraw its objection to the removal. In his deputation to council, Mr McEvoy stated that the Emu Hotel has 'used its sources' to make objections 'through MPs'. He also stated that local MPs have been 'seduced' by the Emu. As the local MP who has been active in objecting to council and the Licensing Court about the development of a pokies facility at this address, I wish to reassure you, the board and the club manager that these statements are totally untrue about my long-term objections to such a venue being located at this site. The reasons for my objections have been clearly stated in my newsletter over a period in excess of two years. They include its proximity to a mental health facility, the memorial gardens, schools, childcare centres and a dangerous intersection. I also object to more machines being brought into the area from outside its immediate proximity. My objections apply no matter who the applicant is and are well grounded in views put to me by a wide range of community members and organisations. I regret that I am unable to support the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club in its current endeavour but will be happy to work with the club and other community representatives to secure its prosperous future. I ask that you ensure that members of your club and those who speak in its name are aware of this letter and do not make unsubstantiated statements that can be interpreted to impugn my motives for involvement in public life. It is sad that I have had to take that step, but the matter is of great importance to my community. I have also responded to a number of members of the club who wrote to me asking for my support. The number was quite small—about 37—in comparison to the 1,000-plus who have asked me to strongly oppose the initiative. I will not put all that letter on the record, but one part which is important states: I note that you want to move the gaming machines in order to provide a more spacious and family friendly venue at the Doctors Road site. Information from the Office of the Minister for gambling indicates the following options available to a club wanting to remove machines from a venue: Transfer gaming machine entitlements to Club One but renegotiate contract with the intention of selecting an alternative location to the current proposal for the former Sizzler site; Merge gaming machine entitlements with another club; Sell one or more of the gaming machine entitlements after legislation is enacted that will remove the current $50,000 fixed price. Advice from the Australian Hotels Association indicates that, by selling its entitlements after the price cap is lifted, the club could realise between $1,875,000 and $3 million. If invested at a conservative interest rate this would create an annual income of about $117,000 to $187,000 for the club. Time expired.