House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Poker Machine Licences POKER MACHINE LICENCES Ms THOMPSON House of Assembly Reynell Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (15:28): I would like to start by recognising that, at the moment, many of our fellow citizens are fighting bushfires on this catastrophic day and to wish them well. Also, I wish to express the hopes of, I think, all members for the safety of those involved in fighting the fires and those at risk as a result of the fires. My purpose in speaking today is to draw the attention of members to a decision of the Supreme Court which was handed down on 3 November 2009. I do this because I think this decision may lead to the need for us, as private members—those of us who return—to consider some of the current laws in relation to poker machine licences and clubs and pubs. Whilst this was a decision under the Liquor Licensing Act, it does have implications for the last set of amendments that were made by members of the previous parliament. On that occasion it was a conscience vote on both sides, so it is something for all of us as individuals who are returning to consider whether we need to rethink it. This decision resulted from an appeal against the decision of Judge Chivell in the Licensing Court in relation to the application from the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club Incorporated to transfer its licence from its current location (which is set well within the community facility on Doctors Road) to a prominent site on the corner of Main South Road and Wheatsheaf Road, Morphett Vale. It was an application to which thousands of my constituents objected, and many of them lodged formal objections. Among the formal objectors were the immediate neighbours, a number of other clubs in the area, other community organisations (including two schools) and several churches. For the benefit of members, I think that the quickest summary has fortunately been provided by one of the staff of the City of Onkaparinga in a briefing to its council. I see no reason why this would be confidential, and it is a very accurate summary. It states: The Supreme Court's judgment found that the judge of the Licensing Court had not erred in his decision to refuse the application. The following matters were considered: If successful, the club's plan was to engage the services of the management company, Club Management Services, to run and manage the premises on its behalf; Club Management Services is principally a group of hoteliers with a 6 per cent interest held by a prominent club figure, but mainly hoteliers. The document continues: It was found that such an arrangement had 'virtually ceded control of the day-to-day management of the Hackham Social Club to Club Management Services and effectively changed the character of the licensee from that of a community-orientated club to something much more commercial and profit-oriented in character'; The court found that the transfer application concerns 'not only the relocation of the Hackham Social Club but its relocation to a busy commercial complex, together with a significant enlargement of the activities of the Hackham Social Club, including the intended increase in gaming machines from 15 to 40'; The Licensing Court's finding that 'the proposed facility would be more in the nature of a professionally-operated hotel or tavern, rather than a profit-orientated association or club' was confirmed by the Supreme Court; The Supreme Court also confirmed the Licensing Court conclusion that 'the application would not allow the liquor industry to develop in a way that was consistent with the needs and aspirations of the community...' Effectively what was happening here was that a group of hoteliers bought a property, sought to attract a development approval and a club liquor licence to it to enhance its capital value, and also to manage a tavern-type facility at that premises in order to knock off, as they said themselves in court, the Emu Hotel. Members of my community respect the liquor licensing application; they respect local clubs. They want to see clubs being run as community organisations by and for the club members, not to be taken over by a group hoteliers. Time expired.