STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2013.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:34): Mr Deputy Speaker, if you like I can close the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think they had that in mind.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It seems like a good idea to me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:35): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker on this matter. I can tell you some good stories about poker and two-up and whatever to keep us entertained. I will indicate that the lead speaker will be the member for Davenport and I am sure that he will give a very erudite contribution to the debate. I further indicate that the Liberal opposition members have given much thought to this debate and have decided that we need to have a clearer party position on a number of aspects of the bill. As our lead speaker is about to enter and give us an erudite debate I will not need to make any further contribution.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:36): It was good of the government to try to close the debate on this matter, given the government's performance in bringing it on this week. I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this particular debate on the gambling bill. It is essentially to do with—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I wish somebody would pay my gambling bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; not even I could pay your gambling bill. This government brought this bill on for debate about 10 days after it was introduced. I think it is regrettable that the government decided to do this.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Well, according to ordinary practice.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It was 1 May that it was introduced.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It was introduced on 1 May. The member for Elder interjects that it is standard practice. That is true to some extent but—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Lay it on the table for them.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; I will explain it to the house. When the government introduced this bill the opposition contacted the government and said, 'Look; matters of gambling are conscience votes generally for the Liberal Party' and, therefore, the government would have to brief every individual Liberal MP, which would be a matter of difficulty given that we only had one or two days of sitting in the week that it was introduced. A lot of the regional members on this side of the house then go home to their electorates and then, of course, we are here today debating it. The opposition tried to assist the government by arranging briefings on the—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: On 3 May, I understand.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes. We tried to arrange briefings with two days' notice so that those members who did not have anything in their diaries could attend. We had briefings from Clubs SA, the AHA and the government itself. Outside of that sitting week we then tried to have briefings with the Casino and the welfare lobby but, of course, our side of the house had gone back to their electorates.

The reality is that I think the most people we had in one briefing in the sitting week was 10 people and at most of the briefings we had three or four. That was well known; we explained that would happen to the government but it decided to bring it on today. We also had the Independent Gambling Authority come to brief us with the government.

The reality is this: as we commence this debate there are Independent members of the lower house who have not been briefed on the bill. They have not received a briefing. So, it is not just the opposition who are required to debate this with what I think is a less than satisfactory process for briefing. When I spoke to Independent members this morning, they had not been briefed on the bill.

The minister can respond in his contribution tomorrow or Thursday that they were offered briefings. The fact they might be in Mount Gambier or Port Pirie or somewhere in the country might be difficult enough reason for them to not get a briefing in the non-sitting week, and I defy anyone who has read this bill to get a briefing today and understand it tomorrow.

The minister is essentially saying to the Independents, yes, they have an offer of a briefing, absolutely, but they are in their electorates in the non-sitting week, so the only time they could get a briefing would be Monday (yesterday), or this morning, and then suddenly reach a position on it. Really? I do not think so. I think it is regrettable that on a bill of this nature the government has decided to enforce what the member for Elder would call 'usual practice'.

I go back to the debate in 2004, which for those of us who were here—and I think you might have been the minister at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker—I remember that debate, and it was a long, protracted, drawn-out, complicated process.

I think some of the issues covered in this bill are just as complex and, of course, a lot of the members who are here now do not have knowledge of the 2004 debate. They were not here in 2004, and part of that process in trying to come up to speed on this bill is going back and understanding why certain decisions were made back in 2004.

So, although I am speaking in measured terms, I am livid that the government has done this, and I indicate that we are still consulting on a number of elements of the bill, because of the complexity and interplay between the various lobby groups and issues. The government has set the standard; the government has decided that they are going to push this through this week. And it is in the memory bank, Mr Deputy Speaker—something you will not have to worry about if this side of the house happens to be over that side of the house after the next election.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Stick it right up them, I reckon.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Elder says, 'Stick it right up 'em'. Well, fair enough. The sad thing about this is that, even in the government's consultation, the various lobby groups were essentially nobbled in the way they could consult, and I mean by this that the AHA and Clubs SA who are membership-based organisations, were consulted late in the piece. They had a draft bill which was essentially presented largely as a fait accompli but they could not consult their membership. So, the government went to those organisations saying, 'Here is the bill, what do you think as the executive, but you can't talk down the chain?'

My understanding is that those associations could only talk down the chain to their own membership, two or three days out from when the bill was introduced. At that point, of course, they had locked themselves into certain positions with the government and, at that point, the government's bill was already settled as far as the government and cabinet were concerned. So, for the poor old publican from Jamestown or the club member at Munno Para, as far as their input to this bill goes, the reality is that there has been no public consultation.

There has been consultation with the executives of the AHA and the executive of Clubs SA. There has been consultation with the welfare group, but outside in the public realm, to see what the other members of the public think—or indeed what the membership of AHA and Clubs SA think—there has been no consultation at all.

This process, I think, has been unfortunate, and we are here tonight really for just one simple reason: this government has done a deal with the Casino. This government is desperate to get the Casino out there in front of the TV cameras during the lead-up to the March 2014 election. They desperately need this legislation through to get the Casino announcement up, and anyone who stands in their way is just going to get steamrolled. That is essentially the only reason we are here tonight.

There is nothing urgent in any of the provisions relating to clubs and pubs or the gambling tax or the precommitment schemes or the responsible gambling measures or the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommendations or the powers of the commissioner or the Independent Gaming Authority or the like. There is nothing urgent in that at all. The one thing that is urgent is that this government is on the nose. It desperately needs a private sector project to be announced during the election campaign.

The Deputy Premier has got his calendar out and worked back the number of weeks for all the approvals and, all of a sudden, he has thought, 'Hang on, we're going to run out of time here, so we'd better crunch this process through,' so that the Casino can get its project up and there can be some happy snaps during the campaign period to try to get the government across the line. That is the only reason this is being debated tonight. It is the only reason the whole process of consultation with the opposition has been less than—what is the date today? The 11^th or 12^th?

Mr Whetstone: The 13^th.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The 13^th—it has been 12 days. So Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It's the 14^th.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The 14^th today, is it? Okay, we have had 13 days. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has had 13 days to try and sit down and comprehend the detail and as late as this afternoon we were still getting emails from the minister's office providing information that we had requested. In fairness to the staff concerned, some of those requests were made only yesterday and the day before because, as we got further through the bill, we sought further information.

I keep trying to explain to the government staff members—and I will explain it to the minister so it is crystal clear to the powers that be—that for 11 years Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has had exactly the same process: we have to submit our party papers for consideration, we have party room meetings on Monday of the sitting week, and that is where we determine various party positions on matters. To get our papers into that system, we need to submit them by close of business the Thursday before, so effectively I had to reach a position on the bill last Thursday, so in actual fact we did not have 13 days consultation. We had—

Mrs Redmond: It was the ninth.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The ninth, so we had eight days to be briefed, understand the issues, and get a paper written and into the system. Not even the minister would have got his head around the bill in eight days. He has a whole department briefing him: I have two staff, and then we had to arrange all our briefings. I think what the government has done on this is, frankly, a disgrace. As the government knows, when I give my commitment to put legislation through in a certain week, I have not in 11 years ever breached that agreement.

The government really has done the parliament, this bill, the lobby groups and the industry a disservice by bringing it in the way they have. There is simply not one reason, other than they need to get this bill through this place and through the other place—and I am not criticising the Casino; the timing is not in the Casino's hands—so that the government can go out and have its happy snaps come the 2014 election.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister interjects, 'When did I agree to put it through?'

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rang your staff member the day it was introduced or the day after; we had a number of discussions—I do not think I was the happiest person on the phone, to be frank, minister, when I rang your staff member—and I said that I would be happy to put it through the next week of sitting—not this week; the next week of sitting. That was unacceptable to the government. Fine!

I raised that point not in one phone call, not in two phone calls but three or four phone calls. Your staff member was very courteous and just ran the government line—that the government wanted to 'at least start the debate this week'. As I explained to the staff member, that does not help Her Majesty's loyal opposition because to start the debate we have to resolve our position on every issue. So, the fact that you are starting the debate means that it still compresses our time down to eight days. That was effectively it.

As I have said, I think that what has happened is regrettable. I think that it has been very unfair on the various lobby groups because you really do not have time to go back two, three, four or five times to the lobby groups and get your head around every single issue.

The sad thing about this, of course, is that we all know that the government paddled around negotiating with the Casino for years—for years they were talking to the Casino about what agreement it wanted. We all remember the then treasurer, the member for Playford, out there, hairy-chested, beating and threatening, at one point, the Casino, saying, 'We might not have an exclusive agreement with the Casino.' Of course, everyone in the state fell over laughing—as if the government was going to have two casinos. Oh, really! Give me a break!

This government paddled around for a couple of years, hairy-chested, trying to show that it had some backbone and, at the end of the day, the government started to run out of time. So, what the government has done now is crunched everyone as a response. They have essentially delayed it. My view is very simple: I think that they have deliberately delayed the negotiation with the Casino so that they can announce it during the election campaign. Simple as that.

If you look at the Casino agreement, it was not that hard—you had only to get Treasury to crunch a few numbers on the tax rate; other than that, everything else is a pretty standard arrangement. It was not that difficult. I think that we can see through the tactics, if you like, of the government.

The reason the length of time the government was negotiating with the Casino is important because of this: there were lobby groups writing to the government for over 18 months, saying, 'We know that you're negotiating with the Casino because there has been media comment on it, and what you decide with the Casino is going to impact our industry. So, please consult us now about what you're talking about so that we can have some consultation and input about how it might impact our industry.'

Some of those lobby groups wrote to the government for 18 months arguing that particular point, and for 18 months they were absolutely flatly ignored by the government. There was no consultation. Then when the consultation did occur, as I said, they were given the bill that was essentially the fait accompli. They were asked not to share it with their membership; in fact, they were instructed, as I understand it, not to share it with their membership. Then, two or three days before it was introduced into this place, they could talk to their members, and now we are given eight days. That is the consultation process this government has delivered upon this chamber.

We all know that in this chamber, in its current construct of numbers, the government is going to get its bill through. We could sit down and put it through because the real debate is going to be in the other place, where the government does not control the numbers. I just argue this point: I think it is the height of arrogance by the government. To treat the opposition like that is one thing—I can understand why it might treat the opposition that way because we are the alternative government and it does not want to give us an advantage—but there is a role to play in educating members on how legislation works through the legislative process. More importantly, it is the height of arrogance to treat the Independents like that.

How lucky are they? They can be briefed this week, while parliament is sitting, on a bill that amends, I think, six or seven different acts, that has a number of various lobby groups, on an issue that is not politically insensitive in a whole range of areas. There is the anti-gambling lobby, there is the pro-clubs lobby, the anti-Casino lobby, a whole range of groups out there that have a view about gaming machines and their administration. In my view this government has shown the height of arrogance to the Independents by rushing it through this week.

What the government is really is saying is this: 'If you are an Independent in the lower house you just don't count, because we know we can steamroll you, rush it through on the numbers. The real Independents that count are the ones in the upper house, so we will spend a lot of time briefing them and smooching them, but if you are an Independent in the lower house it just doesn't matter.' That is regrettable, because I think everyone can learn from the legislation if they go through it properly and get briefed on it properly. I think this process has denied the participants that particular issue.

The other issue with this particular bill is the fact that the government has done no small business statement, no regional business statement, no family impact statement; there has been no regulatory impact statement. There has been no modelling on this particular bill at all. So when we ask what the impact is on the club sector, what is the government's view, not the Clubs SA view, about the impact on clubs the answer is 'Oh, we actually haven't modelled that.' Then you ask 'Okay, what is the impact on the hotel industry?', and the answer is 'You know what? We haven't modelled that either.' 'What is the regional impact?' The answer to that is 'Well, we haven't modelled that either.'

But—surprise, surprise—ask them what the impact is of the Casino development and the happy snaps announcement, ready for the next election, is that they can almost name it down to the job. They can name the economic impact, the amount of cranes, how many jobs will be created, the economic turnover. So they can do it on the happy snaps side of the agenda, they can do it on the Casino, the announcement side of the agenda, but go and talk to your small clubs—or any of the clubs—and your small hotels that will be disadvantaged under this particular legislation, and ask them what the impact is; they will give you a view that is generally a negative one.

You go to the government and you say 'Well, okay; that's their view. What is the government modelling?' The answer is that the government has not even modelled it. The government has been negotiating this for years, and it is flying blind on the actual impact on the club and the hotel industries. I think that is regrettable. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.