Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 27.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps continuing on the line of questioning from clause 26 about the nature of the hearings and the types of matters that are to be raised, given the Deputy Premier has some advisers with her, is she able to provide some examples of the sorts of matters which have been appealed under the Authorised Betting Operations Act to the authority in recent times?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to be clear about what we are actually asking, I will check with the annual reports in relation to the Licensing Court operations. Obviously they are not dealing with these matters; they are dealing with other licensing matters. But in relation to the IGA annual report, I expect that will provide some information in relation to the preceding 12 months as to any reviews that they have undertaken. I could not tell you offhand how many they are, but perhaps if we just get some information as to the number of appeals that have been heard by the IGA in relation to this area and the nature of that application.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are there any on foot at the moment, or have there been any in recent months?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. I think when I had my last meeting with Mr Moss there was nothing pending but we will check on that.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My reading of clause 28 is that it removes the capacity to appeal to the Supreme Court. Under the current regime, a commissioner can make decisions that can be appealed to the authority, and if the appellant is still unsatisfied with the outcome that can then be appealed further to the Supreme Court. The provisions of the clauses that we are discussing at the moment change that process so that a commissioner can make a decision. There is an ability to appeal that to the Licensing Court, and that is it. There is no further appeal opportunity to the Supreme Court. Why is that additional appeal mechanism being removed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member will find it is not being removed. What is actually happening is that under the previous regime it was a commissioner's decision, reviewed by the IGA appellant process to the Supreme Court. That is because it was reviewed by the IGA. When a review in this case is going to the Licensing Court, decisions of that court have their review process and appellant process under the District Court Act, which will still be to the Supreme Court. It is completely redundant now.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So the ability for a person seeking an appeal of a decision by the commissioner, which has been made by virtue of the Authorised Betting Operations Act, has an appeal provision guaranteed by the District Court Act; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, my understanding is that there is still the normal process of judicial review that applies from a decision of the Licensing Court, and that will still apply. We are taking out one structure, which really goes outside the court structure, and putting it back into the court structure. That will be the process that applies. It is no longer necessary, so we are repealing section 78 for that reason.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Section 78 provides that under the current regime only certain matters can be appealed to the Supreme Court. These are certain types of matters, not all matters. Is the advice from the Deputy Premier that the District Court Act provides for the appeal of any decisions from the commissioner via the Licensing Court to the Supreme Court, regardless of the narrowed matters that can be appealed through the Supreme Court under the current legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will certainly inquire whether there is any other variation to that. The member should be aware, though, that you cannot just get a decision of the Licensing Court and decide to go and have it reviewed by the Full Court. There have to be grounds, and there are certain areas in relation to that in any event, but we will certainly check the terms of reference being presented as exclusionary in the review process from the IGA to the commissioner then the commissioner to the Supreme Court under section 78. We will come back if there is any variation to that.

Clause passed.

Clause 29.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If there is capacity for an appeal to be made against a commissioner's decision through the Licensing Court, why has the obligation for the commissioner—who is now the person who makes the determination, not the authority—to give reasons upon application been removed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just inquiring in relation to that. Previously, the authority was obliged to give reasons. We will check why the discretion not to give reasons is being given to the commissioner. It does not mean that he does not: he does, from time to time, in relation to his other duties. In any event, we will check that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would appreciate it if the Deputy Premier could provide some advice about how this is to be managed. I am happy to take it between the houses. If a decision is made and reasons are not given, it makes the appeal of that decision extremely difficult. From one perspective, it almost appears to make an appeal doomed from the start, given that there are few grounds, if any, that can be argued in favour of the appellant's position.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member might be right. On the other hand, it might be very handy not to have reasons. Nevertheless, I do not want to be flippant about it. I think the situation is that some identification for any review body as to the background in relation to that is a helpful matter, assuming there is a restriction in relation to whether the case is to be completely appealable—that is, to be heard de novo—or whether we have restricted grounds of appeal and/or like we do for the Magistrates Court, where the review is in relation to whether there had been an error by the magistrate rather than being a complete rehearing.

These are the complicated alternatives that relate to reviews and appeals, and we will check on this one to see what it is. Can I just also perhaps advise the member and the committee that clause 27(4) provides:

If the reasons of the Commissioner are not given in writing at the time of making a decision and the person aggrieved by the decision, within 30 days after receiving notice of the decision, requires the Commissioner to state the reasons in writing, the time for applying for a review of the decision runs from the time when the person receives the written statement of those reasons.

I think that covers it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, which subsection?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Subclause (4).

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of clause 85 in the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Section 77(3).

The CHAIR: Is that in relation to clause 29?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am just trying to find the clause in the act as it stands.

The CHAIR: Are we clear on that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, I am not clear about that reference. As I read part 7, section 77(3), 'On an application under this section, the Authority may confirm, vary, revoke or reverse the decision under review.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If you have it before you, member for Lee, we just dealt with clause 77, which deleted subsection (3) of 77 and inserted a new one. If you have a look at that, and it should be in the bill on page 10, you see there the new subclause (4).

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I see.

The CHAIR: Is that all clear, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Crystal.

The CHAIR: Crystal clear, excellent, then we can move to the next clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 30 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My query here is that the clause does not seem to have been completely amended for the removal of references to 'the Authority'. Is that taken care of elsewhere in the bill? Is there some sort of catch-all?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am told that clause 35 does; nevertheless, could the member identify, in relation to section 90, where there has not been a removal that you consider should have been taken into account?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, (3).

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Subclause (3). The subclause (2) that the member has pointed out is 'Section 90(3)(c)—delete "the Authority or",' is there a reference to it somewhere else?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, in 90(3). 'The Authority's report must include—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I understand that. Wherever 'the Authority or' appears, it is to be removed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is that under clause 35 of the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is further down, under clause 33.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Subclause (2) states, 'Section 90(3)(c)—delete "The Authority or"' and then further down '(3) Section 90(3)(d)—delete paragraph (d).' I am asking, in relation to the current section 93, is there any other reference to the authority that has not been picked up by that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, 90(3) states, 'The Authority's report must include.' I think we were saying that that will be dealt with by clause 35.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct. But each time it refers to 'the Authority' or 'the Authority or' in that clause it is removed by the clauses in this section as well.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, except for the one that I noted.

Clause passed.

Clauses 34 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As we have discussed on numerous occasions, the removal of 'the Authority' and the replacement with 'the Commissioner' is the main purpose of several sections of the bill. However, there is not a replacement of 'the Authority' with 'the Commissioner' with regard to this particular clause, so will there be a role for the commissioner in the renegotiation of the licence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that that will be continued with the government negotiations with the Casino, and it obviously requires the Governor's power to formally renew the licence. The commissioner does not have a role in that regard. As best as I can recall, I think it is the Treasurer, on behalf of the government, who has general responsibility in relation to the negotiated terms of those agreements.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it the expectation of the Deputy Premier that there will be a negotiation between the Treasurer and the Casino on the terms of the licence or the renewal of the licence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is my understanding. I think I had a meeting with the member for Enfield about his indication that there would be a review of the rules that apply to the Casino in respect of the conditions of licence that is issued and that he had committed to that occurring. As best as I understand it, it is actually underway.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am surprised that the new Liberal government has engaged the member for Enfield in the review of how this Casino licensing agreement is being negotiated. Nonetheless—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let's be clear about this—

The CHAIR: I do not know that the Attorney said that, actually.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He may have made this comment, but let's be absolutely clear. The former government commissioned Mr Tim Anderson QC to prepare a review in relation to this important area. They kept it secret for two years. When there was a change of government, I did have a conversation—a meeting, in fact—with the member for Enfield to ascertain what he had undertaken in relation to this report, knowing that it had been kept secret in that time.

He was, I think, helpful in advising at least what he had done, even if he had kept the report secret. The report is there, it has been tabled, everyone can see it and we are acting on it. In the course of the new government making decisions to act on it, we inquired whether there was any progress on anything in relation to Mr Anderson's recommendation. This was one of the ancillary matters that we discussed.

The CHAIR: The Attorney has responded to a comment rather than a question. Do you have a question, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do have a question. I thank the Deputy Premier for clarifying her earlier erroneous comment.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: What?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, you did not mention the review by Mr Tim Anderson beforehand.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I find that offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn because the member knows, if he had been following this issue, the ministerial statements that have been made to this parliament in relation to the Anderson report, and the consequential legislation that is being raised. Clean out the earwax, put on some glasses and you will hear what has actually happened.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, the Attorney has been offended by your comments—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Has she indeed been offended and requested its withdrawal?

The CHAIR: She has. I ask you to withdraw, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I withdraw.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Lee, another opportunity to ask a third question on clause 38.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Now that we have clarified what actually happened before the election—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, ask the question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier confirm that the arrangement for the negotiation or renewal of a lease under the Casino Act is not to be done by a separate or independent officer, like the commissioner, but it is to be done directly between the agency seeking the licence and the Treasurer himself?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let's be clear about this. The Treasurer has responsibility in respect of the agreement, and the treasury department, obviously, as I understand it, is involved in a review of the conditions and circumstances to apply in relation to this agreement. I would expect that, that being the process, there would be recommendations put to the Treasurer by his department that the Treasurer would bring to cabinet, along with any terms of agreement for the approved licensing of the Casino. Obviously, if they passed cabinet they would go to the Governor for signature. That is the process, as I understand it.

Clause passed.

Clause 39 passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To whom is the licence to be surrendered?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised to the government.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To sa.gov.au or to a minister? How does this process work?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the terms of the agreement itself will stipulate the process, which is to do any variation or surrender of the lease.

Clause passed.

Clause 41.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In regard to section 16(3)(c) and deleting that paragraph, there is no capacity for anyone other than the Treasurer to provide advice or approve a licence or a licence renewal, which is currently carried out by the authority?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether the member has actually been listening, but the Treasurer does not approve the licence. That is a determination that culminates in the Governor's approval post a cabinet decision.

As the member well knows—because he has been a minister—certain acts are allocated for management to certain ministers. The Casino Act is a matter allocated to the Treasurer, so the Treasurer usually has the carriage of bringing matters to the cabinet for consideration. That is the process and the member well knows that process. The Treasurer is not the determining party in terms of the approval or otherwise of these agreements.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On my reading of section 16, which refers to the approved licensing agreement (or the ALA as it is commonly referred to) between the Casino and the government, subsection (3)(c) provides that the agreement has no effect unless approved by the authority—and (c) is being deleted.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So it will merely be for the government to approve the terms of the licensing agreement? There is to be no role for the commissioner—or indeed anybody else—to provide advice or approval prior to the ALA being approved?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: By the government

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Ultimately, yes. There is no step in between?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What prompted the government to remove the role of an intermediary in this process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether the member has actually had the opportunity to read the Anderson report or whether the member for Enfield, the former attorney-general, showed it to anybody. I did not ask him that when we met. However, perhaps I could urge the member to look at this report, now that it has been tabled in the parliament, and at the significance of the investigation undertaken by Mr Anderson and the recommendations he made.

The amendments in relation to the Casino Act are consistent with his recommendations. To have a single entity manage the regulation of matters is something that permeates his entire report. The enforcement and regulation of an industry—in this case the gambling industry—is obviously there in a bipartisan way; both the major parties, and I think some of our other parties, fully understand the need to protect the vulnerable in these industries, whether they drink alcohol or too much of it, or whether there are attempts to sell it to minors, or whether their betting is something causing poverty or social dysfunction.

The need to protect the vulnerable in these areas is obvious. However, the regulations and enforcement role had been split, and Mr Anderson's recommendation was clearly that it be one organisation, one entity that had that responsibility. The determination of the terms of agreement for the issue of a licence is considerable, because of the taxation implications relating to the exclusive licence to the Casino. That is why it has its own act, and I think the member would be aware of that from his own time in cabinet.

Just for the record, I advise that the Casino Act itself is committed to the Attorney-General. However, as you will appreciate, as I have just said, the obligations in relation to the Casino in its revenue to the government are significant and, unsurprisingly, the Treasurer takes considerable interest in those matters. They are frequently recorded as conditions of the agreement, which the current party that enjoys the privilege of the right to operate a casino in South Australia has.

So final decisions on the agreement are made by the cabinet, obviously signed off by the Governor. As I indicated earlier, under the promise of the former attorney-general, Treasury is currently undertaking a review in relation to what conditions should continue to apply.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So if the committal of the Casino Act is to the Attorney-General rather than the Treasurer, is it still for the Treasurer to approve the ALA or is it for the Attorney-General?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have said this three times: it is the cabinet who approves the ALA.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: No, that is not what you said, once, twice or three times.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I said in relation to the reference of—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: You said 'Treasurer'—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the issue to cabinet would be by the Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you have asked the question and the Attorney is answering. Attorney, continue.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have just said that the decision is made by the cabinet. What I indicated earlier was that the act was allocated to the Treasurer; it is actually to the Attorney-General, but the decision is still made by the cabinet.

Clause passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the member, the Casino duty agreement, just so that you are clear about this, is an agreement between the licensee and the Treasurer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Wouldn't that be interesting if that is what we were discussing?

The CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Casino duty agreement, not the one you just referred to.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Lee and Attorney, we are going to get back on track here. We have passed clause 41 and we are up to clause 42. The member for Lee has a question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps on clause 42 the Attorney-General could clarify, for the benefit of the committee, given that we have had a series of responses where answers were given about Treasurer, cabinet and now Attorney-General, which indeed is the minister referred to in section 18(1)?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is the next one, because we have just discussed—

The CHAIR: We are on clause 42 now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know we are, and we are now dealing with section 18. Section 16 covers the approved licensing agreement—cabinet, the minister is me. The Casino duty agreement is section 17, not 18, and that is between the licensee and the Treasurer. Section 18—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It is not even referenced in the bill, is it? Are you running the clock down to lunch?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can we just be clear about this. I hope, when the member is looking at the bill, that he is looking back at the things that we are changing in the act because that is what we are actually doing today. I hope that he refreshes his memory as to what is in the act by looking at the current section 16, which deals with the approved licensing agreement; the current section 17, which deals with the Casino duty agreement; and the third one, which clause 42 is dealing with, under section 18, which deals with an amendment to section 18(1).

The CHAIR: And that is the clause we are dealing with at the moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Section 18(1) refers to the Attorney-General. Under the current 18(2), the Treasurer has to table—which I think I have read out three times now—the Casino duty agreement. We have one each.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For the benefit of the Attorney-General, I was referring to 18(1). I thank the Attorney-General for clarifying that it is indeed her. My next question relates to clause 43.

Clause passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This clause merely removes references to the Independent Gambling Authority Act and replaces it with the Gambling Administration Act. Are all the powers conferred on the IGA under the current regime transferred equally to the commission by this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The powers, including the investigative powers, which is what the subject is about in this clause, do transfer to the commissioner under the Gambling Administration Act 1995, but the member should note that there is a variation to some of those in relation to amendments in this bill of that act.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the Deputy Premier perhaps run us through which of those investigative or inquisitorial powers are different between the authority and the commission as they relate to this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take that on notice. For the sake of completeness, I will provide a summary of the changes to the act in this bill, which will then translate in relation to the powers to the commission for all of those.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps for the Deputy Premier's benefit, what I am seeking is an assurance that the powers the commission will be able to wield when conducting investigations or other inquiries are at least as good as or equivalent to the powers that the authority is currently able to exercise.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, in relation to the current section 23 provision, the only change is to move ‘authority’ to ‘commission’. There is no change in the actual powers, but the act itself is being amended under this bill. That is why I did not want there to be any misunderstanding in relation to that, because your question is going to be the same as what was under the previous act.

I am simply making the point that, under the new provisions, that is subject to the variation in this act. However, I am assured that in relation to the investigative powers there is no change to that. I am accepting from that that I can confidently say to the committee that the commissioner will have transferred to him all the current investigative powers currently set out in section 23 that the authority currently has.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just as a subset of that—and I appreciate that clarification—what I was also seeking is an assurance that those powers, if they are indeed stipulated in the reference to the Gambling Administration Act, replace the Independent Gambling Authority Act. I am trying to make sure that those powers or capacities of the commissioner are at least as strong as the authority's powers under the IGA Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think, though, that we are at cross-purposes here. Perhaps, again, I have not been clear. The investigative powers that are being transferred are in the Casino Act. They are not in either of the two acts that you are referring to. So section 23 of the Casino Act, which is what is currently open, is what is actually being changed, rather than the other two. I hope that is clear.

Clause passed.