Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 17 October 2018.)

Clauses 13 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Bear with me, I thought this would be easier.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Children betting.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let us hope not. My question regarding clause 22, as the Deputy Premier alludes to, relates to prescriptions to prevent betting by children. Who will now undertake this role? Is this to be done by the commissioner? If so, where is that provided in the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, whilst the clause deletes the reference to the authority, this is a matter dealt with through the codes of practice, which are to be prescribed by the commissioner who, accordingly, will continue in that role.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Will those codes of practice, after they are drafted by the commissioner, require ministerial approval?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will check on that and, hopefully, answer that question during the course of the day. As indicated yesterday, the codes of practice are in place, but obviously any variation or replacement of them, as determined by the commissioner, who will now have that role on his own, will follow that usual process. I think the powers of the commissioner are independent, but we will certainly check on whether or not that requires ministerial approval.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: One last question on that process: is there to be a role for—I forget its accurate name—the newly established advisory council?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not specifically. It will be an advisory council to the minister—currently me—and that will be its role. It will not have any role other than advisory.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can appreciate that the purpose of this clause, like much of the remainder of the bill, is to substitute out the role and responsibilities of the authority and replace them with a commissioner. As I read it, the clause in the act establishes the responsibility of the commissioner to the authority. Obviously the reference to the authority needs to be removed, but there is no replacement in this clause in terms of who the commissioner is responsible to.

I am not as familiar as the Deputy Premier perhaps is with the exact nature of the independence or otherwise of the commissioner, but is there any other provision to be introduced in this bill that makes the commissioner responsible to, for example, the minister, or is it just left fallow after this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member is correct. The deletion of the authority is the operative effect of this clause. The responsibility of the commissioner remains. His role is already determined by legislation, so he has an obligation and that is delineated in the operations of each of the licensed businesses that are the subject of his scrutiny. They continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding—and I am sure there are more than these—is that there are responsibilities of the commissioner, both existing and new ones because of this bill, under the Authorised Betting Operations Act, the Casino Act, the Liquor Licensing Act and perhaps others that escape my mind immediately. In terms of this act, we are trying to establish the responsibility of the commissioner for the functions and powers consigned to him, but is there no mandating of a responsibility of the commissioner to administer very clearly, in the same way that the commissioner was responsible to the authority previously? Is that what you are informing the house—that it is just left open?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I think perhaps we are at cross-purposes here, or perhaps I have not made myself clear in relation to this. The operations in relation to gaming, licensing and general supervision have become split between the commissioner and the IGA. When the IGA was established, it largely had an advisory role, but over time it accumulated other functions and areas of responsibility.

Essentially, what we are doing is restoring the functionality in relation to the operation and supervision of all the licensing regimes that the commissioner has in relation to his primary function in any event as the commissioner. Obviously, it is his appointment as a commissioner, and all the roles and responsibilities he has under that area, which sets out his accountability trail that remains. Here, we are simply taking back out the authority.

The biggest area of work, to be fair, I suppose, was really the maintenance of the codes of conduct and codes of practice and also the determination and operations of the barring orders. I suppose that was a big cohort of work. It otherwise did continue to provide for an investigation and advisory role to the government of the day or to the minister of the day. When I say 'investigation', I mean in the sense of current issues.

As the member is aware—he and I have both spoken about it in the parliament—an example is the issue of how we might deal with online gambling management. This is an important contemporary issue, and it is the sort of thing that they have looked into and provided reports on.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My last question on this clause is to ask the Deputy Premier whether there are functions or responsibilities of the commissioner which set him or her beyond ministerial intervention or direction within the Authorised Betting Operations Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I will take that on notice. I do not think so, but we will take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clause 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is my first question on this clause. The title of part 7 removes the words 'and appeal'. Can the Deputy Premier inform the house about the appeal provisions that will stand following the passage of this bill, if indeed it passes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That moves, as an appeal, from the IGA to the Licensing Court.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the Deputy Premier perhaps provide the house some advice about how the current regime of appealing a decision works via the authority versus how it will work through the Licensing Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware of any change, but I did happen to meet recently with a judge of the Licensing Court. He explained to me that he has his own set of rules in relation to the operation of his court. We discussed the fact that there would be significant extra change in relation to this legislation coming through the parliament.

He inquired about the changes that are coming through the system in relation to liquor licensing, which were substantially reformed under the previous government. I suppose that was in anticipation of the fact that with all new laws there are frequently new challenges and often extra litigation and the seeking of declaratory determinations on new things, such as the new test and the new thresholds that are to apply in relation to liquor licences, the change in the number of liquor licences and the nature of what we are going to have.

Those sorts of things tend to elicit extra legislation until everyone knows what the ground rules are in relation to interpretation. So we had those discussions and, in the course of those, there was no indication from him in relation to these reforms as to any change, or any indication that there would be any change to that. The law still applies; it is just that instead of the IGA being the appellant body it will be the Licensing Court.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I preface my next question with some preamble. Is the Licensing Court a division of the District Court or Magistrates Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The District Court.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding would be that if a decision of the commissioner under the current regime were to be appealed to the authority, I imagine that appeal would be made by written correspondence seeking a review of the commissioner's decision to be considered by the authority and perhaps considered by either the head of the authority or by the board of the authority, and so on.

That is a very different process from having to front up to the Licensing Court, a division of the District Court, with all the processes, procedures and of course costs attached to that. Can the Deputy Premier provide some advice about what the costs are likely to be for this type of appeal that are now going to be encountered when somebody needs to appeal to the court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Quite probably the member knows more about the exact process of what happens at the moment with the IGA and what they require for the purpose of disclosure. The member would be well aware that whether we move to a judge determining this at the Licensing Court on appeal or whether it is the IGA, this is a significant area of income stream for the parties in question.

Usually, they are represented by senior counsel. This is not a process that is comparable to turning up to SACAT for a bond refund on a tenancy where people are unrepresented. This does not have a level of informality that suggests there is some significant variation in the costs of appealing these matters. These issues are seriously fought and litigated frequently by senior and experienced solicitors and counsel. We will certainly check whether there are any other fee processes or whether there is any distinction between the rules that apply before the Licensing Court application and the IGA. What I do know of the rules in relation to the Licensing Court is that they allow for considerable flexibility in how they operate.

The member may also be aware that regarding the Licensing Court judge who currently conducts these matters—and it is not a large area of his work—his court and registry as a licensing court sit in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) precinct. Whilst he has a distinct role as a Licensing Court judge, he also sits on and is a member of the South Australian Employment Tribunal. I only learned this week actually that we have six other Licensing Court judges. I am not sure that they have activated their services for a long time but apparently we still have them. They sit over in the District Court but do not hear any cases.

Clause passed.