Casino (Penalties) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2024.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (21:34): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, and I indicate also that the opposition supports the bill. I had the occasion just earlier this evening to have a word with the minister about the progress in the debate on the bill. It came to my attention, therefore, only quite late in the day today that there was the prospect that the bill might be coming on for debate, and I welcome that.

I say that in circumstances where this is a bill that was, for a time some months ago, regarded as a bill and the measures that it contains which is largely about quite dramatically increasing penalties, and in appropriate ways that the government has articulated really quite sensibly. There was a particular urgency to the passage of the bill some months ago, and I just indicate that at that time there was a willingness on my part and the part of the opposition to facilitate that passage.

In the mystery of the variety of government priorities that come along from time to time, and without reflecting on any particular matters the subject of debate in the course of this Fifty-Fifth Parliament, it is somewhat passing curious to me that this bill has not been given greater priority over recent months. The record speaks for itself in terms of what the government has chosen to prioritise in the intervening period, but here we are in the course of the first sitting day back for now many weeks—and relatively well into the evening of the first day, if I might put it that way—and we have made our way to the bill. I welcome that; I just flag my interest in what has actually transpired.

I hope no matters of consequence have been, as it were, lost in the passage of time since that initial flush of urgency came along, with the circulation of the bill and the reasons for it and so on. I trust that the passage of the bill now, the advancing of debate, will permit the consequences in terms of the significantly increased penalties, primarily, to have effect in the intended way.

There is such a large number of penalties that are the subject of the bill that, for the benefit of my colleagues in the opposition, I had cause to circulate a form of annexure with a table. There is really a wideranging number of penalties the subject of the bill and they are to be found in amendments to the Casino Act 1997, where some of the really enormous increases are to be found, and also very dramatic increases the subject of the Gambling Administration Act 2019.

I draw particular attention to section 39(2)(b)(ii) of the Gambling Administration Act 2019 which will transform an existing penalty of $100,000 to a proposed penalty of $75 million. To characterise the nature of these penalty changes, they are far from incremental; they are really transformative. I think it has been put by others along the way that the endeavour here is to move penalties associated with these relevant offences well and truly away from being able to be characterised as some sort of cost of doing business; rather, they are existential in terms of necessary compliance.

Seeing as it has been some time since the introduction, I pause to walk through those changes with some level of particularity. We see that clauses 4 to 7 and 9 to 20 of the bill and clauses 1 to 3, 5 and 9 of schedule 1 have the effect of substantially increasing the penalties that can be imposed for offences relating to the operation, supervision and integrity of the casino. The changes that are the subject of those provisions will be the first substantial increase in penalties since the Casino Act was passed, and the penalties will be applicable to the casino licensee, to close associates of the licensee and designated persons of the licensee.

Clause 4 of the schedule would amend section 36(1) of the Gambling Administration Act to provide two additional causes for disciplinary action against the casino licensee. The new clauses would allow the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to take disciplinary action against the licensee if the licensee or a close associate of the licensee or a designated person engaged in serious misconduct or had a penalty imposed against them by a court or tribunal in the commonwealth, and there is a context for that.

Clause 8 of the schedule is consequential, expanding the commissioner's existing scope to take disciplinary action under section 42 of the Gambling Administration Act whether or not criminal or civil proceedings have been or are to be taken in relation to the matters the subject of the disciplinary action. Clause 7(1) of the schedule would increase the maximum fine the commissioner can impose on the licensee, as I have indicated earlier, in a really quite transformative way: from $100,000 presently to $75 million. That is, on any measure, a significant increase in the penalty, and we are told that that aligns with changes recently made in Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia which now permit penalties up to $100 million, so we are broadly in the same territory.

The government, in providing its briefing to me and the opposition, advises that the $75 million maximum penalty is determined having regard to the size and scale of casino operations in comparison with other jurisdictions. There it is, and of a comparative scale to that very substantial regime that applies now in the remainder of the mainland states.

Clause 6 of the schedule would increase the maximum penalty payable for a default notice given by the commissioner from $10,000 to a million dollars. Section 38 of the Gambling Administration Act also allows the commission to give a notice to a gambling provider specifying grounds for disciplinary action, and that action may be avoided by the paying of a specified sum. As I have indicated, there is a very large wideranging number of monetary penalties that are significantly increased, and they are all there on the face of the bill.

There is of course a context to all of this that is I think relatively well known, and I go back to my remarks at the outset about, if not urgency, a desire to see the passage of the bill without delay in the context of AUSTRAC proceedings against SkyCity Adelaide in terms of civil penalty proceedings commenced back in December 2022 and an investigation under part 3 of the Casino Act that is the subject of a report of the then Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Dini Soulio, dated 27 June 2022.

Those two processes and their conclusion are relevantly providing context to the importance of progressing this legislation. So I say, given that here we are in now late August 2024, the contents of the bill now being well familiar, the purpose and context and all the rest of it being well familiar as well, my curiosity as it stands is as to the practical application of the amendments and any assurance that the government is able to give that the passage of time has not affected in a negative way the opportunity to apply these changes to the present circumstances.

As I have perhaps said on previous occasions, I indicate my appreciation for Consumer and Business Services' provision of what are helpful notes in terms of outlining the purposes of the bill. This is no exception here. I indicate my appreciation for that, for the provision of briefing by the government, and I thank the minister for facilitating all those processes.

Again, I just indicate that if there is some assurance that might be given as to what the passage now of the bill will permit, in terms of its application and any general update about those broader circumstances, then I just flag that might otherwise be my point of curiosity in any committee process that might follow. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (21:50): I rise in support of this bill, which seeks to ensure integrity and ethical conduct within casino governance. This bill seeks to modernise the Casino Act 1997 and Gambling Administration Act 2019 in the face of unparalleled scrutiny into the contemporary casino governance and integrity.

This bill introduced new and increased penalties for noncompliance with these acts for casino operations, which will be imposed either as penalties for criminal offences, as expiation fees or as fines imposed from disciplinary action. New clauses will also be established for the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to take disciplinary action if:

circumstances come to light that show the casino licensee, a close associate of the licensee or a designated person is found to have engaged in conduct that constitutes serious misconduct; or

if a court or tribunal in this state, the commonwealth, or a state or territory of the commonwealth has imposed a penalty (whether civil or criminal) on the casino licensee, a close associate or a designated person.

Furthermore, the transitional provisions within the bill clarify that the change being made to the maximum fine for disciplinary action, as well as any new clauses for taking disciplinary action, will retrospectively apply to the past conduct. This will ensure that conduct which has occurred prior to commencement of the provision, as well as to disciplinary action which has commenced but the penalty has not yet been determined, will be held to the new standard.

Over the last three years, we have witnessed a series of independent inquiries across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. These inquiries exposed widespread and serious integrity, compliance, governance and risk management issues at casinos operated by subsidiaries of Australia's two largest casino operators, Crown Resorts Limited and The Star Entertainment Group Limited, leading to calls from the community for the casino sector to be subjected to stronger regulatory scrutiny.

I would like to commend the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Andrea Michaels, for her efforts in tabling these vital reforms before the house, and I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (21:52): I would like to thank the member for Heysen and the member for Adelaide for their remarks on this bill. As the member for Heysen indicated, there are some questions that I understand he will have through committee and I am happy to address them at that point in time. I am very pleased to see the progress of this bill through this house and in the other place as promptly as possible, and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be convenient to deal with clause 1 and perhaps by reference to the member for Adelaide's contribution. We understand that the effect of all this is to have retrospective effect in terms of the penalties for those not yet concluded. I think I referred in the course of my contribution to civil penalty proceedings that had commenced now some considerable period of time ago. With respect to covering the field, if it is possible to do it in one go, is there an indication that this continues to have the capacity to slot in and to then have full application in terms of the circumstances that have informed this and is there anything that the minister can then add in terms of concluding the round of reviews, including that that has been referred to and identified in terms of the terms of reference of Dini Soulio some time ago?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: What is on public record, of course, are the AUSTRAC proceedings that the member refers to. They were finalised in June, when AUSTRAC announced that SkyCity had been ordered to pay $67 million by penalty via the Federal Court and also $3 million of AUSTRAC's costs. Those proceedings have now been finalised since the introduction of this bill.

What has also happened is the investigation by the Hon. Brian Martin was paused while those AUSTRAC proceedings were on foot. The commissioner has advised that has now been recommenced so that investigation is now ongoing with the commissioner expecting a report by the end of December this year from the Hon. Brian Martin.

In terms of the member's comments about the passage of this bill, of course we did have a budget, estimates and winter break and we had about a week and a half of sitting before budget between my introduction of this bill. So in terms of progressing this, the member may have questions about the retrospectivity in later clauses, but until the Hon. Brian Martin's review is complete and that report has been completed and received by the commissioner and decisions made on those issues of suitability, there has been no consequence of any delay or otherwise on the passage of this bill that might concern the member.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank the minister for that answer. Perhaps for the record if I can put it in this way for my benefit: the capacity for the civil penalty to be imposed in the order of $67 million earlier in the year, as it relates to the circumstances of the passage of this bill, can the minister just indicate how that has been possible to achieve and where this bill now comes along subsequently so that we have that on the record? Otherwise, I understand, we look forward to the results in due course of the Martin review.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Provisions of this bill that are relevant include the changes around causes for disciplinary action where conduct that was undertaken by the casino that were relevant for the AUSTRAC proceedings, that same conduct might be considered by the commissioner under those new amended causes for disciplinary action. The penalties may apply to previous conduct, including the conduct that was considered by the Federal Court in the AUSTRAC proceedings. That same conduct may, after the passage of this bill, be considered by the commissioner in determining if or what penalties might be imposed on that same conduct.

Mr TEAGUE: I might have just missed it somewhere along the way then. The source of the legislative power to impose the $67 million penalty earlier in the year, it is obviously not this. Where do we see that and how does that then correlate to circumstances post the passage of this bill?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Those penalties were imposed by the Federal Court under anti-money laundering and counterterrorism finance federal legislation. That same conduct might be considered under state legislation, but they are two different proceedings. One was federal legislation and proceedings brought by AUSTRAC in the Federal Court, and we are here looking at the Casino Act and the Gambling Administration Act and any penalties that may or may not be imposed for that same conduct.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps then, for completeness: there is no screaming rush to legislate here in that the Federal Court has been able to get on with disposing of that matter. So long as this is dealt with so as to provide a possibility to answer any outcomes of the Martin review, then the landscape is in complete shape, as it were. Is that a fair way to describe the relevant timing for the imperative to pass this?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is right. As things have panned out with the Federal Court proceedings—when I introduced the bill in May, those proceedings had not been finalised. We did not really know what the result would be. As things have panned out, those Federal Court proceedings are finalised. The Hon. Brian Martin has recommenced his consideration of those matters, and there is no prejudice to whatever might or might not come from that review.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 20), schedule and titled passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (22:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.