STATUTES AMENDMENT (INVESTIGATION AND REGULATION OF GAMBLING LICENSEES) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 1 August 2007. Page 623.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: A number of questions about this bill were placed on the record as part of the second reading and I would like to take this opportunity to answer those questions. In his second reading contribution, the Hon. David Ridgway said:

The Hon. Iain Evans in another place has asked the Commissioner for the document which outlines how these costs are established. As yet he has not received any such document.

I am advised that the Hon. Iain Evans was provided with a summary of the costs expected to be recovered. They were calculated as part of the typical budget process. Good public administration mandates a solid and justifiable process for the calculation of these types of costs. The main thrust of this bill is the incorporation into the act of a process which is robust and transparent and which provides fairness for the private businesses involved and, very importantly, for the taxpayers of South Australia. Such a process for determining recoverable administration costs is important in underpinning the public's confidence in the conduct of these private businesses. I am advised that the Minister for Gambling is planning to implement an eight-step process as follows:

Step 1—The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner assesses and allocates budget costs. This ordinarily forms part of the budget process.

Step 2—The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner would recommend an amount for recoverable administration costs to the minister. This recommendation is to be accompanied by an explanation, including activities planned, and the assumptions underlying the allocation of costs.

Step 3—The Minister for Gambling would seek advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Step 4—The Department of Treasury and Finance would inform SkyCity Adelaide and SA TAB of the proposed amounts for recoverable administration costs and seek their representations.

Step 5—SA TAB and SkyCity Adelaide could then make representations to the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Minister for Gambling.

Step 6—DTF would then prepare draft advice on the recommended amounts for recoverable administration costs and provide a copy to the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner for comment.

Step 7—DTF would receive comments from the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner and provide final advice to the minister.

Step 8—The Minister for Gambling would fix amounts for recoverable administration costs under the Authorised Betting Operations Act and the Casino Act.

The Hon. Ann Bressington also stated that 'both businesses between them pay a combined sum of $79 million, and the changes proposed by this legislation will bring the government a total increase of $1.5 million, but there have been no attempts to negotiate, and I for one ask the question: why?'

It is accurate that in total the expected recoverable administration costs were $1.5 million. The costs were incurred by the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner in the current financial year. About $1.1 million of those costs, however, has already been recovered through voluntary arrangements with SA TAB and SkyCity Adelaide. The net impact of this bill, therefore, would be an increase of about $400,000.

The preferred method of achieving cost recovery is through legislation. This provides a fair outcome for the taxpayers of South Australia, who should not be expected to pay for the regulatory costs associated with SkyCity Adelaide and SA TAB being able to run profitable private businesses. It is the government's view that this could not be achieved through negotiation. The current arrangements for SA TAB and SkyCity Adelaide to pay partial costs were forthcoming only after the government had previously attempted to legislate for full cost recovery.

The Hon. Ann Bressington further asked why the government had made such long term contracts with the TAB and SkyCity if, in fact, the arrangements in the contract were not suitable. The term of the approved licensing agreements and the duty agreements were determined by the previous Liberal government at the time of sale. They have not been altered by the amendments to the SA TAB duty agreement for partial cost recovery. Partial cost recovery was appropriate, given the circumstance of the time. The amendments of the SA TAB duty agreement do not include a provision that prohibits the government seeking further amendments in the act to achieve full cost recovery.

The Hon. Ann Bressington asked a couple of questions about the confidence of investors in this state if this bill were to be enacted. This bill, if passed, would not adversely affect the confidence of future investors in South Australia, because it does not, according to the Crown Solicitor's Office, override the TAB duty agreement or constitute an event under the approved licensing agreement. What gives businesses confidence is having in place a rigorous and transparent process for determining recoverable administration costs that allows for their participation in that process.

The Hon. Ann Bressington then asked: 'If this bill is passed, how much will it cost the taxpayers of South Australia to pay both the TAB and Skycity compensation to which the agreement states they are both entitled?' Again, the consistent and repeated advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office indicates that this outcome is unlikely.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Along with other cross bench members, I am in receipt of a letter from the TAB and Skycity from 20 July this year, and it includes a paragraph which I will read out:

Both SATAB and Skycity have obtained legal advice on our respective rights. If the Government passes this legislation, we consider we will be entitled to compensation for resultant losses. Both companies intend to pursue their legal rights in this event. If the Government becomes involved in costly and unsuccessful litigation with our organisations, there is likely to be a net loss to government revenue.

I am mindful of a couple of things. I am mindful of what the minister has said: that the Crown Solicitor's advice is to the contrary and that it is unlikely that a compensation claim would succeed. I make the point that, along with I am not sure how many other members, I am in possession of two confidential legal advices: one arguing the casino's and TAB's case and one arguing the government's case, and they are difficult to reconcile. One says black and the other says white.

Notwithstanding the fact that advice might be that the likely success of a compensation claim is low, three things are always certain: death, taxes and lawyers' fees. The letter from the TAB and Skycity indicates that they will pursue what they say are their rights, so there will be legal expenses incurred all round, notwithstanding the usual rule that the loser in court cases pays the winner's costs. There are always costs that have to be paid out of pocket. Given the relatively small amounts involved, has the government determined what the cost might be to the taxpayers, win or lose such a court challenge?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As the honourable member mentioned earlier, I had already placed on record that our consistent advice was that it would not be likely to succeed. That legal advice was obtained in 2003 and 2007 and was provided in respect of this bill. I could perhaps make the further point that any costs associated with administration could be claimed back from both; if SkyCity or the TAB were unsuccessful, the government could actually claim back those associated costs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of questions, the first one being by way of clarification. It is my understanding that, when SkyCity and TAB purchased businesses in South Australia, they entered into commercial agreements with the government that stated that there would be no increase in duties. The government claims that the bill will not breach existing commercial agreements because the amount sought in the bill is not a duty. The further agreement with the TAB in 2004 imposes a fee on the TAB to pay for the administration costs of the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commission. In this agreement, the new fee is described as additional duty. This agreement was drafted by crown law and signed by Treasurer Foley. The bill now before this committee purports to increase the same Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commission fee for both SkyCity and TAB. How can the government claim that the amount sought in the bill is not a duty when the 2004 agreement describes the same fee as an additional duty?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office specifically addressed the 2004 TAB amendment. That advice was that the proposed bill does not cause an event under the approved licensing agreement.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I ask the minister or her adviser to provide some clarification. The opposition has been informed that the advice the government sought from crown law about the casino was wrong or was not the advice the government wanted and that it has been reversed on at least four occasions in the last year or so. Will the minister advise whether that information is accurate?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As noted earlier, advice on this matter has been sought on four occasions, in 2003 and 2007. Each time the advice has been consistent; indeed, the 2007 advice confirmed the earlier advice that was sought. All questions have been answered and the information provided has confirmed that this does not cause an event. As a result, my advice is that we are very confident in the legal advice received from the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: One piece of correspondence I received from Iain Evans in another place included the comment that the government has admitted publicly that it does not need this bill. The Hon. Iain Evans has provided us with a transcript of an ABC 891 7.45 news broadcast of 1 August, which includes the following:

A government source says if the bill is rejected, the government will find another way to increase the charges.

My question is: if this bill is defeated, is there another way to impose these charges?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there are two ways in which we can achieve the outcome: the first way would be through legislation, which is what we are doing now; the alternative way would be through voluntary agreement with SkyCity and the TAB. It is our view that it is unlikely, given the current position, that they would agree to full cost recovery.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to talk briefly on this issue, because at the time of the original agreement I held the position of treasurer and was a member of the cabinet that entered into some of the original arrangements which, I understand from the debate, preceded the most recent 2004 agreements. The government says (on its advice) that it is very confident that, if it gets to a court of law, it would win. I am not sure; I am not a lawyer. Certainly, should I be called as a witness, and I am not sure whether I would be, my recollection of the events are reasonable and it is possible that I may well still have the leaked copies of some of the discussions that went on at the time in relation to this agreement.

My recollection is quite clear that potential purchasers of the casino—rather than the TAB; I did not have responsibility for the TAB—wanted clear indications of what the government might screw them for soon after they purchased the assets. That is not an unreasonable question to be putting to the owner of an asset like the casino; that is, that if on day one they were to purchase the asset and a particular regime of tax duties, levies, fees or charges applied, and they paid a certain amount for that on the understanding that that is what it was going to be and then the next week the government said, 'Thank you very much for your money. We are now going to jam up the taxes, fees, charges, levies or duties', whatever you want to call them, then as a prospective purchaser talking to your shareholders you would have some concerns, I would have thought. That is why there was an intense period of negotiation, on my recollection, in relation to this issue.

I will leave it to the lawyers to argue the toss as to whether or not there seems to be conflicting legal advice, from what the Hon. Mr Parnell was saying, in relation to this issue, but I can certainly indicate what the intention was at the time, and that was that the purchaser was indicating, 'We want to know what it is that we are purchasing and what the tax, levy, duty, fee or charge is going to be.' So, whilst the minister might indicate that the advice is that they are very confident if they get to a court of law, they would need to be a little bit cautious, I think, because in relation to another case which involves the government, which I think has now been settled, I was queried by lawyers in relation to what knowledge I had of the situation, what documents I might either recall seeing or have in my possession, for example, and, as I said, that did not end up finally having to go to court as there was a settlement.

In relation to this one, as I said, it is entirely possible that I still have leaked copies of documents that relate to this case, and I may well be called as a witness. As I said, all I can say, on my recollection at the moment, is that I know what the intention was in relation to this set of circumstances, and it was not to screw the potential purchasers of the casino with whatever you want to call it afterwards; that is, there was to be a regime of duties, taxes, charges, etc., and as a purchaser they were aware of that and bid accordingly. I do not want to add anything more than that. I obviously support the position of my colleague the Hon. Mr Ridgway but, as I said, given what I have just heard of how confident the government is of winning a case if it goes to court, I can only share a little bit of the knowledge that I have of the circumstances at the time.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am listening to the debate with great interest. The minister mentioned that full cost recovery is their goal. Given that the TAB and the SkyCity casino are both currently paying more than $90 million a year in tax, would we not already have more than full cost recovery for any programs you would want to run?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: First, I make the point that it is certainly not the intention of this government to put a burden on taxpayers. I also would like to place on record some information in relation to the level of taxation that SkyCity casino faces in South Australia. I understand that what is clear is that the taxation regimes that apply to casinos across Australia are different. They are different because the circumstances are different. At the time the Adelaide casino was bought by SkyCity as a going concern, the duty rates were set at 0.91 per cent of net gambling revenue for table gains, and 34.41 per cent of net gambling revenue from gaming machines. SkyCity agreed to those rates as part of the sale transaction.

In the South Australian context, 34.41 per cent at the time of the sale in 1999 was generous. It equated to the second tier of tax applied to hotel net gambling revenue from gaming machines. At the time, some hotels paid a marginal tax rate of 40.91 per cent. Since that time the tax rates that apply to hotels and clubs have increased. The top marginal rate for hotels is now 65 per cent of net gambling revenue and 55 per cent for clubs. The casino duty has remained constant at 34.41 per cent. So, in the South Australian context, SkyCity casino has a significant competitive advantage, which has been protected by the approved licensing agreement.

This demonstrates that the South Australian government does take seriously its contractual obligations. In relation to this bill, the government has sought and carefully considered legal advice and, again, this advice has been consistently stated, that cost recovery like that contemplated in this bill does not constitute an event under the approved licensing agreement.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Nick Xenophon's position is vacant, and there are some amendments that he put on file that are unlikely to be moved. However, everybody in this place (including the government and government advisers, the opposition and all cross-bench members) knew that Mr Xenophon's position was that he would not support this piece of legislation unless he could get these amendments, which he saw as being an improvement to this legislation. He agreed with the argument that we had been putting, that this was a breach of promise and a breach of commitment that the government had given to both SkyCity and the TAB.

With Mr Xenophon's replacement not here, we see an opportunity being taken by the government for this piece of legislation now to be pushed through. It was the last one on the government's list of priorities, as we were advised today. I know the argument will be that it has been on the Notice Paper for some months and we should process it. However, the fact that it has been there for some months means that it is not an urgent bill, having sat there for probably the past six weeks because the government clearly did not have the numbers. Today, what they are doing is taking a political opportunity and making the most of the fact that the Hon. Nick Xenophon is not in this place.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the Hon. Mr Ridgway is taking a political opportunity. I do not know whether the Hon. Mr Ridgway is aware, but the Hon. Mr Xenophon is not in a party and there is nothing to say that his replacement would vote along the same lines or agree with the same amendments that the Hon. Mr Xenophon has put up. In fact, the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Xenophon have not always voted the same in this chamber. I think the Hon. Mr Ridgway might be on some political manoeuvres, so he might like to get to the point.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chairman. The point I make is that the South Australian community have elected 22 members of the Legislative Council and we have only 21 of them here today. This is a clear example of this government manipulating the circumstances to suit its own political agenda.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the Hon. Mr Ridgway that it is not the government's fault, my fault, or your fault that the Hon. Mr Xenophon has chosen to leave and pursue a position in the Senate.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will not labour the point any longer. I understand it was Mr Xenophon's choice to leave, but the government chose not to progress this legislation whilst he was here (perhaps even not expecting that he would leave) but the fact that he has now left sees the government progressing this rapidly and using it as a political advantage. There is no need to progress it today any further. I move:

That progress be reported.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I would like to respond to that. I am sure that the honourable member would not attribute such cynicism to me.

The CHAIRMAN: However, he has just moved that we report progress.

The committee divided on the motion:

AYES (7)

NOES (10)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 3 for the noes; motion thus negatived.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: For the record, in relation to the amendments of the Hon. Nick Xenophon, had he stayed here and not elected to resign in the middle of a session to stand as a candidate elsewhere, the government's response would have been, as follows. The amendments seek to introduce a number of additional reporting requirements in relation to costs recovered by the Independent Gambling Authority and the Liquor and Gambling Commission from the casino and the SA TAB. They impose additional requirements in relation to surveillance systems at the casino. The government considers the proposed amendments to be redundant and, as a result, would not support them.

The South Australian parliament has already established an extensive set of checks and balances on the operation of executive government. Obviously, these will apply to the mechanism of cost recovery from the casino and SA TAB. Checks and balances that already operate include: the state budget papers, estimates, parliamentary questions, annual reporting and audit requirements under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, freedom of information and judicial review.

In relation to surveillance tapes, the Casino Act 1997 already has sufficient requirements in relation to the systems and procedures for surveillance and security. The arrangements implemented by SkyCity Adelaide are subject to the approval of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. If SkyCity Adelaide fails to comply with the approval, it could result in statutory default and disciplinary procedures. Implementing this arbitrary measure through legislation would impose additional costs on the casino. SkyCity Adelaide has estimated this cost to be in the order of $1.4 million to $1.7 million.

I am advised that, whenever SkyCity Adelaide is aware of an incident from its own surveillance or through notification of the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, or SA Police, surveillance footage of the incident is retained for as long as it is required. My advice is that little benefit is associated with the additional cost that would be imposed on SkyCity Adelaide by this amendment. For this reason, the government would not support the amendments of the Hon. Nick Xenophon.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister, by her own admission, saying that the government would not support the amendments of the Hon. Nick Xenophon, clearly demonstrates that that is why we have not debated the bill over the past few weeks—they did not have the numbers. I also place on the record that I am disappointed that members on the cross benches have been happy to support the government with this sneaky method of getting some of its legislation through. While we have only 21 members, in my understanding of the history of this place this is the first time we have passed legislation when we have not had all members duly elected and present in this place.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government has a number of bills, some of which are priority bills and which need to be passed in this place. We are going about the business of government, as indeed we should.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I support my leader in relation to this issue. I think that this is one of the more disgraceful things I have seen in this chamber. The leader has indicated quite clearly that this is the first time that any government—Liberal or Labor—has sought to take advantage of a situation in which a member, who is not here and who will be replaced, will not be given the opportunity to express his or her view on this piece of legislation. This measure places significant additional onerous costs on two business in South Australia. We are not talking about some Mickey mouse piece of legislation. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway and other members have highlighted, we are talking about a government that wants to increase the costs of a couple of businesses in South Australia by a significant amount.

We are not talking about inconsequential legislation. We are not talking about Mickey mouse legislation. We are talking about a very significant issue for the commercial interests of a couple of businesses here in South Australia. One of those, of course, as the financial pages would indicate, is currently going through some discussions in relation to its ownership and structure. Clearly, the decisions that are being taken here have a potential impact on those circumstances as we speak. As the leader, the Hon. Mr Ridgway, has highlighted, the people of South Australia elected 22 members to represent them in this chamber. We have a particular circumstance which the Leader of the Government has indicated and which I have acknowledged is not of the government's choosing.

A member has left but there have been other examples where members left not through the choice of the government of the day. I refer in particular to the Hon. Frank Potter who died in office. Within a week that honourable member was replaced so that the voting—and I think it might have even been SANTOS and other legislation at the time—could involve all members. This government—and sadly for you Mr Chairman, your government—is, as the leader indicated, being sneaky, manipulative and deceitful in terms of trying to sneak legislation through the back door and to whack—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; you should get on with it and appoint someone, like any normal or reasonable government would. You know what you should do. The leader is a disgrace and so are his ministers and the Premier in relation to this issue. I will not be diverted by their out-of-order interjections in relation to this issue. There is an easy way for this issue to be resolved, namely, that someone is appointed through an assembly of members. Mr Chairman, you know that is the process. Every other government—Labor and Liberal—has respected those conventions and has not sought to take advantage of the situation by trying to whack through legislation which will disadvantage a couple of businesses in South Australia. In a sneaky, manipulative and deceitful way it is trying to whack a couple of businesses in South Australia. This will be a long process because, obviously, this government will seek to take advantage for as long as it can. It will stretch out for as long as it can this situation so that it can take advantage of whatever legislation it wants or it thinks it can get through.

The business circles of South Australia, whether they are for or against gambling as an industry or as a particular pastime, will hear about the circumstances of this legislation if it is jammed through. The Hon. Mr Rann portrays himself as a friend of business, the Hon. Mr Foley says that he is a friend of business and the Hon. Mr Holloway sidles up to business people in the minerals and resources area. When the circumstances arise, businesses need to be warned that, if they can, those three will take advantage of sneaking legislation through while that chair is vacant because that person may or may not, as you rightly point out, Mr Chairman, influence this decision. They may or may not. First, we do not know who the replacement will be; and, secondly, we do not know how that person will vote. But, good heavens, certainly from our side of the political fence over here, we are at least prepared to say that that person is entitled to vote on this legislation and, if that person votes with the government on this legislation, so be it. But, let the government be warned that it is taking this decision.

It rests with the Leader of the Government and, if he is going to abuse every convention we have ever seen in this chamber, for the first time ever he will be the leader of a government abusing a convention that has been cherished, supported and respected by governments and oppositions—Liberal and Labor—for decades, as the Hon. Robert Lawson indicated by way of his question last week. Let it rest on the shoulders of the Leader of the Government in this chamber and on the shoulders of the Premier. They will be the people who have abused this convention. I will conclude by saying that the Premier today said that he was not going to be a Joh Bjelke-Peterson. Well, he is already being called Joh Bjelke-Rann, because he is like Joh Bjelke-Peterson abusing the privileges of the parliament to try to get his legislation through to whack a couple of businesses over the head with extra taxes, charges and duties in South Australia. So, look out!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I believe that I should respond to that nonsense we have just heard from the Hon. Rob Lucas. The first point that needs to be made is that we can really see where the leadership—if you can call it that—of the Liberal opposition in this place is coming from. It is not from the Hon. David Ridgway. The Hon. Rob Lucas is running the show. He is playing games with it. This parliament is at grave risk of becoming the Rob Lucas toy, the Rob Lucas plaything, because that is exactly what is happening here. If the Hon. Nick Xenophon wishes to run for the Senate, that is his business. But if we take the logical conclusion from what the Hon. Rob Lucas said, we should be adjourning the parliament. Apparently nothing can happen because the Hon. Nick Xenophon has gone.

If the Hon. Nick Xenophon chooses to run for the Senate, that is fine. He resigned on a Monday a week back, and, in due course, the government will replace him. We know it is an issue. The Hon. Sandra Kanck has already written to the Premier saying that, if it is a count-back system, it will be someone else. There could be a challenge in relation to the position, so it is important that the government gets this right. But to try to suggest that this legislation, which has been announced for months—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Why have we been adjourning for weeks? Because members opposite are never ready. It is the Independent members who are never ready to deal with legislation. Time and again we want to deal with legislation but they are not ready. Somewhere along the line this Legislative Council must take responsibility for passing legislation, for allowing the government of the day to govern. It should not be a plaything for people such as the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Independents and others to try to play games. This is serious business. Legislation is here, and we will deal with it in accordance with the Constitution. Really, if people decide to leave to do other things, okay, that is their business. Where is the Hon. Ann Bressington? She is the representative of the Hon. Nick Xenophon. She has gone off for a week somewhere. Now, where are people's priorities?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Okay, she has at least said which way she is voting. Where are we going?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, she is being been paired, because she agreed to.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have not been absent a day since I have been in this place—nearly 13 years. The first time I have ever requested a pair from this parliament is for a couple of weeks when there is an important police ministers conference in New Zealand, where this state is presenting a paper in relation to bikies. If I have to miss it, okay, I will miss it. Meanwhile we have people going off on all sorts of business. Where are the priorities? It is about time this Legislative Council got serious. If we cannot debate government legislation, what are we doing?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: I noticed in my mailbox this week a number of memos from Independents and one from the Hon. Mr Ridgway wanting their business dealt with tomorrow, and I would not think that was because they want to rush it through because Mr Xenophon is missing.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I want to respond briefly to a number of things. The Hon. David Ridgway expressed his disappointment that some crossbench members, including myself, did not support his call to report progress. I wish the record to show that one of the reasons I did not support that call was that this legislation has been on the books for some considerable time. I am also very nervous of the fact that it would be possible for a devious government to take advantage of the absent seat in this chamber to push through legislation. I am prepared to accept for now that it is a coincidence that a bill that has been on the Notice Paper for some time is now being brought forward.

The important thing for me is that as members of this chamber we need to take a number of things seriously. Those of us in opposition and on the crossbenches need to give credence to the government's legislative agenda and not unnecessarily delay it, but we need sufficient time to consider it, which is why I appreciated one of the government's priority business items being adjourned so that I have a chance to talk to members about my amendments, and that is an appropriate course of action to take. I took some objection to the minister's comments that the crossbenches are never ready.

I would have thought that we are like the battery whereby we are ever ready to debate government bills, within our resources. As the Greens shadow minister for health, education, transport, mining, police and so on, we have a considerable workload and for this place to work properly we need everyone to be considerate of the fact that it takes us some time to get our heads around the whole legislative agenda. I note the Premier's statement this morning where he said:

I hope to be in a position to inform the house further on this matter [being the replacement of the Hon. Nick Xenophon] over the next few days.

My patience is not limitless and, if it were to drag on for too long and we are to form the view that the government was deliberately delaying the appointment of a successor, perhaps if there were further motions to report progress I might be more sympathetically inclined. I urge the government to get on with it. I know there are some legal issues, but we have had a little while to sort them out and I look forward to the Premier's announcement of a joint sitting.

Getting back to the subject of this bill, and having asked a few questions, I will put my position on the clauses we are dealing with in the bill itself. I will be extremely cross if the government has got this wrong and if its legal advice turns ought to be incorrect and in fact the TAB and SkyCity take the government to the cleaners in court. I will be very disappointed that it has pushed us down this path. It will show to me that it was incompetent in negotiating the first arrangements and in trying to fix it through legislation. Having said that, I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I have read the confidential legal opinions of both sides and I hope to goodness the Crown Solicitor's office has got it right and that this is an appropriate legislative measure that does not infringe the commercial agreements put in place. At this juncture I will support the government's bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As the Hon. Mark Parnell has said, we are getting on with it and I will respond quickly in relation to some of the comments made on this bill by the Hon. Rob Lucas. The Hon. Paul Holloway has adequately responded to the other rantings and ravings. Rather than whacking businesses in this state, this bill is about the mechanism. It is not about the cost, which is estimated to be around an additional $400,000. I reiterate that the main thrust of the bill is incorporation into the legislation of a process that is robust and transparent and provides fairness for the private businesses involved and, importantly, for the taxpayers of South Australia. Such a process for determining recoverable administration costs is important in under-pinning the public's confidence in the conduct of these private businesses.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment; committee's report adopted.

Third Reading

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (7)

NOES (7)

PAIRS (6)

The PRESIDENT: There being seven ayes and seven noes, I give my casting vote for the ayes.

Third reading thus carried.

Bill passed.