Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Location of Gaming Venues) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (LOCATION OF GAMING VENUES) BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:59): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Development Act 1993; and the Gaming Machines Act 1992. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:59): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill remedies an anomaly in the interpretation of the current Gaming Machines Act. In 1997, a bill was introduced by the Olsen government to prohibit the gaming machine venues being located under the same roof or within the same boundaries of a shopping complex, the rationale being that gambling—and especially poker machines—should not be in an area where people are spending money on household staples and might be attracted to spend that money on pokies instead. Although a gaming venue cannot be approved if it is located within an existing shopping complex, it is not clear what the position is for a developer seeking to develop a shopping complex next to an already existing gaming venue. There has been a recent trend to locate new developments in the same vicinity as a gaming venue. My office was contacted by the Stirling District Residents Association, which is opposed to the development of a Coles supermarket in Stirling Village. The complex was to adjoin the existing Stirling Hotel. Of most concern was the fact that the only toilets in the entire complex were to be found in the hotel and, based on the plans provided to the association, it appeared that a person would have to walk through or pass the gaming area to access the toilets. In May last year, it was announced that the Palmer group had applied to the government for a proposal to establish a retail and residential apartment complex behind the Highway Inn on Anzac Highway. There was some question as to whether the development—while not connected to the venue, it shared a car park with it—would be in the same complex as the Highway Inn, a venue with poker machines. The Minister for Urban Development and Planning acknowledged at the time that he would 'not support a development that was not in keeping with the spirit of the 1997 legislation'. I take the minister at his word; however, I can see no reason why this problem cannot be remedied by this simple amendment. I do not think that the two examples I have given were envisaged at the time, and this amendment goes some way to ensuring that a development application for a modification, extension or new development would be rejected. If it proceeded, it would be located adjacent to a 'prescribed development'. A prescribed development is defined in the bill as not only a shopping complex but a school, preschool or childcare centre. I think that the argument for not having a gaming venue located near children is even stronger than that for a shopping complex. This bill goes some way towards addressing the link between problem gambling and the proximity to venues. I commend the bill to members and urge them to support it. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.