GAMING MACHINES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 23 November 2010.)

Clause 11 passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have spoken previously to this amendment; in fact, I believe it is consequential, so I will not proceed with it.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 9, after line 37—After subparagraph (vii) insert:

(viia) that any proposed gaming area is situated as far from any area within the licensed premises designed as a play area for children as is possible in the circumstances, with no part of the gaming area within 10 metres of any part of such a play area and no gaming machine visible from any part of such a play area; and

The intent of this amendment is to respond to the good work of the PokieAct group in its highlighting the unacceptable siting of pokies close to child play areas in licensed venues interstate. It is also a response to constituent concern we have been made aware of that children's play areas in licensed venues could either expose kids undesirably to pokies activity in venues and/or make it easy for a problem gambler parent to leave their children in the play area and keep an eye on them from the comfort of their machine while they play on pokies for hours on end. We believe there is good public policy in this amendment being included in legislation before venues are caught out in paying for the cost of plans and construction of a child play area too close to a pokies area in a licensed venue.

In conclusion, I know what the minister said in his summing up of the second reading, but we think that it makes good sense to have some regulation there so that, when licensed venues upgrade gaming premises, the children's area is well away from the gaming area. There has been an incident interstate where there was a deliberate attempt in this regard, and this amendment makes it absolutely specific. I believe it is a proactive and preventative measure for protecting young people.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment seeks to prohibit the location of child play areas near gaming venues, that is, within 10 metres or line of sight. The government opposes this amendment. As I noted in my second reading closing speech, under the Gaming Machines Act 1992, the holder of a gaming machine licence can be fined up to $20,000 for allowing a minor to enter or remain in a gaming area on the licensed premises. In addition, section 15(4)(g) of the Gaming Act 1992 provides:

A gaming machine licence will not be granted unless the applicant for the licence satisfies the commissioner, by such evidence as the commissioner may require—

(g) that no proposed gaming area is so designed or situated that it would be likely to be a special attraction to minors.

Section 15(4)(g) provides the necessary protection the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is looking for and provides sufficient guidance from parliament to the commissioner to deal with a range of circumstances, including child play areas.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will not be supporting the amendment. The government has given a reasonable explanation as to why this provision is necessary. I can remember taking my family on a trip to Las Vegas in America at one stage when my children were small. Interestingly, the rules there were that children could walk through any part of the venue but could not hover around any form of gaming or gambling activity.

It was interesting that for the first five minutes there was a real wow factor with my two younger children and within an hour or two they could not have cared less. All they were interested in was where the swimming pool was and the other amusements and rides for children outside that area. Part of me wonders whether it is not a disservice when we create this mystery and wow factor by excluding children and youths from gaming machines, thinking that if they see them they will automatically become addicted. I only recount my own experience where, after a very short period of time, they were very blasé about it and not remotely interested. With those words, I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this good amendment. We do not see the need for play areas to be within the line of sight of gaming machines and, when the gaming industry starts creating playgrounds in parks and investing in children's development elsewhere, perhaps we will look favourably upon them having similar facilities within their licensed venues. Until then, I would doubt their motives for having these sorts of initiatives.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I rise briefly to indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. Like my first amendment, this amendment seeks to protect children from being exposed to gambling behaviour. More and more we are seeing licensed premises which also have poker machines introduce different forms of children's entertainment. Their close proximity to gaming rooms is completely undesirable and should be avoided at all lengths. Children need to be protected from exposure to activities that have the potential to make them more vulnerable to gambling. Short of prohibiting children from licensed premises altogether, this sort of amendment goes some way towards achieving that outcome.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I oppose the amendment. I do not know whether or not it is an unintended consequence of the member's drafting but, on my reading, in essence it could potentially close down many small gaming machine venues. Let me give you an example. Anyone who has attended a number of hotels and gaming establishments will know that in a dining area there may well be what the member has defined as a play area. I am referring to the inside areas, as opposed to an outside play area. That dining area, with a small play area for children with games or whatever it might be, can be separated by a solid brick wall from the gaming machines on the other side, so there is no way in the world that the children, the families or anyone can see. The entrance door can be around the other side, but they will be within 10 metres.

The member's amendment—as I said, unintended or cleverly, I am not sure—does not talk about access to the gaming machines. In the circumstances I have outlined, which would not be uncommon in a number of establishments, it would be within 10 metres and that would therefore be ruled out by the member's amendment. So a number of hotels—and I am trying to think of a couple of examples in the member's local region in the southern vales area—may well be closed down as a result of the member's amendment. I do not know whether or not that is his intention.

There is a part which talks about whether you can see them or not—and that is already covered, I think, as the minister has already said. In the example that I have just given, as to this 10-metre rule that the member has, you could have an iron wall (certainly a brick wall) between where the play area is in a dining area and the gaming machines. It has no impact on the children at all. It is completely separated and not seen, heard or anything, yet the member in essence would be saying that is not allowed. I just think that is not a common-sense amendment because, as I said, potentially some venues in his own patch and a number of other areas that I am more familiar with in recent times that I have visited would clearly be impacted by the member's proposed amendment.

The minister has talked about the general reasons—about it being covered, etc.—but I do not think he has really addressed some of the practical issues such as that one—and there are others. If this amendment was to pass, there would be a number of venues which comply with all the expected requirements from the welfare sector and others about making sure that children are not exposed to gaming machines and gambling but just because of accident of size of the venue, geography and layout of the venue, it would be, in essence, potentially closed down by the member's amendment. Given that I suspect the numbers are not there, I do not intend to grill the member who is moving the amendment in relation to his intentions or otherwise about it. I think it is just a further reason as to why this chamber would be well advised not to support this particular package of amendments.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In response, I point out that it says 'any proposed gaming area'. It is not retrospective where an inspector might say, 'You've got this brick wall 10 metres from your gaming machines; you're in breach.' It is for new ones, updated or upgraded ones. It is going to happen; it happens regularly and people do whatever they can to entice their clientele. Look at what McDonald's and Hungry Jack's have done over the years to entice people into their venues with children's play areas. You could easily have slippery dips and the like put into a play area (a multipurpose play area for the whole hotel facility) where kids could be looking in.

From my point of view, it was a good amendment because it is proactive and preventative. We have put measures in place in this chamber over many years to protect children from seeing other business matters. One only has to drive down main roads to see what I am talking about. I do not think that we are inept or wrong in any way at all for trying to do anything that is proactive in the prevention of opportunities to entice young people into the glorification and coloured fanfare seen in a gaming area.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 12, line 31 to page 13, line 3 [inserted subparagraph (ii)]—

Delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute:

(ii) that at any other times gaming operations cannot be conducted on the premises before 12 noon on any day.

I note at the outset that my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire also has an amendment relating to opening hours which I will be supporting if this amendment is defeated. The proposed amendment restricts trading hours of gaming rooms to 12 hours between 12pm and 12am. It does not mean that a venue cannot open outside of those hours; it simply means that gaming rooms situated within licensed premises cannot remain open for longer than 12 hours and cannot open before 12 noon on any day.

The aim of the amendment is to curb the current practice of what can loosely be referred to as venue-hopping by problem gamblers. At present, the Gaming Machines Act requires that all hotel and club venues be closed for gambling for at least six hours per day. This can be a continuous period of six hours, two separate periods of three hours, or three separate periods of two hours. In 2007 the Independent Gambling Authority reported on its inquiry into regulatory functions including codes of practice, game approval guidelines and gaming machine licensing guidelines. As part of that inquiry, the authority considered whether these six hours of closure that currently applies to venues should be contiguous and common across all gambling venues. It also considered positions in relation to longer closing hours for all venues. The authority recommended as follows:

The Authority is satisfied that there should be a common break (that is in opening hours). The Authority was also satisfied that, regardless of whether the codes of practice provisions allowed the Authority to mandate such a requirement, this was a decision which should be made by the parliament.

Accordingly, it is the recommendation of a substantial majority of the members of the Authority that the Gaming Machines Act be amended to require all hotel and club gaming rooms to be open no earlier than 10am and to close at midnight on trading days which commence on a weekday and at 2am following a trading day which commences on a weekend.

The government bill imposes longer closing hours on those gambling venues that do not have a responsible gambling agreement in place. For those venues that do not have an agreement in place, it is proposed that they be required to close from midnight to 10am on weekdays and between 2am and 10am on weekends. To put it another way, those venues will be required to remain closed for a common 10-hour block between midnight and 10am on weekdays and a common eight-hour block between 2am and 10am on weekends. This aspect of the bill is consistent with the recommendation of the Independent Gambling Authority.

On the other hand, venues that do have a responsible gambling agreement in place will only be required to close for a period of at least six hours in each 24-hour period. The six hours can be made up of a continuous period of six hours, two separate periods of three hours or three separate periods of two hours. However, these venues will not be able to conduct gaming operations between the hours of 2am and 8am unless they also comply with the new provisions in schedule 1.

Those provisions impose the following additional requirements: ensuring that gaming machine managers or employees working at the premises have completed advanced problem gambling intervention training, ensuring that arrangements are in place for identifying and referring persons to gambling help services, and restricting the use of automatic coin dispensing machines during late trading.

The effect of these provisions is that those venues that do not meet the additional requirements just mentioned will be required to close for a continuous period of six hours between 2am and 8am. These provisions are not entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Gambling Authority in that they do not go quite as far as recommended by the Independent Gambling Authority.

Subject to licensing conditions, some venues will still be able to operate for longer hours than recommended by the Independent Gambling Authority, and they will still be able to operate between the hours of 2am and 8am under the government bill. The changes certainly will not result in a common break across all venues and, therefore, will not overcome what can loosely be referred to as venue-hopping by problem gamblers.

The additional obligations imposed on those venues that have entered responsible gambling agreements are creditable but they do not, in my view, go far enough to curb problem gambling. Some members may be of the view that problem gamblers will always find a way to feed their addiction, whether it be at two in the afternoon or two in the morning. I accept that; however, that does not mean that we should not endeavour to create a safer environment, particularly when the state regulatory body recommends such measures. I think it is fair to say that it would be hard to imagine anyone but a problem gambler going to a venue and gambling at 5, 6, or even 7 o'clock in the morning.

Submissions to the Independent Gambling Authority by various community groups, including Anglicare SA and the collaborating community agencies, indicate that gambling between 2am and 8am is most common amongst vulnerable groups in the community, including problem gamblers. Recreational gamblers, on the other hand, tend to gamble at more socially acceptable times. I think this is well accepted.

It is not inconceivable to imagine owners of multiple venues who have signed up to responsible gambling agreements and who meet the additional licensing conditions coordinating the opening hours of their venues to ensure that there is always a gambling venue open within a 24-hour period.

I appreciate that my amendment goes further than that recommended by the Independent Gambling Authority. However, earlier closing hours combined with other harm minimisation measures—such as pre-commitment technology, problem gambling intervention and restricting access to ATMs and coin-dispensing machines—can make a real difference to the prevalence of problem gambling.

I have another amendment which relates to the additional licensing conditions as proposed by the government. I am proposing that, in the event that this amendment is supported, gambling venues also be required to meet those additional conditions; that is, requiring a gaming machine manager or employee who has completed advanced problem gambling intervention training to be present in the gaming area at all times and ensuring that the arrangements are in place under which the gaming machine manager or employee may immediately refer a person identified as engaging in problem gambling to a service to address the problem. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The CHAIR: Perhaps we could get the Hon. Mr Brokenshire to move his amendment first and then members can make contributions. I understand that if the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment is defeated, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire wants to use his as a backup.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. I move:

Page 12, line 31 to page 13, line 3 [inserted subparagraph (ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute:

(ii) that at other times gaming operations cannot be conducted on the premises before 10am on any day.

I will come back, when I have heard from the minister, to make some further comment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes both of the amendments. As I pointed out in my second reading closing speech, common closing hours are not as effective as other measures and the government opposes these amendments. Closing hours have been the subject of an exhaustive consultation process by the Independent Gambling Authority, commencing in 2002 and culminating in recommendations by the authority in the Review 2006: Regulatory Functions Final Report, released in May 2007, which noted:

the work undertaken to date on intervention initiatives in the casino and with gaming machine venues, and the promise these initiatives can offer in changing the way licensees and their staff relate to problem gamblers.

Programs like Club Safe and Gaming Care are genuine attempts by the industry to provide for better responsible gambling environments. The bill proposes longer closing hours as an additional incentive for licensees to sign up to programs like Club Safe and Gaming Care. The bill includes additional responsibilities for late trading club and hotel gaming venues so that customers during off-peak hours are able to have access to early intervention and other support measures for problem gambling that are at least as good as those available at other operating times.

The government's proposed extra responsibilities for late trading venues are aimed at resolving problem gambling behaviour rather than just shifting the behaviour to another time of the day. The government considers that this approach is more effective at addressing problem gambling behaviour.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I agree with the government's position and accept its explanation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My first question is to the minister. Is it the government's position, as outlined on this clause but also throughout the bill, that these responsible gambling agreements can only be entered into with industry bodies or associations? I mean, why couldn't an individual licensee undertake a responsible gambling agreement and have that approved, as long as it meets whatever the standards are that might be required by the regulatory authority?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that anyone can but the responsible gambling agency has to be approved by the IGA.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let me clarify the question while the minister takes further advice because, to be frank, those answers do not make much sense.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly; yes. Just to assist the minister and the committee, I hope, the government's definition of 'responsible gambling agreement', which is used in this particular series of amendments, says:

...means an agreement in the form prescribed by the Authority under section 10A between a licensee and an industry body recognised by the Authority under section 10B;

That leads me to believe that the government is saying that the licensee, in essence, has to be a member of some industry body, whether it is Club One or the AHA or something like that, and it is the industry body that has the agreement with the Independent Gambling Authority, and if I am an individual licensee at the Whyalla Hotel, I am therefore required to be a member of the AHA or Club One, which in essence appears to me almost to require compulsory membership of some industry body.

The minister's first response to my question was that that is not the case. If I am the individual licensee of the Whyalla Hotel, I do not have to be a member of the AHA or Club One or any industry body. I can enter into a responsible gambling agreement with the Independent Gambling Authority and there is not an issue. I now seek clarification as to whether or not the minister's initial response is, on further advice, still his response.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that they do not have to be a member of the AHA or Club One and indeed I am advised that there are some licensees who are not members of Club One or the AHA—sorry, Clubs SA—but they have a responsible gambling agreement.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am delighted to hear that but can the minister, through his adviser, explain the definition in the government's bill, which states that the responsible gambling agreement is:

...an agreement in the form prescribed by the Authority under section 10A between a licensee and an industry body recognised by the Authority under section 10B;

If the practice is that an individual licensee does not need to have membership of an industry body like Clubs SA or the AHA—and I support that practice—is it possible that the government may well need to amend its definition of 'responsible gambling agreement' to cater for the current practice, which is of an individual licensee not being required to be a member of an industry body to have a responsible gambling agreement with the IGA?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the relevant industry bodies here are Club Safe and Gaming Care, and so the agreement is with those bodies and not with the AHA or Clubs SA. It is with Club Safe and Gaming Care.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister saying to the committee that an individual licensee has to be a member of those two industry bodies that he has just named: Club Safe and Gaming Care?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, at this stage no venues are seeking to have a responsible gambling agreement with agencies other than Club Safe or Gaming Care. I will start again. Hotels do not have to be a member of the AHA or clubs a member of Clubs SA to have an agreement with Gaming Care or with Club Safe. I hope that makes sense.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let us nail the point. The definition of 'responsible gambling agreement' is that it is an agreement in the form prescribed by the authority between a licensee and an industry body. I am wanting absolute confirmation from the minister in terms of his answers, that is, that an individual licensee does not have to be a member of any of these industry bodies or associations, whether it be Clubs SA or Club Safe or, in the hotel sector, the AHA or Gaming Care. If I am an individual licensee, I can go to the IGA and, as long as I meet the definition or requirements of 'responsible gambling agreement', can I get a responsible gambling agreement without having to sign up to one of these industry bodies?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that anyone can set up any responsible gambling agency, but it needs to be adequately resourced. So, they would have to convince the IGA that they were adequately resourced to do it. For that reason my advice is that almost all venues have agreements with Gaming Care or Club Safe but some do not. Those who do not would have to convince the IGA that they are adequately resourced. They would set up their own responsible gambling agency.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, is the minister indicating therefore that there is not currently an example where a hotel group, for example, which might own half a dozen hotels of their own volition has established its own industry body or responsible gambling agency and negotiated its own responsible gambling agreement with the IGA, separate from either Gaming Care or Club Safe?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that 558 of the 565 gaming licensees currently have an approved intervention agency agreement in place, that is, 98.7 per cent of gaming venues, and that would be with Club Safe or Gaming Care, but it is not necessary for the licensee to be a member of either Clubs SA or the AHA in order to have access to Club Safe or Gaming Care.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Are there any others who are not at the moment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is no, not at this stage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In theory they could?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, in theory.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That has clarified that. I suspect that in practice it will be very difficult, but I do not think any licensee should be required de facto to be a member of an industry body, whether it be the AHA—or Clubs SA for that matter—to have what they might see to be the benefit underneath the government's legislation. The minister says in theory that it is possible, but I suspect in practice it will probably be very difficult, but I accept that.

In respect of clause 19, as it relates to responsible gambling agreements, obviously I am opposing both the proposed amendments but I also personally oppose the government's position, which is outlined in the bill. So, I not only oppose the amendments from the Hons Mr Darley and Mr Brokenshire but, with the greatest respect to all involved in this debate, this whole issue is a crock of Brokey's cows manure in relation to the argument about—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: He's asleep.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That's all right, I thought I would wake him up. Perhaps if I mention Daisy, Maisy and Clarabelle—they have just been mentioned in despatches.

With this whole debate about gaming hours and opening, I accept part of the argument that the minister has put, as well as my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens, in relation to opposing this further extension, but the premise in the bill still heads down this particular path, that this attempt to alter gaming machine hours will in some way have any impact at all on problem gambling.

As I said in my second reading contribution about a range of measures, in my view this is just another example of political tokenism, where the government, and those who support it, are seen to be doing something in relation to tackling problem gambling. Again, in my view it will not make a jot of difference; I think even the Hon. Mr Darley conceded (although he went on to disagree with the position) that if you are a problem gambler you will do as much damage in 12 hours as you might in 18 or 24 hours, or whatever it is.

I will not go over my second reading contribution again, because I have indicated my views. However, I want to indicate that not only do I oppose the two amendments, I also oppose the government's proposition in the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I agree with the Hon. Mr Lucas that it is a token effort by the government with its amendment, which is why I am moving a further amendment, but I congratulate the government on at least having a go and recognising the fact that there are problems out there. I would love to see my colleague the Hon. John Darley's amendment get up rather than the one I have put up, because it goes a little further.

I live a little bit further out than most honourable members, but you get home at 3 o'clock in the morning and come back in here a few hours later—and do some other work in between—and as you are travelling back into Adelaide there are pokie machine venues open everywhere; they invite you in for breakfast, for goodness' sake. I am not sure that is the best place to have your breakfast, in front of a gaming machine. You leave here last night and you see, back around the corner of West and North Terraces—we haven't done it for a while, but it is still happening—that there they are at 2 o'clock, in all sorts of states, out the front of the nightclubs. I thought—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Are you going to close them down as well?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am not going to close them down, but I think the police commissioner is already on the public record as saying that we will have to do something about those hours. I think you might find that the government is looking at some of those issues as well, and I will support it 100 per cent.

We have some regulatory roles here in this parliament. I said it in my second reading contribution, but when I was in the House of Assembly and had an electorate office there was a very prominent tavern virtually 50 metres or so from that office, and you would see the mums and dads coming and dropping off their schoolchildren, and then going into the gaming venue. I do not believe it is in the best interest of a family to be in there at that hour of the morning; there are a lot better things to do in that early part of the morning.

We have gone for 10 o'clock, because we acknowledge that some of the senior citizens might want to go in and have lunch, and put a couple of dollars in a machine beforehand. As I said before—and I will finish with this—in the first instance I support the Hon. John Darley's amendment; but, if not, I will strongly push my own.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 14, after line 12 [inserted subsection (4)]—After paragraph (b) insert:

(c) for each gaming machine entitlement assigned to a licensee under this section—a statement to that effect; and

(d) for each gaming machine entitlement obtained by a licensee through a transfer allowed by section 27B—the paragraph of section 27B(1) allowing the transfer.

This amendment looks at what is quite a concerning issue, that is, gaming machines that were received without any fee attached to them being subsumed into the new register without the recognition that a licensee got them for free. It is a big issue; it could amount to a multimillion dollar gift to the gambling industry. In establishing the approved trading scheme for gaming machine entitlements, we will now be seeing those entitlements traded.

In the future, we may see them pocketing the windfall and having tradable entitlements, and it will be an asset that possibly could cost future governments buckets of money to buy out if we want to reduce pokie numbers in the future. In my proposal, I have suggested a register. I see that the government has a single register, but we would have a more nuanced approach. The register would recognise those licences that were established free and those that were traded, and then there would be no question of compensation for those that were the original freebies.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Tammy Franks' proposed amendment seeks to differentiate between gaming machine entitlements in the register of entitlements on the basis of whether they were purchased or granted before the reduction in the number of gaming machine entitlements. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. A gaming machine entitlement is a gaming machine entitlement regardless of how it was obtained. There is therefore no point in distinguishing on the register between entitlements granted and entitlements that were purchased: they will all have the same value.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will be opposing the amendment. Where are we heading with this, Hon. Ms Franks? What about the fishing industry? What about people who pioneered the fishing industry and now have licences worth many, many dollars? Is the Hon. Tammy Franks saying that, if you were to choose to take away the entitlement and all the work they have put into a fishing licence, possibly they should have no right to it? All of these gaming machine entitlements were obtained legally; nobody has obtained anything illegally. I am not at all attracted to the intent of this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment. In fact, I put on the public record that I personally believe the Hon. Tammy Franks has done a good job in putting forward quite a few proactive amendments. I do not see anything wrong with better reporting and transparency programs and, effectively, I think that is what the Hon. Tammy Franks is trying to do. With the River Murray situation at the moment and water licences, we have no real register there and we have no transparency. Day in and day out, things come up in this parliament and generally around trying to establish what is happening and to keep some transparency and openness in reporting practices. It is very difficult, and I do not think it hurts to have a little more transparency in reporting. So, I will be supporting the general intent of this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 22 passed.

New clause 22A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 14, after line 25—After clause 22 insert:

22A—Substitution of section 27E

Section 27E—delete the section and substitute:

27E—Statement of parliamentary intention with regard to gaming machine numbers

(1) It is the intention of parliament that, by 31 December 2011, there be a reduction of 3,000 gaming machines from the number of gaming machines approved for operation under this act immediately before the commencement of section 27A.

(2) If it appears to the commissioner that the target referred to in subsection (1) will not be met, the reductions are to occur through a scheme for the acquisition of gaming machines by the government, at a price and in a manner determined by the commissioner, from licensees.

I advise my colleagues that the fundamental difference with this amendment is that we do not want a pro rata reduction because that could produce injustices; rather, we want the commissioner to determine the manner in which we have a buyback after 31 December 2011 of however many machines are required to secure the original 3,000 gaming machine reduction target.

I was in the other place when this proposal was put forward with a lot of fanfare and media publicity about how wonderful it was going to be, because we were going to see this reduction in poker machine numbers, with the expectation that this would be a good thing to assist with problem gambling, which was recognised by the government at the time. I think that was close to six years ago.

We still do not have the 3,000 gaming machines. I think the Hon. Rob Lucas said yesterday that we have probably just over 2,000. I think it is about 2,200. How long do we have to wait? What is proposed by the government will not work, because the industry drove the original concept. They objected to what was happening at the time; they wanted that cap. It was never going to work and they have realised that. Now we have this amendment in here. If they cannot get their own act together by the end of December 2011, let the commissioner get in there and fix it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. This amendment would require the government to figure out a scheme for acquiring the outstanding gaming machines with compensation at a price fixed by the commissioner if the targeted reduction in gaming machine numbers is not met by 31 December 2011.

Regarding compensation, I should point out that, when the Independent Gambling Authority undertook its inquiry into gaming machine numbers in 2003, it noted that no premium had been paid for a gaming machine licence that gave the right to operate gaming machines. The Independent Gambling Authority pointed out that it would not be appropriate for the government to pay compensation and recommended that this be included in the legislation, which it was when the compulsory reduction in gaming machine numbers took place in 2005. It should be noted that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is asking the parliament to reverse its clear intention, documented in section 27E, which provides:

It is Parliament's intention to make no further reduction in gaming machine numbers (beyond the reduction resulting from the implementation of this Division) before 30 June 2014.

The government does not intend further compulsory reductions in gaming machine entitlements in line with parliament's intent. The bill removes the fixed price on gaming machine entitlements in order to stimulate the market. The fixed price was identified by the Independent Gambling Authority as the reason some venues do not want to sell their machines. With the forfeiture requirements in the approved trading system, there will be a reduction in gaming machines when entitlements are traded until the 3,000 reduction is achieved.

The government is confident the amendments proposed will significantly accelerate the reduction in gaming machine entitlements. More importantly, the trading system provides an avenue for venues that want to exit the gaming machine industry. This was a key objective of the Independent Gambling Authority's original recommendations. Setting an artificial deadline could have the reverse effect. It would create uncertainty in the market, affecting decisions on whether to buy or sell gaming machine entitlements and for how much. The whole point here is to open up the market, not introduce further measures that could end up becoming a new impediment. So parliament's intention in section 27E is to provide certainty. The proposed amendment would only create uncertainty as it does not state the basis or the price at which entitlements would be removed.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will not be supporting the amendment. The last part of the government's explanation is the one that puts the nail in for me. Finally, we are going to remove the cap. We are going to encourage people to trade their machines, let market forces dictate, let machines drop out of the system and speed up the process, but who will actually buy one when they think they may lose them in the short period thereafter? I have no attraction for the amendment at all.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not support the amendments. My question is to the minister: while it will be impossible to accurately predict, what is the range of estimates the government has been provided that the entitlements will trade for, should this legislation pass? That is, the $50,000 limit is being removed, and the government will have received advice as to the best guess, and that is all you could put on it. What is the range of values that the government understands these machines might trade at?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government does not have an official guess. We think it should be left up to the market. I think that giving a figure will not be helpful. If you want market forces to work it is best to let the market work. For the same reason, we are opposing the amendment by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. It is probably not helpful for us to try, even if we did have figures (which we do not and they would only be a guess), and it would probably only damage the chances of the market working.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 23 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In my second reading contribution I highlighted a concern that I had about the government interfering in the process between private enterprise and the suppliers to private enterprise with regard to gaming machines. There is a provision which states:

...provides for an inducement to enter the contract, other than a discount based on the number of machines, components or items of equipment to be supplied.

To be fair, I have not had the industry knocking down my door and supporting my line of argument on this but I still say to the minister that I think he is fundamentally wrong. This industry has matured and we have come a long way since it was introduced when we were frightened of a range of things. What right does government have to poke its nose into an arrangement between private enterprise when we have all these regulations in place? The minister still has not convinced me with his reply.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am not sure if I can satisfy the honourable member or not. I point out that the introduction of gaming machines in South Australia was contingent upon strict government controls, one of which was to make the State Procurement Board the middleman between manufacturers and purchasers of gaming machines. At the time, parliament believed that preventing direct communication between manufacturers and purchasers would lessen the opportunities for kickbacks and corruption. The industry is now mature and the State Procurement Board is considered no longer necessary as a middleman for the sale of gaming machines.

Measures that would lessen the opportunity for kickbacks and corruption have been included in the bill. The measures in the bill are aimed at balancing the negotiation positions between gaming machine venues and gaming machine suppliers. Gaming machine suppliers have substantial bargaining power and have the potential to more directly control gaming operations in South Australia by way of revenue-sharing arrangements or rental agreements. Given that, the whole purpose of the government's actions is to balance that negotiating position.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: You have not satisfied me but we will move on.

Clause passed.

Clauses 29 to 38 passed.

New clause 38A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 19, after line 19—After clause 38 insert:

38A—Substitution of section 51B

Section 51B—delete the section and substitute:

51B—Cash facilities on licensed premises

(1) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not provide, or allow another person to provide, a cash facility on the licensed premises that allows a person to obtain by means of that facility any amount of cash.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

(2) The minister may, if he or she is satisfied that there are no other cash facilities available within a three kilometre radius of the licensed premises, exempt a licensee (conditionally or unconditionally) from the operation of this section.

(3) A licensee who contravenes a condition of an exemption granted under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

I have withdrawn my previous amendment because it was never intended that EFTPOS facilities not be provided at gambling venues for the purpose of paying for goods and services. Instead, it was intended to remove the ability to withdraw cash from any cash facilities situated within licensed premises that also have poker machines. This new amendment achieves that. It provides that the holder of a gaming machine licence must not provide or allow another person to provide a cash facility on licensed premises that allows a person to obtain, by means of that facility, any amount of cash.

Under the act, cash facility is defined to include automatic teller machines, EFTPOS facilities and any other facility as prescribed by regulation that enables a person to gain access to his or her funds, or to credit. Under this revised amendment, patrons will still be able to use a debit or credit card to pay for meals, drinks and the like, but they will not be able to withdraw additional cash. These restrictions will not apply to licensed premises that do not have poker machines.

The amendment is also subject to an exemption which provides the minister with the ability to exempt a licensee from these provisions if he or she is satisfied that there are no cash facilities available within a three kilometre radius of those licensed premises. The reason for this exemption is that there are, as I understand it, a number of licensed premises, particularly those situated in regional areas, where ATMs are not readily available. In those instances, the operators of the licensed premises will be able to apply to the minister for an exemption from the operation of this section. The amendment will, in effect, result in the removal of ATMs from gambling venues, subject, of course, to the exemption already outlined.

I should also point out that I have proposed two alternative amendments relating to cash facilities. In the event that this revised amendment is defeated, I will still proceed with the second amendment. I acknowledge that removing cash facilities from gambling venues will not, in itself, eliminate problem gambling; however, it will give gamblers the opportunity to reflect on their level of gambling and think twice about going down the road to an ATM and withdrawing more cash. It will provide a break from gambling and a break from the trancelike state that gambling addicts often say they experience when they are gambling on poker machines.

The statistics relating to ATM usage by problem gamblers have been well canvassed in this chamber in the past, particularly by my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon. I think it is enough to say that the great majority of problem gamblers identify access to cash in gambling venues as critical in terms of controlling their behaviour. This view was supported by Mr Robert Chappell of the Independent Gambling Authority when he presented evidence to a Senate inquiry into a number of gambling related bills in 2008. During the course of his evidence, Mr Chappell stated:

It is quite clear that access to cash it is a clear and burning issue and, in the absence of any other way of giving people the means of controlling their behaviour in a venue, access to cash is an excellent proxy for giving people the ability to commit to expenditure.

As I mentioned earlier, in the event that this amendment is not supported, I will be proceeding with an alternative amendment that gives effect to existing provisions in the act which have been slightly amended and which provide a daily limit on the amount that can be withdrawn from the cash facility located within a licensed premises.

My preferred position would be for cash facilities to be removed from licensed premises with poker machines altogether, especially because setting daily limits on cash withdrawals does not overcome the problem of problem gamblers using multiple cards to access cash. However, failing that, I think the alternative amendment is still a worthy compromise. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes the amendment. In its gambling inquiry report released in June 2010, the Productivity Commission recommends that cash withdrawals from ATMs and EFTPOS facilities should be limited to $250 a day, except for casinos. The next set of gambling legislative amendments will consider this proposal, taking into account section 51B of the Gaming Machines Act 1992, which limits cash withdrawals from ATMs located on licensed premises to $200 per transaction, with only one transaction allowed per day.

It should be noted that this section is yet to be proclaimed due to technological constraints in the past. Public consultation on any proposals reducing the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from ATMs should be undertaken in order to fully understand the impacts of such proposals on gamblers, venues and any other stakeholders. It is important that there be no unintended consequences from the bill we are currently considering.

As I noted in my closing speech, under the Hon. Mr Darley's original proposed amendment, it would not have been possible for a customer to pay for a meal by EFTPOS in a pub or club that has gaming machines. That unintended consequence has been addressed, but there may be others, and that is why the government will suggest that public consultation is important.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will not be supporting the amendment. I have a bad habit, when I go to the hotel or club or whatever, if I do not have a lot of cash on me, of using a credit card. I have a very bad habit of leaving the establishment and leaving my credit card there. I could be caught up in the excitement of the moment; I could be encouraged to move on somewhere else. Often, my beautiful wife says, 'Terry, it's time we went' and I dutifully exit.

What I do try and do is pay cash because, ultimately, I am not confronted with the problem. It is a pain to go back and get your credit card the next day, let alone that it is a bit embarrassing. I am sure that I am not a lone soldier in regard to this. I find it offensive that I cannot go to any licensed establishment and get cash; it is just a simple part of democracy, as far as I am concerned, so I am not going to support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise also to oppose this amendment. I believe that limits on cash withdrawals are perhaps something that should be considered and, as the technology advances, that may be a wise way to go. As to restricting ability to get cash out: as somebody who has a Visa debit card, I cannot access money in an ATM that is anywhere near a poker machine. When I was nine months pregnant, that was actually a real problem one day; I needed cash, I was heavily pregnant, it was the height of summer and at that time I did curse Nick Xenophon.

I would like to point out that I have also lived in a suburb where the ATM at the supermarket went down and the only ATM nearby was that in the licensed venue that has poker machines. Again, I was unable to buy my groceries that morning.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You and your children were starving as a result.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do not think I was in any danger of starving but I certainly was inconvenienced and I know that many people share that inconvenience. I do sympathise with the intent of restricting cash and a limiting on cash to those people who are problem gamblers. I think that this area of restriction, however, has a lot of impacts not only upon myself—clearly I have had personal experiences—but also on people who are just going about doing their normal daily business. I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was almost swayed to support this until I heard that contribution from the Hon. Ms Franks, so she has convinced me not to support the amendment. I note that I do not support the amendment. The general point I wanted make is not just opposing this amendment but the minister, in his response, has raised this whole issue of the next stage of regulation that this government and the federal government are looking at in relation to restricting cash out to $250 (it used to be $200), etc.

Again, it is my strong view that this is just political tokenism. It will have no impact on problem gamblers. Everyone who drives or walks around the community and opens their eyes will see ATM machines growing almost on every corner. The days of when they were owned by the banks are long gone. We have specialist companies that are providing ATM machines in the most convenient, as they see it, of locations; everywhere. You put these restrictions on, but there are already or there will be ATM machines 50 or 100 metres around the corner. The Hon. Mr Xenophon argues that the problem gambler will go outside and that will help him stop his gambling. Trust me, it will not stop the problem gambler; the problem gambler will go out, get a breath of fresh air, get the $250 (or whatever it is) and go straight back in again.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Pay a bigger fee.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, pay a bigger fee, because it is $2 or whatever it is per $100, as well as the bank fee; they will pay a bigger fee and go back in and gamble. This whole area, not just this amendment, of restricting cash out and the limits the commonwealth government is talking about are tokenism with no evidence that they will have any impact on problem gamblers, and I oppose those propositions as well.

New clause negatived.

New clause 38A.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley has another amendment, to try to insert a new clause 38A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 19, after line 19—After clause 38 insert:

38A—Amendment of section 51B—Cash facilities withdrawal limit

(1) Section 51B(1)(b)(ii)—delete 'some other' and substitute:

a lesser

(2) Section 51B(2)—delete 'thinks that good reason (eg, the location of the licensed premises) exists for doing so' and substitute:

is satisfied that there are no other cash facilities available within a 3 kilometre radius of the licensed premises

(3) Section 51B(4), definition of prescribed day, (b)—delete 'a day fixed by proclamation' and substitute:

the day falling 3 months after the day on which the Governor assents to the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2010

The amendment primarily seeks to bring into operation section 51B(3) of the act which provides a cap on the amount that can be withdrawn from a cash facility on licensed premises on any one day. Under the amendment, those provisions will become effective three months after the day on which the Gaming Machines Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2010 is assented to. I understand that section 51B(3) was inserted into the act by the government in 2001.

The amendment also ensures that a sum greater than $200 cannot be prescribed by regulation. Lastly, the amendment reins in the broad discretion currently available to the commissioner in setting a higher daily limit for venues. Instead, the commissioner will only be able to set a higher daily limit for venues on a case-by-case basis if he or she is satisfied that there are no other cash facilities available within a three kilometre radius of the licensed premises.

The reasons for this are similar to those outlined in relation to my previous amendment: that is, the discretion will be exercised in relation to those venues that are situated in areas where ATMs are not readily accessible. During my second reading speech, I referred to the recent findings of the Coroner concerning the death of Ms Katherine Michelle Natt. Members will recall that Ms Natt worked in the gambling industry, struggled with a gaming addiction and tragically took own life at the age of 24.

The Coroner found that Ms Natt's suicide was a direct result of her inability to cope with a poker machine addiction and the resulting financial consequences of that addiction. During the inquest, the Coroner was presented with evidence relating to the level of spending on poker machines by Ms Natt. In his findings, the Coroner outlined some of that expenditure based on bank statements which record withdrawals from ATMs situated at various licensed premises that Ms Natt frequented.

Those statements showed that on one evening Ms Natt withdrew multiple sums of money totalling $760 within just over an hour from an ATM situated at a gambling venue. On another occasion, she withdrew multiple sums of $200 from an ATM situated in another gambling venue amounting to $1,400. The withdrawals were made at 4:06am, 4:12am, 4:13am, 4:27am, 4:38am and 4:39am. On the same day she withdrew two further sums of $200 at a different venue again. So, on that one day she withdrew a total of $1,800 at two different venues.

On a different occasion, Ms Natt again withdrew four sums of $200 and one sum of $100 in five transactions in just under half an hour. Again, some of those transactions were literally only minutes apart. The Coroner found that although there was no direct evidence that Ms Natt had spent the money withdrawn from the ATMs on those occasions on poker machines, he considered it reasonable to infer, based on the evidence before him, that the entirety of those monies was gambled on poker machines.

This is the exact sort of situation this amendment is aimed at. There is no telling whether Ms Natt would have stopped gambling on any of those days if she had access only to a set limit of cash within the venues she frequented. However, at the very least, setting such a limit has the potential, as I said earlier, to help problem gamblers stop and think about their actions before heading to an alternative ATM situated around the corner or down the road. As far as I am aware, Ms Natt was not identified as a potential problem gambler at any of the venues where she gambled despite her frequent visits to the ATM.

If we are serious about minimising the harm caused by poker machines, then this sort of measure should be adopted in conjunction with other harm minimisation measures. I appreciate that unfortunately there will always be individuals who fall through the cracks. That is not to say that this is acceptable. We should be making every effort to ensure not only that problem gamblers are identified, but that we eliminate so far as possible anything in licensed premises which problem gamblers consider a significant impediment in terms of their gambling behaviour. In doing so we would also be helping problem gamblers to help themselves.

During the second reading debate the minister indicated that the government is opposed to this amendment and that section 51B has not been proclaimed because of technological constraints with ATMs in the past. With respect, financial institutions and ATM providers have had nine years to overcome these constraints. We know it is possible to set daily limits to the amounts that can be withdrawn from individual accounts at an ATM. We know that it is possible to set limits to each transaction at an ATM. Surely nine years is long enough to come up with some way of taking that one step further and limiting those transactions to one per day. I urge all members to support the amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes the amendment that would automatically implement a limit on cash withdrawals from ATMs at licensed venues of $200 per transaction per person per day. I previously noted that this is one of the matters being considered by the ministerial select council on gambling reform. I will not repeat the points I made in the previous debate we just had.

In its gambling inquiry report released in June this year the Productivity Commission recommends that cash withdrawals from ATMs and EFTPOS facilities should be limited to $250 per day, except for casinos. There would be no limit on the number of transactions. I am advised that South Australia's proposal in section 51B may not be consistent with the Productivity Commission's recommended approach and may not be supported without specific amendments to the ATM software. It is important that we work with our colleagues interstate to adopt a nationally consistent approach so that only one ATM software change needs to be developed.

For example, I am advised that the impact on problem gamblers of a limit of $200 in a single transaction per day is that they may seek to withdraw all the money at once in case they need it, and then they may gamble all of it. It may be better if there is no limit on the number of transactions. In this case, gamblers may withdraw smaller amounts, with each visit to the ATM acting as a break in play, which gives an opportunity to make a conscious decision to end gambling. So, it is possible that this proposed amendment could have unintended consequences, which the government is seeking to avoid by working at the national level and committing to consulting with stakeholders.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I accept the government's explanation and oppose the amendment.

New clause negatived.

New clause 38B.

The CHAIR: If successful this will become new clause 38A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 19, before line 20—Before clause 39 insert:

38B—Insertion of section 52A

After section 52 insert:

52A—Prohibition on coin dispensing machines

The holder of a gaming machine licence must not provide, or allow another person to provide, on the licensed premises a machine designed to change a monetary note into coins.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

This amendment seeks to remove automatic coin-dispensing machines from gambling rooms. At present there are no restrictions relating to the use of coin-dispensing machines in gaming rooms. The government's bill proposes to restrict their use only during late trading. Under the proposed changes those venues that have a responsible gambling agreement in place and operate between 2am and 8am, by virtue of meeting additional licensing conditions, will not be able to operate coin-dispensing machines during those hours, that is, between 2am and 8am. At all other times all venues, irrespective of whether or not they have a responsible gambling agreement in place, will continue to be able to operate coin-dispensing machines in their gaming rooms.

I do not believe that simply restricting the use of these machines during late trading goes far enough. There is absolutely no reason why patrons should not present at a counter and request change from an employee or cashier. This provides an intervention point where an employee has the opportunity to make an assessment as to whether a person may have a gambling problem, and to make an appropriate referral to counselling or arrange for a barring order. Coin-dispensing machines make it more difficult for gaming room staff to get an idea of how much someone is gambling and therefore make it a lot more difficult to identify problem gamblers.

Indeed, the lack of person-to-person contact increases the chances of a problem gambler slipping through the cracks and the behaviour going unnoticed. Having to physically present to a cashier creates a break in play which may allow a problem gambler to consider their behaviour. Like ATMs, a higher proportion of problem gamblers access coin-dispensing machines when compared with recreational gamblers. I note that the results of a survey conducted by Relationships Australia in 2004 also indicate that problem gamblers access more money if a coin-dispensing machine is available in a venue.

Again, this is a sensible harm minimisation measure that will assist in combating problem gambling. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. The Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010 proposes to prohibit coin-dispensing machines during late trading hours—that is, from 2am to 8am—as well as other measures that are aimed at early intervention and harm minimisation for problem gamblers. It is not proposed to ban coin-dispensing machines at all times of the day. This may be considered in the future; however, public consultation on any proposals reducing the use of coin machines should be undertaken in order to fully understand the impacts of such proposals on gamblers, venues and any other stakeholders.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I oppose the amendment, but I also oppose the provisions in the government bill. I think my views in relation to coin machines or anything else I moved—particularly in relation to note acceptors, for example, on gaming machines—are probably evident from the amendments I moved earlier in the debate, and are inconsistent not only with supporting the amendment but also with the government's position on the bill. Again, I think it is political tokenism. I do not believe there is any evidence to demonstrate that it will have any impact at all on problem gambling, and I therefore oppose the government's proposition as well.

New clause negatived.

Clause 39 passed.

New clause 39A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a number of amendments here that are really consequential to what I put earlier with respect to child play areas. Given the lack of support for those amendments, it would be a futile exercise for me to spend any more time on these amendments, so I will not proceed with those relevant to child play areas in the interests of efficiency in this chamber.

Clauses 40 to 44 passed.

New clause 44A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

After clause 44 insert:

44A—Amendment of section 69—Right of appeal

Section 69—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) For the purposes of this section, a person who has objected to an application under this act is entitled to be joined as a party to any proceedings relating to the application.

This amendment relates to who has standing at an appeal under section 60 of the act. During the second reading debate I mentioned that there were a number of matters on which I sought clarification from the minister regarding the operation of the act. The minister provided me with a written response regarding some of those queries, including this one.

In his letter the minister confirmed that currently individuals and community groups can object to an application for a grant or transfer of a gaming machine licence. Those parties are considered to be a party to the proceedings, and can lodge an appeal pursuant to section 69 of the act where they are dissatisfied with the decision of the application. However, as further highlighted in the minister's letter, the act does not specifically address whether an objector under section 30 has standing at an appeal if the appeal is instituted by another party, that is, other than the community group or individual.

A good example of this scenario involves the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club. In that case, a number of community groups and individuals objected to the application for a transfer of licence. In addition, two venues within close proximity to the proposed site also objected. An appeal against the decision of the application was instigated by council for the two venues. Individual objectors and community groups wishing to be involved in the appeal then sought leave from the court to be party to the proceedings.

Whilst, in practice, it is considered that a court would accept that all parties to the original application would be entitled to be parties to the appeal if they wished to participate, it is not entirely clear that this is, in fact, the case. The purpose of the proposed amendment is simply to make it explicitly clear that all parties to the original application will be entitled to be parties to an appeal if they so wish. I urge all honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The amendment would make it explicitly clear that an objector would have the right to be heard at an appeal. It is considered that a court would accept that individuals and community groups that have objected to an application for a grant or transfer of a gaming machine licence are entitled to be a party of any appeal proceedings. This amendment makes it explicitly clear. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government supports the amendment.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition supports the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 45 to 48 passed.

New clause 48A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not proceed with my amendment to insert new clause 48A.

Clause 49.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 21, line 7—After 'subsection (3)' insert:

and substitute:

(3) The annual report of the commissioner must include the following information in relation to the financial year to which the report relates:

(a) the number of expiation notices issued for offences against this act;

(b) the number of prosecutions commenced for offences against this act;

(c) the number of persons barred by order under section 59 and the number of orders made under that section against each such person.

I mentioned earlier that I support the Hon. Tammy Franks with respect to anything that improves reporting and transparency processes, and this amendment is simply about better transparency and reporting.

When we did some investigation into the situation around barring of patrons, etc., it was only people who were self-barring. There were no reporting processes on the part of the hotels. In fact, I have said in this place that, in my opinion, the casino is the only establishment doing a really good job in relation to being responsible with the barring of patrons. Our concern is that we have all these offence provisions, but what is the point if they are not investigated or expiated?

This amendment is about giving parliament better information on how well pokie enforcement is working, rather than the government issuing a press release announcing that they have shut down machines at one venue for a short period of time for breaches they have discovered. All we are asking with this amendment is that the annual report of the commissioner must include information in relation to the financial year to which the report relates.

We have not won much in this place today; the Hon. John Darley has won one amendment. I ask colleagues and the government, through the Leader of Government Business, to consider this amendment. I know the government says that the commissioner has the right to put this in his report, but we are here to legislate, as I have said at least a couple of times today. I just want to know that when we pick up the annual report we can see the number of expiation notices issued for offences, the number of prosecutions under this bill, the number of persons barred by order under section 59 and the number of orders made under that section against each such person.

I think it is time the parliament had an opportunity of being able to see some more transparency in the reporting. Alternatively, we will have to continue to do what we do now—an FOI—and that is a lot more work and cost. The government complains about the cost of FOIs. You have the information: put it in the annual report, and we will leave you alone and give due consideration to what is in the report.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has introduced an amendment to specify some of the details that must be included in the commissioner's annual report. This includes information about expiation notices issued, prosecutions commenced and information on barring. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. Section 74(2) of the Gaming Machines Act provides:

The Commissioner must, no later than 30 September in each year, submit to the Minister a report on the administration of this Act during the financial year ending on the previous 30 June.

The act currently does not specify any details that are required to be included in the annual report. But the commissioner's annual report already includes information on the administration of the act—inter alia the monitoring and compliance, complaint investigations, disciplinary actions and barring—and the government is confident that the IGA and OLGC annual reports are comprehensive. Expiations have been introduced in this bill, and I would expect that information about expiations will be included in the commissioner's annual report in future. It is not necessary to specify this level of detail in the act.

Regarding barring, a consultation paper will be released in the coming months on proposed amendments to address the IGA's recommendations from its inquiry into barring arrangements. Any amendment relating to barring should be dealt with as that part of the process.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens are pleased to support this quite worthy amendment. We agree with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that getting things out on the public record and better transparency of information is something to be commended. We are disappointed that this government does not see that that is a necessary part of our democracy. It is a shame that we do see so many FOIs under this government. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot quicker and probably a lot less interesting for the media should information be more readily available. We are happy to support it on those grounds.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. B.V. Finnigan): Order!

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am almost too frightened to give an opinion now, Mr Acting Chair. I am prepared to support this amendment. I do not think that it is an unreasonable ask. I do not think there is anything to hide and, to make Mr Brokenshire's day, we will support his amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In response to the minister's interjection, I think he would have to acknowledge that his government is the most secretive government in the state's history.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not be diverted by that interjection. I support the amendment of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I do not think there is any problem at all with transparency and accountability on all of these issues. Whilst, we come from diametrically opposed views on gambling and gaming in particular, this amendment is essentially about transparency and accountability.

Personally, I would love to see in the annual report how much impact all of these politically tokenistic gambling reduction measures actually achieve in a year and have that reported on publicly by the commissioner and others, but perhaps that is asking for too much. I support the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's brave attempt at forcing accountability on this most secretive government in the state's history.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (50 to 56), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.