STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Now that we have had a small amount of time to judge the responses from the minister to the questions that were raised in the second reading, I ask for some clarification from the minister in regard to the position of the Responsible Gambling Working Party. Was it the case that the overall position of that working party was that South Australian hotels and clubs should adopt the federal time frame for implementation of new technologies?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised—and this comes from the report itself—that the first major recommendation of the working party is 'that technology is available on all gaming machines in venues by 2016 to allow gamblers to set voluntary limits on their gambling expenditure'. The government actually accepted that recommendation, and the bill we are currently considering proposes a light-handed regulatory approach to achieve that outcome.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: But was it the case that the overall recommendation from that working party was that we should adopt the federal time frame? Why have we not done that in this bill?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I know that there are differing views about this; however, the words of the actual working party themselves were to 'make the technology available by 2016'. Those are the words of the working party themselves, and that is what we have adopted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You have just read directly from the script which said 'make the technology available'. Is the discrepancy here—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Accepted a recommendation from the working party.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister just undertake to provide the exact recommendation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just did. The recommendation from the working party itself, and I quote, said:

That technology is available on all gaming machines in venues by 2016 to allow gamblers to set voluntary limits on their gambling expenditure.

The government has accepted that recommendation. The second major recommendation of the working party is, and again I quote:

That small venues are exempt from this timetable and that the following timetable is applied—

and I outlined that for very small venues with 10 or less and venues between 11 and 20. Those caveats, if you like, are on the record.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a point of clarification, could the minister advise which working party, and was it the working party that actually put two years of work into all this only to be sidelined for working party B? Is this from working party A? You are talking about working parties, but I am told that the original working party that, in good faith, tried to come up with something that would be fair and reasonable for all sectors, was sidelined.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These were recommendations from the Responsible Gambling Working Party's Fifth Progress Report. This was the initial working party that was established, not the more hands-on group that was established for the implementation component. I have outlined that they were the terms of reference that were established in 2006 and their job was to focus on assembling the best possible evidence to understand and advise on how precommitment could be implemented in South Australia. It involved Eve Barratt, David Di Troia, Rosemary Hambledon, Mark Henley, Ian Horne, Andrew Lamb, Cameron Taylor and Cheryl Vardon.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Was Clubs SA, Club One or anyone from sport and rec or clubs involved in that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already outlined this. Mr Cameron Taylor from Clubs SA was on that initial working party.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is obviously a significant difference of opinion about this particular Responsible Gambling Working Party and its recommendations. The member for Davenport, who has had carriage of this for the Liberal Party, said this in relation to the Responsible Gambling Working Party:

What the government has done is they had a Responsible Gambling Working Party, which was set up to look at and report into a number of matters. The terms of reference are set out in this report, which is called, 'Supporting customer commitment: implementation of pre-commitment (June 2012)—the fifth progress report to the Minister For Business Services and Consumers by the Responsible Gambling Working Party'. It is on the Treasury SA website...

Page 66 of that particular report sets out the Responsible Gambling Working Party's terms of reference in regard to looking at precommitment. Then the government decided it needed a bit more work to do, and in June 2012 there were other terms of reference specifically about the implementation of the terms of reference about the precommitment. So, the government actually said, 'How should we implement this pre-commitment?'

The Responsible Gambling Working Party is a mixture of the hotels, the clubs, the welfare lobby and the government—it is essentially a working group of the industry players. What did the Responsible Gambling Working Party say about the implementation of precommitment? It said, 'Adopt the federal dates.'

Then, further on, the member for Davenport said:

...'Even though the federal government has debated this, even though the federal government has intervened, what we are going to do is set our own dates.' So, what happens in South Australia is our hotels, clubs and pubs have to introduce the legislation more quickly.

He continued:

We had the Responsible Gambling Working Party report on behalf of the government, and that said the government should introduce precommitment technology but at the same time as the feds. This was not our committee: this was the government's committee. It was unanimously supported, as I understand, by every member of that Responsible Gambling Working Party, but that did not suit the government. I am not sure why. No reason really has been given as to why the government would then say, 'Even though we've had this Responsible Gambling Working Party report that says to match the feds, what we'll do is adopt our own dates.' So, the government brings forward the dates for precommitment introduction by about two years.

Further on, the member for Davenport says:

Not surprisingly, the government clearly did not like the Responsible Gambling Working Party's advice. They have simply decided to disband, wind up and thank the Responsible Gambling Working Party for its work. Having set it up, asked it to deal with the question, specifically give it a term of reference to deal with the matter of consistency between state and federal legislation, they then say, 'We want to be consistent with the federal legislation.' The government says, 'Well, you know what? We don't like that, thanks for your advice; even though we asked you to comment, even though it is unanimous from the committee, even the welfare groups now, we're just not going to do it.'

There is clearly a very significant difference between what the minister is telling members in this chamber and what the industry and stakeholders are telling all the non-government members about this particular Responsible Gambling Working Party.

We know that this government is well known for its trickiness in terms of answering questions in this house, etc. Can I ask the minister explicitly: did the Responsible Gambling Working Party provide any other advice in addition to the fifth report? If the minister is saying there is no such recommendation in the fifth report, did this Responsible Gambling Working Party, as claimed or stated by the member for Davenport during the debate, give explicit recommendations to the government that the federal dates for precommitment should be adopted, and was that a unanimous view expressed by that working party to the government?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, I can advise that the working group did say at the time that the federal time frames should be adopted. I think what the honourable member is failing to understand is that the federal dates at that time were in fact 2016, and 2016 was in turn the recommendation they actually made in their report. They called on the federal time frames; the federal times frames at that time were 2016 I have been advised, and it was reinforced again in their written recommendation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, this is extraordinary, and the trickiness of the minister's language and government's language has now been exposed for everybody. The Hon. Ms Franks has been asking a series of questions, as has the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I know from where they have been getting their advice, because people who worked on this Responsible Gambling Working Party were saying to them, 'Hey, we said it makes sense to do this in the same time frame as the federal legislation. Why put our lot through additional hoops and hurdles prior to a national agreement?'

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire starts before lunch with the questions and the Hon. Ms Franks afterwards, because that is the information they have been given, and this minister stands up in this chamber, on behalf of the government, and point blank denies it and says, 'No, it's not true, it ain't the case.' It is only when, eventually, we dig up the statements the member for Davenport put on the record in the House of Assembly that we finally get the minister fessing up in this chamber and saying, 'Well, yeah, they did, but at that time the federal dates were different and we just didn't choose to tell you that; you need to ask 15 different questions of three different ministers and stand up asking the questions until eventually you get an answer,' which should have been provided by the minister in the first place to have saved this prolonged section of debate.

I think the minister and the government are to be condemned for their trickiness in terms of answering their questions in relation to that. I think they now, having acknowledged that, have entirely missed the point. The industry is saying that if we are going to have these major changes, it makes sense to do them in concert with a national arrangement because, when we get to some of the technical detail, some of the things that are going to have to be introduced here may well be slightly different to some of the things in terms of how they are going to be implemented nationally a year or two later. We are going to have those sorts of problems for the industry here in South Australia.

The Responsible Gambling Working Party—the group that the government asked to give it advice—says, 'If you are going to do these things, do them sensibly at the same time as the federal changes' in relation to these particular issues. Finally, the minister has conceded that that was, indeed, the unanimous view—so the member for Davenport says he has been told—of the Responsible Gambling Working Party. That was its advice in relation to all of these issues, and the government, obviously for its own purposes, has chosen not to listen to the Responsible Gambling Working Party and ignore its particular recommendations.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On the same line of questioning, can the minister advise whether the Responsible Gambling Working Party made a recommendation to the government that we have these mini casino 60-gaming machine venues? Was that one of the recommendations made by the Responsible Gambling Working Party?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no, because its terms of reference were around matters to do with precommitment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Will the minister please advise the committee where the government dreamt up the super mini casinos of 60-machine venue sites that are clearly going to be located in strategic vulnerable areas north and south of Adelaide?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the government developed a policy to incorporate the over 60 machine operating venues as one means to address the excess supply of gambling machine entitlements and to accelerate their decrease.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on that answer, will the minister table all of the evidence the government has that mini casinos dotted all around vulnerable areas of the north and south of Adelaide in particular will produce more responsible gambling and better supervision, because that is the claim from the government in allowing these mini casinos to be set up all around our metropolitan area?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just want to reiterate that the approach adopted by the government is consistent with that of the view offered by the Independent Gambling Authority. The authority's long-standing position is that the first priority in the management of the reduced number of gaming machines must be to reduce both the number and the proportion of licensed premises with gaming machines, and this underpinned the original recommendations in 2003. That continues to be the authority's view, supported by evidence taken then by the authority and its ongoing observations.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I acknowledge that the minister has said this is a position the Independent Gambling Authority has held since it conducted some inquiries in 2003. I do not propose to debate at length the rightness of the particular view the Independent Gambling Authority has put, other than to say that it is certainly my view, having looked at what they decided in 2003, that they had precious little evidence to support the view that bigger clubs and pubs, in terms of numbers of gaming machines, would lead to a reduction in problem gambling.

They certainly took the view, from some researchers and academics in this particular area and people from within the concerned sector, that that would be the case. I certainly do not have the evidence to say that the view of the academics and researchers and the concerned sector is wrong. I do not profess to say that I do. Equally, I would strongly contend that they and the government, and the IGA in particular, do not have hard evidence to demonstrate that increasing the number of gaming machines in clubs and pubs—which is what this Labor government wants to do, it wants to increase by 50 per cent the number of gaming machines in clubs and pubs.

All Labor members of parliament are supporting that particular point of view, to increase the number of gaming machines in clubs and pubs by 50 per cent, as well as the 500 extra gaming machines in the Casino. I think people should bear in mind that Labor members of parliament are all supporting that particular point of view in relation to gaming machines and problem gambling.

I asked a series of questions, as did the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, about the government's evidence on these changes. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has talked about the increase to 60 machines. Equally, you can ask the questions about precommitment, instant messaging and a range of issues as to where the hard evidence is that this will do anything to reduce problem gambling. I put my view on it at the time and the minister has been unable to produce hard evidence today. I will not prolong the debate on the issue other than to conclude that the invitation was given to the government and it was unable to provide any hard evidence that any of these particular issues will lead to a reduction in problem gambling.

I want to clarify with the minister, in terms of the response, one of the other issues that was raised before the lunch break by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire; that is, when one reads the information that the Casino has provided to the stock exchange, and it is also available on its website, it could lead people to believe that—let me read what it says:

The new significantly expanded VIP rooms to accommodate all electronic gaming machines, ATGs and table games.

That could be read to mean—and this is by the end of financial year 2016—that the deal that has been negotiated with the government is that all of the electronic gaming machines are to be accommodated in the expanded VIP rooms. I cannot believe even this government is so incompetent as to allow that to happen because that would mean they would be being taxed at the 10 per cent tax rate rather than the 40 per cent tax rate. So, can the minister clarify, I suppose, the position in relation to the deal that has been negotiated in terms of the limit that there must be, I assume, on the number of gaming machines that can go into the VIP area, even an expanded VIP area, and therefore be taxed at the concessional rate?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that all of the gaming machines will not be placed in the VIP room. As I indicated in an answer previously, the exact numbers are yet to be determined. We expect that some will be placed in the VIP room, but not most.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government has negotiated and is still negotiating agreements with the Casino. From the Liberal Party's viewpoint, we are certainly fully supportive of the Casino redevelopment going ahead, but there are people within the industry who read under the heading 'A new world-class entertainment complex for Adelaide', a section which states:

The full benefits of the Agreement will not be realised until the full development is completed-expected by the end of FY16.

It then goes on to state:

New significantly expanded VIP rooms to accommodate all EGMs…

I think it would be in the best interests of the Casino, and certainly in the best interests of the government, if some sort of clarification or quarantining of the information were provided. It is not unreasonable for some people to interpret that as they have—to say that all 1,500 machines are going to be accommodated in an expanded VIP area, which clearly would make little sense at all, other than obviously the Casino would only have to pay tax at the 10 per cent rate rather than at the 40 per cent rate. It is not for the opposition to advise the government, but it would certainly be in the interests, I think, of the Casino and the government if that particular issue were clarified.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In addition to that, the minister responded in her answers to the second reading questions that, in regard to the bill's reserve position, that in fact the 300 non-tradeable premium gaming machine entitlements could be purchased not through the trading rounds but from the government, but that these would all have to be in the premium gaming area and, in fact, as the minister herself said, apparently not available for use by the general public.

I assume (1) (and the minister can clarify this) that 'not available for use by the general public' means that all those using those machines would have to be VIP premium status, and (2) does that mean that there are at least 300 in this VIP premium area, or is there an upper cap and a bottom limit to the number of machines that will be in this premium gaming area?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that if the Casino does take up the provision of the 300, then it is eligible to have those in its VIP room. Basically, the current provision allows for up to 300 non-tradeable premium gaming machine entitlements to be purchased by the Adelaide Casino.

Other than that provision, as I said, no decisions have been made on absolute amounts. A lot will depend on the success and viability of machines. As I said, this government's position is certainly that it will not contain all of the machines and, again, as I have said here before, it is likely to have some, but not most.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just as a point of clarification on that and to get this right for the record, from that answer, minister, I understand that 500 additional machines will be going to—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 505.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —505, to be exact, additional machines will be going to the Adelaide Casino, and 300 of the additional machines will go into their VIP area.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: No—can be bought if they're not done through the trading rounds from the government. They will get 300 without going through the trading rounds, but the minister might want to clarify that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like just a bit more clarification on whether it is 300 that can be bought if they do not get the 500, and those 300 can then go into the VIP room; is 300 the limit in the VIP room?

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, what was your question?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The question was: if they are not able to procure the 505, is the minister ultimately saying that there could be an additional 300 machines made available for the VIP room?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that if the Casino is not able to purchase the 505 from the open trading system, then at a particular point in time the balance can be purchased from the government, and those that are purchased from the government must go into the VIP room, which is not accessible by the general public.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would just like to emphasise that the second part of my original question was: could the minister define who would not be a member of the general public and to further clarify that that means, I assume, they would be VIP premium members?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already outlined what the criteria would be around determining who would be eligible to have VIP access, and they are in the notes that were circulated as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My recollection is that when you outlined that—and I do believe it was in response to questions from the Hon. Robert Brokenshire—you did not give a definitive definition of how somebody would qualify. You simply said that it would be far more than a thousand. Also, you did not actually go into details as to whether that thousand would be turnover or a straight amount.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already answered this a number of times. It is on the record. I have given all the information I can. That information that is commercially confidential, obviously I am not able to divulge, but I have outlined all the criteria I am able to publicly divulge.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister whether she can first of all advise: in the last budget papers, what was the final income from the Casino with respect to gaming tax and what will be the expected revenue from the Casino in its entirety at the end of the forward estimates for this budget just tabled? The second part is: what proportion of that will be at 45 per cent and what proportion of that will be at 10.19 per cent?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the tax collections from the Casino for 2012, and this goes across the forward estimates starting 2012-13, is $23 million, $25 million, $26 million, $27 million, and then for 2013-14, starting 2012-13, $22 million, $26 million, $30 million and $32 million. I do not have the breakdown in terms of the different proportions. I can try to obtain that and bring it back if that is available.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the point the Hon. Ms Franks has raised is an important one. Members need to be aware that what the minister has put on the record in relation to this definition of VIP, and she returns to it, is that other than the international visitors and interstate visitors (tourists and gaming program players), in relation to the local SA resident the minister has said 'local SA residents playing above agreed annual expenditure thresholds'. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire said in his contribution, 'Is that $1,000?', and the minister has come back and said, 'I can't tell you'—which she has repeated again today—'but they are significantly greater than the $1,000 amount suggested by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.'

The point to bear in mind is that it is my advice that the agreed annual expenditure thresholds we are talking about are turnovers. So, for example, if a gambler gambles $20 a week for 50 weeks a year, that is $1,000. The annual expenditure threshold, the turnover, is 10 times that, which is $10,000. The trickiness of the government's language and the minister's language, again, members need to understand. What they say to Mr Brokenshire is, and the impression is, that this is going to be significantly greater than $1,000, as if anyone who is betting more than $1,000 is a big gambler. But, if you work through the numbers, at $20 a week for 50 weeks a year, that is $1,000, and the turnover, I am told, is about 10 times in terms of the turnover for each dollar, so there is $10,000. The government could set a limit of $10,000 or whatever you might have, and that would sound very impressive, but in essence, that would be $20 a week, so I am advised.

That is why I think the questions that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the Hon. Ms Franks asked are reasonable in relation to (a) what the limit was and (b) what the definition of an annual expenditure threshold is. Is it the money you take in there and plonk on the table, or is it the money that is being generated in terms of turnover through the machines over an annual expenditure basis? It is clear that the government is unprepared to provide any further information in relation to that, and the parliament ultimately will have to accept that, but I think, again, members and those who follow the Hansard ought to see through the trickiness of the government's responses in relation to this. It is only by asking further and further questions that you actually get closer and closer to the truth in relation to these issues.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I would advise the Hon. Rob Lucas that there is indeed no trickery and that the expenditure thresholds are based on net gambling revenue, customer spend or loss, not turnover.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister should have actually provided that answer to the question from the Hon. Ms Franks about five minutes ago, instead of saying, 'Well, I have already told you that,' when I quoted exactly what she said here—'the local SA residents playing above agreed annual expenditure thresholds.' She made no reference at all to turnover, to net gaming revenue or anything, and that was the question that the Hon. Ms Franks was putting in terms of trying to clarify what the definition of an annual expenditure threshold would be.

One of the questions I asked in the second reading debate, and the minister has responded, was in relation to the trading system and the total number of machines. I asked the question: what is the Treasury estimate of the total number of gaming machines for each year over the forward estimates period, because I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and others have raised questions about this commitment to reduce the total number of machines. I note that the minister's statement said:

There is no doubt that the initial approved trading system was fundamentally flawed because of the price fixed in legislation for the trade of gaming machine entitlements.

Those people with long memories will know the government was, in fact, told that at the time. I, in fact, moved amendments to the legislation to remove the fixed price provisions in the legislation at the time and the government, in its infinite wisdom, said, 'We know better. This trading system will work, and you wait and see.' Now, many years later, the government comes back with this acknowledgment that the initial approved trading system was fundamentally flawed because of the price fixed in the legislation.

Blind Harry could have told the government that and blind Harry did, if you want to call me blind Harry, on behalf of those within the industry who indicated that the system that the government had put forward was fundamentally flawed. It just could not and would not work and, sadly, the government managed to convince the majority of members to approve its system and, of course, many years later we now see this acknowledgment.

I think the critical question now is—and the one that I put—given these changes and given the government says this is going to reduce problem gambling, or claims that it will, the minister has said here, based on Treasury advice I am sure, that 'Treasury and Finance has adopted a conservative assumption that 500 gaming machine entitlements would be traded over the forward estimates.' My question to the government is: is it correct that if the minister is saying that the 500 machines would be traded that from that, and that alone, there would only be a reduction of 125 machines as a result of that piece of advice to the parliament?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that that is true if all entitlements come from hotels, but with entitlements that come from clubs, one in four go to Club One.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Could I clarify that the minister is therefore saying that, given that the industry advice would be that a number of these would come from clubs, the net reduction from this would be less than the 125 because the reductions from clubs, as the minister has just said, would go potentially to Club One? Treasury must have done its modelling and its analysis on what it believes the total number of gaming machines will be for each of the forward estimate years because it has constructed an estimate of taxation to the Treasury. So it must have therefore done some calculation on the number of gaming machines. My question to the minister is: what is the Treasury estimate for each of the forward estimate years of the number of gaming machines in South Australia compared with the current number?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I remind the honourable member that, for the purposes of modelling, Treasury and Finance adopted a very conservative assumption that 500 gaming machine entitlements would be traded over the forward estimates. I just reiterate that it was a very conservative assumption, that these figures were based on observed levels of excess supply at the time of modelling and that the outcome could quite significantly differ from the modelling, depending on how venues respond to the changed regulatory environment. It is likely that there will be change, so it is difficult at this point in time to be prescriptive about those numbers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My question is: Treasury must have estimated, conservatively or otherwise, the number of gaming machines in South Australia for each of the forward estimate periods because it has estimated an increase of, I think, $47 million per year in terms of gaming machine revenue by the end of the forward estimates period. So, Treasury will have estimated, conservatively or otherwise, the number of gaming machines. My question to the minister is: what is the Treasury estimate of the number of gaming machines for each of the forward estimate years?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there is no precise estimate, as I have indicated. What has been assumed is that, for the 500, trade is evenly spread over the forward estimates, so that would result in 125 each year.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My question to the minister on this trading is that if they are only expecting 125 machines to be taken out of the system over the forward estimates, so over—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No, less than that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, a maximum of and probably less than 125. The Casino has to actually get 500 so, effectively, that is the Casino done and dusted because the Casino will need the machines, I assume, once the building is completed. Is the government saying that, even though they want to go to 60 super mini casinos in the metropolitan area, they do not expect any of those to be developed over that period? There would be trade-offs there, as a start. An answer to that would be of interest, considering what we have to deliberate on.

The second part is: how does the government expect to get rid of machines? I think the last count I received from FOI was 804 machines that should have been taken that still had to be taken out of the total number, so when and how does the government expect to get another 675 machines out of the total numbers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe I have answered the question already; that is, the figures are based on very conservative estimates. The figures are based on levels of excess supply at the time of modelling, and obviously we do not want to overstate the estimates.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I guess it is apparent that we are not going to get any answers from the government on this issue. The final point I make in relation to this, which follows on from the point the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has just made, is that on the basis we are not getting answers one can only suspect as before—when those who wanted to see 3,000 machines reduced and saw it as a solution to problem gambling (and I am not one of those)—a massive fraud was perpetrated on them. One can only be suspicious that there is a massive fraud being perpetrated on those who believe this will do something about problem gambling and reduce gaming machines numbers.

Bear in mind what the government has said in relation to this: it wants to reduce the number of venues and the number of machines. That is what is driving this process. It is not unreasonable to say, 'You say you are going to reduce problem gambling by reducing the number of machines and the number of venues,' but, as we have just seen—and from the questions that Hon. Mr Brokenshire has asked as well—it is not just the Casino that is going to be wanting to trade.

If there will be only 125 trades per year, you will have, to use the phrase of the Premier (and I would not use this about my friends in the AHA), the big end of town that the government has hopped into, those greedy, rapacious hoteliers the Premier likes to describe the AHA as, together with Coles and Woolworths purchasing machines in the trading market, and you have the Casino purchasing machines, yet Treasury is saying there will only be 125, on its conservative estimates, trades per year, and some will end up with Club One, so there is no net reduction.

If the hotels buy them, there is a net reduction of one in four, but if the clubs take them and put them into clubs there is no net reduction at all in terms of the gaming machines. At the same time, you have this side deal with the Casino which says, 'You've got an extra 505 machines, and we'll issue you with 300 after a certain period if you can't get them on the trading market.' How can anyone actually fall for the line from this government that this will lead to a reduction in gaming machines in South Australia—in my words, 'Let the buyer beware.'

If the government will not answer the questions, and based on its history, it is a not unreasonable position to adopt that people are being sold a pup in relation to this. They are being told this will lead to a reduction in the number of gaming machines, but when you ask the questions the government refuses to give any answers. Treasury must have done the modelling in relation to all this to calculate the taxation revenue. In their own assiduous way with the numbers, they would have been grinding out those numbers and making the assumptions, but the government will just not release those particular assumptions.

The bottom line is that we know they are predicting on an annual basis an increase of $47 million by the end of the forward estimates from gaming machine taxes. That is their estimate in relation to this. If anyone wants to believe that this is going to tackle problem gambling, let the buyer beware in relation to the claims being made by the government. As I said, that is from those who subscribe to the view that by reducing the number of gaming machines you are going to tackle problem gambling. As I have outlined in my second reading contribution, I do not subscribe to that particular view.

Members will be sick and tired of hearing me say that the 0.4 per cent of problem gamblers will crawl over cut glass to get to the last 50 machines if they are left in the system. Even with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's wish to get it down to 2,200 or 2,300, trust me, the 0.4 per cent problem gamblers will find those 2,200 (or whatever the number is going to be) machines to engage in their habit. Or, as we are increasingly seeing, they are moving to sports betting and a variety of other options which are more readily available in their back pocket or in their home.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question following on from this. Given that I am advised—and if I am wrong, I welcome the minister to correct me—that based on some information given to the South Australian Council of Social Service that they supported the concept of 60 super venue hotels and/or clubs, can the minister advise the committee whether or not the department actually advised the South Australian Council of Social Service that the net expectation in the reduction of machines out of the industry over the forward estimates would be, at most, a maximum of 125?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that we are not aware of any advice that was given to SACOSS about the maximum reductions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have just a couple of other issues on clause 1. I quoted on the record the information from the Independent Gambling Authority that had been provided in relation to gambling studies on problem gambling prevalence, which was the 0.4 per cent. Can the minister confirm whether or not a more recent study of problem gambling prevalence has been conducted in South Australia within the last financial year (2012-13) and, if there has been, have the results of that information been provided to the government?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, we are aware that a further problem gambling prevalence study has been conducted by the IGA and the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, and that report is currently in the process of being finalised.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that my information was correct, is the minister in a position to advise the committee of what evidence there is from that most recent report in relation to the prevalence of problem gambling in South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised the Department of Treasury and Finance has not received a copy of the report yet, so it is unable to advise on any changes. As I said, my understanding is that the report is still being finalised.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that it is highly likely this debate will continue until tomorrow, is the minister prepared to have government officers contact the IGA to see what information they can provide to this parliament and this chamber on the most recent research, which I understand was conducted late last year, or early this year? So, whilst the final drafting might be being tidied up, my understanding is that the research has been conducted some time ago. Is the minister prepared to ask officers to contact the IGA and see whether the IGA, as an independent authority, is prepared to provide to all members of this chamber updated advice from this financial year in relation to the problem gambling prevalence study that has been funded?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can only speak on behalf of the minister and, without putting words into his mouth, I would imagine he would be keen that the final report be expedited. I do not think it is helpful for any agency or anyone to have information from an incomplete report. I am sure the minister would welcome the finalisation of that report in the most expeditious possible way.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If that report had information which would be useful for members of this particular chamber and the House of Assembly to assist us in judging the merits of this particular case, then it would be most unfortunate if, for whatever reason, that report was being delayed beyond the passage of this particular legislation. As I said, given the government is notoriously reluctant to be open, transparent and accountable about not only this issue but all issues, it is only by raising the issue that we are able to, at least, get on the record that this report has been done.

Now that we have that on the record, as I said, it would be most unfortunate if that report was being delayed until after the passage of this particular legislation because all information in relation to problem gambling prevalence should be on the table. If the government is maintaining that this is the best way of tackling problem gambling, then let us see this particular study. There have been so many others, but it would certainly be useful to see one which has evidently been conducted in this particular financial year.

So, I am disappointed if the minister's response is to be interpreted as saying that she is unprepared to ask the minister responsible for the legislation and his officers to contact the IGA. If that is the case then my office will be contacting the IGA this afternoon to see whether we can be provided, given that it is an independent body, with information in relation to that particular study.

The minister responded earlier in the reply to the second reading, and which she outlined in clause 1, that after a period of time if the Casino cannot purchase the machines that it requires on the open market then the government has the side deal to sell them directly. The government has said, 'We can't tell you the price because that's confidential', but can the government indicate the time period; that is, how many years, or months, does the Casino have to try to trade in the market to get its machines before the side deal kicks in?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the target date will be 30 June 2016.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think they are all the questions I have on clause 1. I just want to make one concluding statement in response to the minister on two issues: one is our general position and also the contention that the minister in charge of the bill has been making that the Liberal Party and the Legislative Council have been delaying consideration of the bill. I want to place quickly on the record that it has been the government that has delayed the consideration of this bill. During the last sitting week of parliament, we were ready to debate the bill and the government adjourned it whilst they tried to negotiate a deal with the minor parties or Independents.

Secondly, it was the government that delayed the debate of the bill this morning to put through discussion on fines legislation, and it was the government that again delayed the bill this afternoon to put the fines legislation and the Appropriation Bill as priorities before this bill. I know that is contrary to what they have been telling the Casino: that this bill was going to be their No. 1 priority and that the Liberal Party was holding the bill up. I want it on the public record that what the government, its ministers and advisers have been telling the Casino, the media and others is untrue.

Finally, I will again summarise the Liberal Party's position during the committee stage, given that we now have 10 pages of amendments I think (whatever the number is) from the Hon Mr Darley—I can see a touch of the Nick Xenophons coming through in the Hon. Mr Darley's approach to the legislation but good luck to him. We also have amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, the minister, and myself on behalf of the Liberal Party. It will be quite a complicated committee stage and, therefore, I want to place clearly on the record that our position is, as I said in the second reading, that we have supported and will support the Casino redevelopment and the deal that has been negotiated with the Casino.

We intend to ensure the passage through this parliament with our votes anyway—and it will require others—to support those aspects of this bill that relate to the Casino. We have discussed this with the Casino representatives and they acknowledge that those provisions of the bill that we are intending to support will allow the Casino redevelopment to proceed.

We will be opposing significant elements of the package which relate to clubs and pubs. We will be opposing them on the basis of the lack of consultation, in particular with the clubs who have been ignored for more than two years. It is our simple view that the Casino section of this bill should be allowed to go through and that the government should sit down in good faith with the clubs, the pubs and other stakeholders over the break and negotiate a position as it relates to clubs and pubs, as opposed to the Casino, and come back to the parliament with a discrete bill that relates to the club and hotel industry.

Certainly, from our viewpoint, speaking on behalf of the party as I am, we do not prejudge any of the issues in relation to what might come back before the parliament under that process. Whilst I have firmly cynical views in relation to a number of the issues—I have expressed them before and I have occasionally expressed them during this particular debate—we will have a party position in relation to this and we are prepared as a party to address whatever package might come back before the parliament.

At the very least, we think that our clubs are the lifeblood of the community, and clearly for whatever reason—and I cannot understand this—the Premier and the government have decided to start world war III with the club industry in South Australia. We are not just talking about the big SANFL clubs and the other clubs like that but, as I indicated earlier, a whole range of smaller clubs in the country and in the city that have provided great support to sporting clubs and associations and community groups through their activity.

Why would the government want to have pitched warfare with the club industry at this particular time? Only the Premier, I guess, and the minister can explain to the caucus members why they want to go down that particular path. Whilst it is a sideline, I know that there is some discontent within elements of the caucus about the minister's and the government's approach, but from our viewpoint, we will be moving amendments in relation to that.

It will be ultimately up to the minor parties and Independents as to whether they are prepared to support the club industry in South Australia. I know the club industry has put to the minor party and Independent members the importance of these particular provisions and the importance of them being given a chance to sit down and negotiate with everyone else in relation to a package that may well affect their future.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have one more question in relation to clause 1. It follows on from a question of the Hon. Rob Lucas. I think what he was alluding to was that there had been a reduction with problem gamblers from 0.4 per cent to perhaps a figure lower than that, but I ask the minister whether she is aware now—or if she is not aware now, given that I assume we will still be debating this tomorrow, could she find out and advise the committee—of the situation in Victoria.

I understand they have opted to get into encouraging bigger venues and fewer of them and that their rate of problem gamblers is at 0.7 per cent. Can the minister confirm that now or take it on notice? What I am concerned about is that I understand that in Victoria things are going the wrong way for problem gamblers and part of that is probably the decision to give Coles and Woolworths more of a share than the family-owned hotels and the community-owned clubs.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Going back to the $20 million payment that will be made by the Casino to the government upon certain conditions being met, what purposes will that money be put to? Has it been allocated?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that that $20 million will go into general revenue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In that context, when the government was drafting this bill, did it pay any attention to the lack of any increase to the four main funds that fall under this act—the sport and recreation fund, the charitable and social welfare fund, the Gamblers' Rehabilitation Fund and the Community Development Fund—noting that they have not been increased even by CPI since their introduction?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that at this point in time the government is not seeking to make changes to those funding arrangements.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question to the minister is: did the government consider changes to the amounts of these funds to at least increase them by CPI in the drafting of this bill?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government has no intention of changing the funding arrangements and has not considered alternatives to do that. We do not have any intention at this point in time of making changes.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Before moving this amendment, I need to state that I had four sets of amendments; I will not be proceeding with sets 1, 2 or 3, but I will be proceeding with set 4. I move:

Page 6, lines 6 to 7 [clause 2(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The bill seeks to allow the delayed commencement of various measures proposed by the government by providing that the relevant section of the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply to the bill or to various gambling reform measures proposed by the bill. These measures include, but are not limited to, caps on ATM limits and the reduction of maximum bets to $5, although I will be moving to reduce the maximum bet to $1.

As members would be aware that, if the Acts Interpretation Act were to apply, those provisions would come into operation on the second anniversary of the date on which the act was assented to, unless brought into operation before the second anniversary. History has taught us that, in some cases, leaving it to the government to decide when various provisions will come into effect is not the way to go about things.

For example, section 51B(3) of the Gaming Machines Act was amended in 2001 to ensure that the holder of a gaming machine licence would not on or after the prescribed day provide or allow a person to obtain cash by means of those facilities more than once on any one debit or credit card on any one day. A prescribed day is defined as a day fixed by proclamation. To date, the government has not fixed a date. The amendment itself was a complete waste of time and effort.

There is every possibility that we will pass individual measures aimed at reducing the risk of problem gambling today and that they, like the previous changes regarding cash facilities, will never be implemented. There is no question in my mind that in its current form the government bill does not go anywhere near far enough in terms of addressing problem gambling. However, if the government is intent on proceeding with it, they should do so on the basis that any provisions that are agreed to will in fact be implemented. On that basis, I propose to delete subclause (2) of clause 2 of the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment would mean that all the measures proposed in the bill would, if passed into law, be required to commence within two years from the date of royal assent, and this would represent a significant acceleration in the time frame set out by the government.

The bill sets out a long-term strategy for the regulation of gaming to address problem gambling. It takes into account the life cycle of industry investment to ensure that the cost and regulatory burden of the sector is minimised while at the same time bringing the benefits of the measures in advance of existing national time frames. The government has consulted on these time frames with the sector and the gaming regulation reference group and is confident that these time frames can be achieved. Artificially bringing the time frame forward risks additional costs to the sector and the possibility of suboptimal systems being implemented.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could I ask the mover of the amendment whether or not he agrees with the government's analysis of his amendment or whether he disagrees with it?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendments because they are inconsistent with the process and the policy I have indicated we will be adopting.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just to clarify, my understanding of this amendment is that it would not apply to those parts of the bill that are intended to come into force at a staggered time, but it would just stop the government from being able to delay them; is that the case?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: That is the case.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the mover and the Chair for their indulgence. With that, the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

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

Page 10, lines 2 to 11 [clause 12(8), definition of premium customer and premium gaming area]—Delete the definitions

This amendment is consequential upon amendments 3, 4, 11 and 12, which deal with premium gaming provisions in respect of the Casino. It is, if you like, a test clause. The package of amendments opposes allowing the Casino to vary its licence via the ALA in relation to premium customers or premium gambling areas.

Section 16 of the Casino Act provides that there is to be an agreement between the licensee and the minister about the operation of the Casino, the term of the licence, the conditions of the licence and the performance of the licensee's responsibilities under the licence or Casino Act. Further, it provides that the agreement is to be entered into with a prospective licensee before the licence is granted, or with a licensee before renewal of the licence, and must be consistent with the provisions of the act and has no effect unless approved by the authority. Any variations to the agreement by a later agreement between the parties are permissible provided that they are consistent with the provisions of the act and that they have also been approved by the authority.

Section 17 of the act provides that there is also to be a casino duty agreement between the licensee and the Treasurer fixing the amount or basis of calculation of casino duty and providing for the payment of casino duty and dealing with interest and penalties to be paid for late or non-payment of casino duty. That agreement may also be varied by agreement between the parties.

Section 18 of the act provides that the minister must, within 12 sitting days after the authority approves an agreement entered into by the minister with a view to the agreement becoming an approved licensing agreement, or an agreement for the variation of an approved licensing agreement, have copies of the agreement laid before both houses of parliament. Further, it provides that the Treasurer must also, within 12 sitting days after entering into a casino duty agreement or an agreement for the variation of a casino duty agreement, have copies of the agreement laid before both houses of parliament.

In short, under the current provisions of the Casino Act, the Casino can vary its licence via the licensing agreement, but only with the sign-off of the Independent Gambling Authority. Importantly, any such changes must be consistent with the Casino Act. The agreement itself is not subject to parliamentary approval. The bill would allow the ALA to circumvent the act in relation to premium gaming areas or premium gaming customers by providing that the agreement may exempt the licensee from or modify the licensee's obligation to comply with specified requirements of the act or conditions fixed by the act or provisions of a code or requirements prescribed by the authority.

The government is effectively giving the Casino the green light to adopt different rules for premium gaming areas over the rest of the Casino. Not only can the rules be different, they can also be entirely inconsistent with the act. They could, for example, potentially allow smoking in pockets of premium gaming areas. They could allow alcohol to be served to patrons playing poker machines in premium gaming areas. They could allow incentives. All the things which are not okay anywhere else in the Casino or, indeed, in hotels and clubs would become perfectly acceptable purely by virtue of the fact that we are talking about the gambling activity of high rollers. We are effectively being asked to agree to the proposition that if you are a premium customer you are somehow above the law.

So intent is the government on heeding the sensational requests of the Casino, they have also agreed to allow extra entitlements for premium gaming to be obtained outside the trading system, something which I will talk about in further detail later.

I understand it is normal for premium gamblers to be afforded extra benefits that do not necessarily apply to other Casino patrons. This situation occurs everywhere. What I do not accept, however, is that those benefits should exceed what would otherwise be acceptable under the Casino Act. Smoking in VIP areas is the most obvious example. Whilst the Tobacco Products Regulation Act bans smoking in enclosed public spaces, workplaces and shared areas, my advice is that it may not necessarily preclude the government from allowing smoking in pockets of premium gaming areas where staff are not present.

I remind all honourable members that in March 2011 the government supported the Casino (Enclosed Areas) Amendment Bill, which I introduced in response to the Adelaide Casino's attempt at operating poker machines in an outdoor smoking area situated within the Casino's atrium. At the time, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, on behalf of the government, stated that the bill was consistent with the government's policy position with respect to smoking and anticipated amendments that were planned by the government for the Casino Act when it was to be next amended. Despite my repeated efforts, that bill is yet to pass the other chamber, so I will be moving a further amendment dealing with this same issue in this bill.

In closing, I want to make it clear that I do not have any real objection to the Casino operating premium gaming areas but rather with the fact that we are allowing the checks and balances that apply in the act to be modified in relation to premium customers or premium gaming areas. This approach is fraught with danger and I think we should be doing our level best to ensure that all the Casino's gambling areas, irrespective of whether or not they are premium areas or tailored for premium customers, are covered by the same checks and balances that apply to the rest of the Casino in accordance with the Casino Act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The current premium gaming products offered by the Adelaide Casino are not competitive with its interstate and international competitors. This is partly because of limitations placed on the Adelaide Casino by the Casino Act. The bill proposes to allow for a new premium class of gaming which is limited to customers that meet specific criteria set out in the approved licensing agreement. The government's position is that no problem gambler should be able to access premium gaming areas. This is achieved by setting out requirements for access to premium gaming areas and the exemptions in the approved licensing agreement.

The long-term protection that this government, and I am sure this council, is looking for is provided by the fact that the government and the Casino cannot execute an approved licensing agreement which sets the criteria for access to premium gaming or the exemptions for premium gaming without the Independent Gambling Authority's approval. The Independent Gambling Authority has seven members and is a statutory independent body from government in assessing whether or not the approved licensing agreement should be approved. It must have regard to the following objects:

(a) the fostering of responsibility in gambling and, in particular, the minimising of harm caused by gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts of gambling on communities; and

(b) the maintenance of an economically viable and socially responsible gambling industry, including an economically viable and socially responsible club and hotel gaming machine industry in this state.

Further, any variations to the approved licensing agreement are required to be tabled in parliament.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Given what the Hon. John Darley has said in moving his amendment, can the minister confirm whether a lot of those privileges already apply to what is known as the high rollers room or area? Further, can the minister confirm whether, if this amendment were to be passed as per the government's clause at the moment, there would be more checks and balances? I think that is what the minister is saying with regard to the premium VIP area. Is that what the government is saying? There are two points: high rollers changes and whether or not with registration there would be more checks and balances on people entering this area if it was not deleted. I would like clarification.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not absolutely confident that I have understood the honourable member's questions perfectly, but I will have a go. In relation to the high rollers question and whether there would be a change of product, the current premium gaming products offered by the Adelaide Casino have been assessed to be not competitive with interstate and international competitors because of the current limits around the act, and obviously the Casino is looking to make changes in that area.

In relation to checks and balances for premium customers, there is a process which SA residents are required to fulfil to access the VIP room or to become a premium customer. They have to be a member of the loyalty program and the Casino must follow a process approved by the IGA to determine whether or not that person has been assessed to be a problem gambler or has the potential to become a problem gambler.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My understanding is that the Hon. John Darley's amendment deletes this specific area, and by virtue of deleting that does the government believe that that has any difference with respect to what the minister has just said about checks and balances with respect to people who can go into that area? Does it makes a difference or not—I just want an answer?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that the Hon. John Darley's amendment would simply get rid of all premium customers and get rid of the VIP facilities altogether—they simply would not exist. Therefore, all these additional checks and balances would not be in place or applied to VIP customers, because there would not be VIP customers. They would be removed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Following on from the previous questions prior to this clause, the concern here and the reason that we are implementing the new premium gaming conditions and also looking to have even more beneficial tax arrangements to the Casino is that these machines and the people who play them will in fact be subject to less tax than those who are not VIPs, premium or high rollers. Is this the place the minister means when she says that we are not competitive with those interstate?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is a combination and there are mainly two factors operating: one is that the gambling product on offer is simply not attractive to premium international customers, not competitive; and the second is mobile customers, that the tax rates for the Casino are not competitive.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does one of the indicated areas that is not attractive include the ability to smoke in these areas?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the current arrangement is that smoking in the high rollers' room is prohibited, and we are not intending to make any changes in relation to that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just want to clarify that because I think a number of people were led to believe that maybe it was only part of the negotiation and that, in the end, it was not agreed. However, certainly a number of people were led to believe that part of the deal that was being negotiated with the Casino was that, in certain parts of the high rollers' room, special arrangements were to be made in relation to smokers.

Whether there was going to be a special rooftop or something, I am not sure what it was, but the minister is quite clear in her advice to the committee that there have been no special arrangements made for smokers in the high rollers room. I know the Casino, for many years, has been arguing that in other jurisdictions the high roller rooms did allow smoking and they believed they were uncompetitive because Asian gamblers in particular preferred to high roll and smoke at the same time.

The Hon. J.S. Lee interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You disagree? I am only passing on the advice that Casino representatives, over the years, have put to me. The minister's advice is clear. I would just ask her to clarify whether any other arrangements in relation to a special smoking area have been negotiated as part of this deal in and around wherever this premium gaming area is going to be.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the Casino will be required to comply with our state legislation with regard to smoking. There are no exceptions or exemptions to that. They must comply with the current legislative provisions. They are permitted to have smoking areas only where they comply with our state smoking legislation; that is, in outdoor areas and other like provisions. As I said, I have been advised that there are no exemptions or exceptions to that; they will be required to comply with our state legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister confirm that none of these VIP premium areas will be in what are called suites and private areas of the redeveloped Casino?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there is a possibility that provisions may be made in suites. The advice I have received is that there has been no final decision or details around that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister indicate how smoking in suites is consistent with the state legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I would have to take that on notice. I am not familiar with the provisions at that level.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let us put aside the question of the suites. Given the minister says that there is the potential, under current state law, to have designated smoking areas in hotels, for example—albeit I think there have been proposals that that too be banned, but currently it has not—can I ask whether the minister will take on notice whether the agreement that has been offered to the Casino actually locks in provisions to allow them to have those sorts of outdoor smoking areas even if there is to be a change in state legislation during the term of their licensed agreement?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that no, it does not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the amendments. The Liberal Party's position is that we do not support the amendments. If the end result of this is that all of the premium gaming areas and premium customers are to be wiped from the face of the earth in relation to the Casino, then we do not support that. They have been a constant feature of this Casino and all casinos. We certainly see some ongoing role, in terms of competing for international and interstate customers, for having a premium area and provisions for premium customers as part of the redevelopment. Certainly, if the proposed redevelopment is to succeed, it could not proceed if this amendment and related amendments were to be passed.

Whilst I have understood, during debate on clause 1, the not unreasonable questions being put by members as to what is the definition of a premium customer, certainly from my viewpoint what we might have understood to be a high roller, I suspect when we see or become aware of the exact definition of high roller, it will not be a high roller but it might be a medium-level roller. It certainly will not be, I guess, the current perception of a high roller gambler in those areas.

I suspect the agreement the government is going to enter into will allow people who would not traditionally be seen as high rollers into that particular area, given that the minister has been unwilling to share the definition or the terms of the agreement with the Casino.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 13 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you have indicated that the clause will be opposed.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: This is consequential, so I will not be proceeding with this.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you will be opposing this clause; is it consequential on the others?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be proceeding with this either.

Clause passed.

Clauses 22 to 24 passed.

New clause 24A.

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

Page 13, after line 36—After clause 24 insert:

24A—Insertion of Part 4 Division 1A

After Part 4 Division 1 insert:

Division 1A—Gambling only allowed in enclosed areas

27A—Gambling only allowed in enclosed areas

(1) It is a condition of the casino licence that gambling may only take place under the licence within a place or area that is enclosed as defined by the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 (see section 4(3) and (4)).

(2) Section 16(1a) does not apply to the condition imposed under subsection (1).

When moving my second amendment, I commented briefly on the fact that in March 2011 the government, together with crossbenchers, supported the Casino (Enclosed Areas) Amendment Bill, which I introduced in response to the Adelaide Casino's attempt at operating poker machines in an outdoor smoking area situated within the Casino's atrium.

Given that this bill has yet to be passed by the other chamber, I indicated that I will deal with this issue by way of an amendment to the bill before us. The first subclause of the amendment does just that: it makes it a condition of the Casino licence that gambling may only take place under the licence within a place or area that is enclosed, as defined by the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997.

In addition, I indicated that I would address any uncertainty about smoking in pockets of premium gaming areas. The second subclause achieves that purpose. It does so by providing that the exemption or modification from complying with specific requirements of the Casino Act does not extend to the conditions regarding where gambling activity may take place. In short, it prevents smoking anywhere in the Casino, including any premium gaming areas.

Based on the 2011 debate, I do not expect the opposition to support this amendment, but I will be truly disappointed if the government also opposes it, especially given their previous undertakings on this matter. The government made it quite clear in 2011 that this approach was consistent with government policy with respect to smoking and anticipated amendments were planned for the Casino Act when it was next amended. That time is now.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks pointed out in 2011, this is not simply about whether one is allowed to smoke or not. It is about the health and safety of Casino staff and other patrons. The fact of the matter is smoking is not tolerated in any other enclosed area or workplace, and there is absolutely no reason why a VIP gambling area should be any different. If a premium customer wants to light a cigar, they can do so in an outdoor area where there is no gambling, like the rest of the Casino's patrons do. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. The amendment is consistent with the government's policy position on smoking, as set out in the Gaming Machines Act. This amendment was previously considered by this Legislative Council and was supported by the government and we intend to do the same again.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise the chamber that Family First supports this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, consistent with our past position on this, the Liberal Party will not support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will of course be supporting this amendment and we hoped that it would not have had to be put in this bill, given it has been languishing in the lower house for so long.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just for the record, Dignity for Disability will also support this very sensible amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 25 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

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

Page 16, line 38 [clause 33, inserted section 40A(6)(a)]—After 'particular gaming machine' insert:

in a particular calendar year

Since 1 October 2001, all new games and gaming machines installed after that date are required in the long run to return an amount in prizes equivalent to at least 87.5 per cent of the amount bet. This applies equally to the Casino. Clause 33(6) of the bill provides that the commissioner must not approve a game to be played on a gaming machine unless the game returns winnings to players at a rate that is not less than 87.5 per cent of the total amount of all bets made on the game on a particular gaming machine. The games must also be able to be operated in compliance with any other legislative and regulatory requirements.

Subclause (7) goes on to provide that the commissioner may approve a game to be played on a gaming machine that does not comply with the previous provisions regarding returns to players if the commissioner is satisfied that the game will operate in a way that allows the expenditure or part of the expenditure on the game when played on a particular gaming machine to accumulate with the expenditure or part of the expenditure on a game played on another machine and that the games, in combination, return winnings to players at the rate that is not less than 87.5 per cent of the total amount of all bets made on the games. This is intended to cover jackpot wins which only the Casino can offer.

At the moment, the 87.5 per cent minimum rate of return applies over the life of the machine or machines. That means the machine could be installed and operated indefinitely, provided of course that its approval is renewed every 10 years. Applying the rate of return over the life of the machine completely defeats the purpose of having a minimum rate in place. This amendment seeks instead to make it applicable over a calendar year. I ask all honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. It is not possible to implement a measure of this nature without fundamentally changing how a gaming machine works. The outcome for each game played on a gaming machine is determined by a random number generator and payout table. The outcome for each game played is not dependent on the outcome of any other game played. When determining compliance with the minimum return to player set in legislation, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner assesses the gaming machine game played on its logarithm and the expected return to the player over an infinite number of games.

As with other areas of probability, the average return to player over a finite number of games or a period of time may vary from the expected return to player. However, as the number of games played increases, the average return to the player will tend towards the expected return. It is simply not possible for a gaming machine supplier to achieve compliance with the proposed amendment without making true the myth that a gaming machine that has not paid out in a long time is more likely to pay out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 34 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

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

Page 22, after line 38—After inserted section 42A insert:

42AB—Cash facilities withdrawal limit

(1) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not, on or after the prescribed day, provide, or allow another person to provide, cash facilities in gaming areas that allow a person to obtain by means of those facilities, in any one transaction, on any one debit or credit card, an amount of cash that exceeds the sum of $200.

(2) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not provide, or allow another person to provide, cash facilities in gaming areas that allow a person to obtain cash by means of those facilities more than once, on any one debit or credit card, on any one day.

(3) In this section—

cash facility means—

(a) an EFTPOS facility; or

(b) any other facility, prescribed by the regulations, that enables a person to gain access to his or her funds or to credit;

prescribed day means the day falling 1 month after the commencement of this section.

This amendment limits cash facility withdrawals within the Casino to $200 per transaction, per card, per day. To be clear, it only applies to EFTPOS transactions. It is important to bear in mind also that it only applies to cash facilities in gambling areas. It does not prevent patrons from using the ATM machines situated in the foyers of the Casino. It also would not apply to other areas of the Casino precinct, such as restaurants, bars and so on.

When speaking to my first amendment, I mentioned that in 2001 the government had a similar amendment regarding cash facilities in hotels and clubs. Whilst that amendment was never implemented, it did, nevertheless, indicate that the government was supportive of limits on cash facility withdrawals. This amendment is no different and, on that basis, I would ask that it be supported.

The government will, as I understand it, oppose this amendment on the basis that limiting EFTPOS facilities in one area of a venue as opposed to another is too difficult. I am not convinced by this argument. If it is possible to set caps for ATM machines in venues, then surely the same can be said for EFTPOS facilities. Clearly, the government envisaged that at some point cash facilities, including EFTPOS facilities, would be capped. I would be very interested to hear why it is that this measure, which is almost identical to that inserted in the bill in 2001, is now considered unworkable.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The Adelaide Casino offers a broad range of gaming product. While there is a crossover between clubs, hotels and the Adelaide Casino in the provision of gaming machines, the Adelaide Casino also offers a range of table games. Table games tend to offer higher stakes gambling. Given the different gaming product mix, the government does not consider that the limitations proposed in this amendment on EFTPOS are appropriate.

Similarly, the Productivity Commission in its report on gambling recommended that ATM and EFTPOS withdrawal limits should not apply to casinos. It is the government's view that EFTPOS is preferable to the use of ATMs because it requires interaction between the customer and trained Adelaide Casino staff. The bill proposes to prohibit placement of ATMs in gaming areas at the Casino.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party does not support the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: For the record, Family First does support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And for the record, also, the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 23, line 8 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(2)]—After 'must not' insert:

, on or after the prescribed day,

This amendment is related to the debate we had on clause 1 in relation to the timing of changes being introduced in South Australia and as to whether or not they should be consistent with requirements for the introduction of federal precommitment requirements. It is the Liberal Party's position that we should be introducing automated risk monitoring to commence at the same time as the federal precommitment arrangements. We understand the government's position is different from that but, certainly, this bill requires that machines do have automatic risk monitoring technology, and there is another amendment later on in relation to instant messaging.

As I said, the Liberal Party's position is that, in deferring precommitment dates to line up with the later federal dates, it is common sense that this be deferred to the later dates, as they rely on the same technology. It is all tied up with the same debate. It is the Liberal Party's view that, if you support the position that we should be consistent (as the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommended to the government) with the federal dates in terms of these major changes, it is our contention that this is consistent with that particular position.

As you know, we had a long and tortuous debate earlier with the minister to finally winkle out of the minister and the government that, indeed, the Responsible Gambling Working Party had unanimously recommended that we do this consistent with the federal dates and the federal timetable, and we will be moving—this is the first of them—a series of amendments to go down that path. Certainly, the clubs industry, for those who want to support the clubs industry, is supporting this amendment and a range of other amendments based on the same premise.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question to the minister. What is the background of the government's wanting to bring it in at this particular time?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government has negotiated with the Adelaide Casino to ensure that better responsible gambling features are delivered early, and possibly as soon as 2014, to the community of South Australia. This negotiated outcome is well in advance of national requirements and the requirements for the clubs and hotels proposed in this bill. This amendment would ensure that the regulatory powers required by the Independent Gambling Authority and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to support this negotiated outcome would not be operational until 2019, some five years later than required, and that is why the government opposes this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:46]

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 23, lines 13 to 20 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(3) and (4)]—Delete subsections (3) and (4)

It is the same principle, that is that there be no state precommitment scheme before the federal precommitment scheme starts. We debated the issue in clause 1 and we debated it a little before the dinner break, and we had a division on the earlier amendment in relation to this, so it is the same general principle again. It is our contention, as the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommended to the government, that it makes sense to do these major changes in concert with the national changes that are going to be introduced and consistent with that particular timetable.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendment. As noted earlier, the bill provides the necessary regulatory powers to support the early implementation of precommitment that has been negotiated with the Adelaide Casino.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 4 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 23, line 21 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(5)]—After 'must not' insert:

, on or after the prescribed day,

I think it is a very similar point to that we have decided by two comprehensive votes before dinner and after dinner. This one relates to on-screen messaging, which comes in at the same time as the automated risk monitoring. Again, it is a very similar argument, that all of these changes—it is our view, and the amendments are consistent with that—should come in at the same time as federal precommitment arrangements and as part of the national changes.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment for the reasons outlined previously.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 23, after line 26 [clause 39, inserted section 42B]—After subsection (6) insert:

(6a) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not permit the use of an audio device on any gaming machine if the use of the device is not intended primarily to assist a person with a hearing impairment.

This amendment goes to ensuring that, in South Australia, we do not have the technologies where a person playing one of these machines can be fitted with a headphone, if you like, or an audio device, with the exception of those who are hearing impaired who need such a device.

This technology does not yet exist in South Australia; however, we are taking proactive action here to make sure that certainly people do not have that added impact of being completely hooked into the machines. We are following the lead, I do believe, of the ACT where, in March this year, the Greens minister Shane Rattenbury banned this particular technology, recognising the harm that it causes. With that, I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. The government understands that, at this stage, no gaming machine dealer has sought to have a gaming machine with the headphone outputs approved in South Australia. Further, it is understood that New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have already banned gaming machines with headphone outputs. The government considers that implementing such a ban would be appropriate as headphones have the potential to isolate the customer from the environment and could make staff or customer interactions more difficult. For those reasons, we support this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We will also be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position is not to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I rise to indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments as they relate to the use of audio devices being used on poker machines and I commend her and the Greens for taking the lead on this very important issue, not only here but in other jurisdictions as well. As I understand it, a similar provision was also moved by Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury in the ACT.

Such devices, which were previously in operation in Victoria and New South Wales, were marketed as having the ability to deeply immerse and engage players in game play for longer periods of time. This, together with the high definition LCD displays and ergonomics, was said to allow venues to take their operation to a whole new level of profitability.

This is truly disturbing. It is disturbing that, at a time when problem gambling has gained such momentum at a national level, poker machine manufacturers are showing such a blatant disregard for the harm caused by their products. I certainly hope that this amendment gets the support it deserves.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 23, line 33 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(8)]—Delete '$5' and substitute '$10'

I think this is going to be a messy procedure in relation to this amendment. This essentially relates to the provision in the legislation that has $5 in it in terms of the bet. The Liberal Party's position is changing the maximum bet to $10, which returns it to its existing position; the Hon. Mr Darley has an amendment for $1. Having looked at the way these amendments are going to be put, it may well be that at the end of it there might not be support for anything—$5, $10 or $1—given the sequence of events.

In the event that that occurs—and we cannot prejudge of course the votes of this chamber—my understanding is that the minister may well then propose a recommittal of the clause afterwards to test the vote of the parliament in relation to the government's position of $5. We would then, by way of amendment (or however we propose to do it at that particular time), test the position in relation to $10.

Depending on the sequence of votes in this chamber there are clearly members who want to support the $1 provision and it is certainly our view that they should have the opportunity to express and vote for that view at an appropriate time during the debate. However, at the outset in moving my particular amendment, I wanted to flag what may well be a messy process on the way through but that, ultimately, all of us will have the opportunity, I suspect, at the end on a recommittal—if the $1 bet does not get up—to decide the position as to whether it be a $5 bet or a $10 maximum bet.

In discussing the issue, again, this is one of the challenges I put to the minister in the debate to provide us with some hard evidence to indicate how this change will assist in reducing problem gambling. I think conceptually a lot of people see or believe that it will but the challenge we put to the government was to produce the evidence to indicate that this change would reduce problem gambling.

One of the points that I want to put on the record is that I am advised that under our state regulations you can have a spin every 3.5 seconds; every minute you can have approximately 17 spins. In practice I am told that it might not be up to that particular regulatory entitlement, it might average out at around 10 spins, but you can have 17 spins. Whether it is a $1 maximum bet or a $5 maximum bet or a $10 maximum bet that we are talking about, the reality is that if you are an addicted gambler or a problem gambler the issue is, as I have said before, that you are going to spend whatever money you have and more with the problem that you have unless you are identified and somehow taken out of the system or assisted and encouraged not to continue with your addiction.

The reality is that if you drop the bet from $10 to $5 you can still do 17 spins a minute, and instead of spending $170 a minute you will be spending $85 a minute and you might sit there for slightly longer to spend whatever money it is you have plus whatever else you go into debt for if you are a problem gambler. The reality is that people who think that by reducing the maximum bet you have any impact are deluding themselves. People who have a problem will sit there for as long as they need to in order to spend the money they have and the money they do not have. That is the sad reality of the problem that we confront.

As to the issue of the maximum bet and the number in and of itself, and also the issue of the number of spins you have, all it means is that someone sits there for a longer period of time. People can console themselves with the view that it has taken them longer to lose all the money they have and the money they do not have, but it does not actually impact on their problem gambling. They have a problem, and they will continue to gamble. The reality is that this change, in our view, is not going to make the difference that everyone believes it will.

For those reasons, we have moved a position to, in essence, retain the status quo. This, however, goes into the package of amendments, and we have said that if the bill goes through without some of these amendments in them—it might have some of them in and some not in—ultimately it is our view still that the government should sit down with stakeholders, with the clubs industry, with hotels, and with welfare groups, to come up with a sensible package that may well better target problem gambling, rather than with things which have superficial appeal and media appeal, admittedly, but which ultimately, as the figures I indicated, in terms of the prevalence of problem gambling in South Australia compared with other states and jurisdictions, thus far have not demonstrated that they have made a significant difference in terms of their impact on problem gambling.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. There is a high level of community interest in what the maximum bet should be. It is the government's view that the maximum bet for non-premium gaming machines in the Adelaide Casino, as well as in clubs and hotels, should be reduced. The current maximum bet of $10 on South Australian gaming machines is only shared by New South Wales and the ACT. All other jurisdictions have a maximum bet of $5 on machines in clubs and hotel venues.

South Australia does not have a significant market share of gaming machines in Australia. South Australia is not in a position to influence the national market for gaming machines, and a pragmatic approach to the maximum bet needs to be adopted. The bill proposes to do that by reducing the maximum bet from $10 to $5, a point that most other Australian jurisdictions have already implemented. Any consideration below $5 can only be really done in concert with other major Australian jurisdictions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing this amendment, put forward by the Liberals, for a $10 limit, and we indicate that we will be supporting the $1 amendment being put forward by John Darley. We will speak further when we get to that particular amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that Family First will not be supporting the Liberals on this because we believe, in the interests of trying to minimise problem gambling, that the lower the dollar bet ratio the better the chance of that person not having a problem. I just put on the public record that we actually support the $1, but I find it interesting that the minister in her response says that she does not support the $10 and does not support the $1 either because it is not conforming with national policy, yet when it comes to other areas they want to be ahead of the pack. Where the hell is the inconsistency with the government on this matter? We will be supporting the $1.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: Will you be moving your amendment to assist us?

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

Page 23, line 33 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(8)]—Delete '$5' and substitute '$1'

The amendment seeks to replace $5 maximum bets for poker machines with a $1 maximum bet. The Hon. Rob Lucas, on behalf of the opposition, has argued that maximum bets should be left at $10. It is useful to consider the following example, provided by the Productivity Commission in 2010, in relation to both $5 and $10 maximum bets. If played at the fastest allowed rate, lowering the maximum bet limit from $10 to $5 will mean that the value of bets laid per hour will have fallen from $12,000 to $6,000. This will result in the expected losses reducing from $1,200 to $600 an hour; $600 hourly losses may be a far cry better than $1,200, but they are still extraordinarily high.

The Productivity Commission has argued that there are strong grounds to reduce the maximum intensity of play per button push well below the current $5 and $10 regulated limits and that a limit of $1 would strongly target problem gamblers with little disturbance for other recreational gamblers. It would, in all likelihood, achieve more than all the other proposed measures combined. Based on the above example, $1 maximum bets would result in expected losses of $120 an hour.

All too often we hear about the fact that these machines provide a form of entertainment for the majority of users. No other form of so-called entertainment allows a person to lose up to $1,200 per hour. Poker machine gambling revenues of and in excess of $740 million per year are not coming from a form of entertainment.

This demonstrates very clearly that the government is intent on talking the talk, but they do not want to walk the walk. We talk about the addictions of problem gamblers all the time, but we fail to address the government's own addiction to poker machine revenue. That is the only reason the government is opposed to this amendment, plain and simple. On the one hand, the government is pleading with us to pass a bill apparently aimed at reducing the effects of problem gambling; on the other, they are refusing to support the single biggest measure in terms of reducing the harm caused by poker machines. The opposition is no better: they want to wind the clock back even further in the other direction.

Despite what the government and, particularly, the opposition may think, the scale of the problems associated with poker machines is one that warrants continued policy attention; there is absolutely no doubt about that. The Productivity Commission has confirmed it. I find it astonishing that we are always so keen to rely on the findings of the Productivity Commission in other areas of policy but choose largely to ignore findings as they relate to problem gambling.

The Hon. Rob Lucas has said time and time again that problem gamblers would crawl over cut glass to feed their addiction. He is probably right, many would, but the fact still remains that poker machines pose a very real risk—indeed, the highest risk than any other form of gambling. The Hon. Rob Lucas also alludes to the fact that only a small proportion of the population has a gambling addiction. Again, there is no question that he is right about that, too.

Currently, the prevalence rates of problem gambling are said to be 0.7 per cent and 1.7 per cent of the adult population for problem and moderate risk gamblers respectively. Based on these figures, it is easy to see why the hotel and club industry argues so strongly that the social policy significance of problem gambling is insignificant, but this needs to be put into context. According to the Productivity Commission, only 0.15 per cent of the population are admitted to hospital each year for traffic accidents and around 0.2 per cent of the population are estimated to have had heroin in the preceding year. The point is that small population prevalence rates do not mean small problems for society.

Both the 1999 and the 2010 reports of the Productivity Commission confirm that each year 40 per cent of poker machine losses (some $5 billion) come from problem gamblers. We know that the harms from problem gambling include depression, relationship breakdown, lowered productivity, job loss, bankruptcy, crime and, worst of all, suicide. According to a 2008 study, gambling was found to be the most common motivation for fraud, with the average loss amounting to $1.1 million per incident.

We know also that for every one problem gambler, the lives of at least seven others are affected. According to the Productivity Commission, whilst it is hard to quantify some aspects of these harms, the evidence suggests costs equivalent to many thousands of dollars per person affected. When these costs are accumulated across people with significant problems, they amount to some $4.7 billion annually, and that is using conservative estimates.

The Productivity Commission, quite rightly, points to the fact that it is very difficult to justify allowing the large social cost from current arrangements to continue just because some people benefit from them. It quite rightly points to the fact that history is replete with instances in which industry interests have suffered from regulated increases in safety standards—tobacco, coal mining and asbestos, to name a few. This is not just about the small population prevalence rate for problem gamblers: it is about reducing the havoc that problem gambling wreaks in one form or another on the rest of society.

According to the Productivity Commission, current bet limits imposed by all jurisdictions (and that includes $5 bet limits) are too high to be effective in constraining the spending of problem gamblers, given the speed and intensity of play that a modern poker machine allows. Maximum bets need to be low enough to constrain the spend rate of problem gamblers but not so low as to adversely affect recreational gamblers who typically bet at quite low levels. This amendment achieves that, and I urge all honourable members to support it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment for the reasons previously outlined.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, I will be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, and I will, in fact, on behalf of Dignity for Disability be supporting all of his amendments because I think they are very sensible ways to look at stemming problem gambling. I think one of the big questions that needs to be asked at this point in the debate is that, if Mr Lucas and the Liberals are so convinced that the $1 maximum bets will not make any difference, why are they so unwilling to try it? I will be supporting the amendment on behalf of Dignity for Disability.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As previously indicated, the Greens will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's amendment for $1 bet limits. We note the words of Uniting Communities and, indeed, Mark Henley, who is well respected in this area, in a press release issued on 16 April this year where, with regard to this particular bill, it stated:

Uniting Communities is also urging the Government to amend its proposed $5 bet limit per spin to $1, as recommended by the Productivity Commission.

Mark Henley stated:

A $5 per spin bet limit still means that a person with a gambling problem can put $100 per minute through a poker machine—this is excessive. We are well aware that it is people with gambling problems who are most likely to be gambling $5 per spin. A vast majority of 'recreational gamblers' gamble less than $1 per spin. So a $1 per spin bet limit for pokies is good policy that won't affect recreational gamblers.

That concludes the press release. That is urging this particular government, from those who stood alongside it promoting this particular bill at that press conference a few months back, to support $1 a spin.

I echo the words of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that we are a little flummoxed that the government can claim that they do not want to be ahead of the pack on this, yet they do not want to go with the federal timetable on other measures in this bill. It seems to be a contradictory position. The Greens have long held a policy of $1 bet limits and we think that the Australian Productivity Commission is not to be ignored on this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Briefly, the other point which I did not make but for the benefit of members I should, is that for 99.6 per cent of the population who do not have a problem gambling issue what is the problem with allowing someone like myself or the chairman of the committee to bet $50 on a gaming machine, or $50 on the TAB, or $50 on the Lotto, or $50 on Sportsbet, or $50 on whatever?

For the overwhelming majority of people who are recreational gamblers who do not have a problem gambling issue, not being able to bet on one particular form of betting is an issue for people who are recreational gamblers. So, those who argue the case—and again I leave the challenge with the government and those who support the government—that this particular measure or indeed the others will reduce problem gambling, need to produce the evidence to indicate that that will be the case. If they can, then you can take decisions that will restrict the freedoms of the overwhelming majority of people who happily bet $50 on their mobile phone on Sportsbet every day of the week, or on their interactive computer at home every hour, or they go to the X-Lotto and put on $50, or they buy a lottery ticket, or go to the TAB and plonk $50 on some nag that one of the members may have told them is a good thing at Balaklava.

Ultimately they are choices which, for 99.6 per cent of us who are not problem gamblers, we ought to be able to take in a free society. Whilst I understand the debate about the 0.4 per cent, the issue is that we are restricting the capacity of recreational gamblers to spend their money as they see fit, without causing any grief to themselves, their families or their acquaintances, and that is an entitlement or freedom that should not be restricted unless the government or someone can demonstrate that a particular measure will actually reduce this 0.4 per cent to a lower figure of problem gamblers in South Australia. It is a simple request; I put it in the second reading two or three weeks ago.

The government and no-one else has actually been able to produce the hard evidence in relation to the issue. I know there are those with strong views who say they believe this will occur and who also say that they believe that by increasing the number of gaming machines in a venue to 60 from 40, and reducing the number of venues that that will reduce problem gambling.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: There's no evidence of that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Okay, but there is no evidence of this other one either—that is what I am saying. The point is that people believe these things will reduce problem gambling, but they do not actually produce hard evidence to back these things. It is the sort of thing of which the community generally will be supportive because it is a perception of doing something about problem gambling, and governments, whether Labor or Liberal, will pat themselves on the back in relation to being seen to do something, but ultimately these things will have to be judged by whether or not that 0.4 per cent of problem gamblers is actually reduced.

That is why we would be interested to see the results of the problem gambling prevalence study, which has been completed but which for some reason has not been released to members or publicly prior to the passage of this particular debate.

The CHAIR: If members support the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendment or the Hon. Mr Darley's proposition, they will vote no to the question that '$5' in clause 39, page 23, line 33 stand as printed.

The committee divided on the question:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Question thus disagreed to.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment negatived.

The committee divided on the Hon. J.A. Darley's amendment:

Majority of 8 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

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

Page 23, after line 33 [clause 39, inserted section 42B]—After subsection (8) insert:

(8a) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not provide any gaming machine on the licensed premises that may be operated otherwise than in connection with a system that interrupts play at regular intervals (not exceeding 30 minutes of continuous play) for at least 5 seconds on each occasion.

(8b) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not provide any gaming machine that returns winnings to a player of more than $500 at any one time.

I also intend to move similar amendments regarding hotels and clubs. The amendment introduces two new concepts. The first is a five-second break in play, the second is maximum jackpots. In relation to the first issue, subsection (8a) of the amendment is aimed at ensuring that poker machines have a system that interrupts play at regular intervals not exceeding 30 minutes of continuous play for at least five seconds on each occasion.

It is widely accepted that providing a break in play provides gamblers with the opportunity to rethink their options in terms of whether or not to continue gambling. Five seconds is not a long time. If someone cannot handle a five-second break after sitting in front of a poker machine for 30 minutes, then I dare say they may be at risk. This amendment, in conjunction with on-screen messaging, could go a long way towards providing those people with the time they need to reassess their position.

In relation to the second issue, subsection (8b) provides that it is a condition of the Casino licence that the licensee must not provide any gaming machine that returns winnings to a player of more than $500 at any one time. This amendment is specifically aimed at addressing some of the misconceptions people have about poker machines.

There exists a misconception amongst many problem gamblers that if they just keep pouring money into a machine, eventually it will pay out and it will pay out big, that somehow if they have poured a few hundred or a couple of thousand dollars into a machine it is bound to come good. Some problem gamblers cannot even bring themselves to leave a machine for fear that somebody else might jump on and win all of 'their' money.

There are plenty more examples that all tie into a lack of understanding about the way poker machines actually function. I do not profess to be an expert in this area, but I know enough to understand that these machines are designed to lure people in and keep them there for as long as possible. Usually, for problem gamblers, that time comes when they have exhausted all their funds, all their food money, their rent money, their mortgage repayments, their petrol money, their kids' lunch money.

There is absolutely no question that people who play the poker machines are always chasing that big jackpot, the one that is going to make up for all the losses of the evening. According to the Productivity Commission, notwithstanding the long-running inevitability of losses for regular poker machine gamblers, some gamblers will occasionally win big prizes, and these people will disproportionately be problem gamblers, given their spending rates. This is what keeps them coming back.

Measures such as jackpot limits are designed to make people's thinking about their chances of winning on the poker machines more realistic. They would not interfere with the enjoyment of recreational gamblers who just want to have a bit of fun, but they could make a huge difference to those less able to control themselves. If a person knows that the most they can get out of a machine at any one time is $500, they may be less inclined to clean out their bank account of money they can ill afford in the process. I urge all honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment in relation to the proposed break in play. The government with the responsible gambling working group undertook extensive work on precommitment between 2006 and 2013. A key measure that was evaluated as part of this work was default messages which displayed specific messages at predetermined spend points. These messages encouraged customers to remember their gambling budget.

The evaluation of this feature suggested that it could be beneficial and certainly did not unduly impact on recreational gambling. It is the government's intention that default messages will be a prescribed requirement of an approved precommitment system. Therefore, it is the government's view that this amendment is not necessary and that it is preferable to implement measures that are based on evidence-based development by the Responsible Gambling Working Party.

In relation to the proposed maximum prize, currently the maximum prize is regulated at $10,000 with the exception of linked jackpots at the Adelaide Casino, which have a regulated maximum prize of $250,000. It is clear that retaining the current return-to-player requirements in legislation and applying this amendment would substantially increase the frequency of prize payouts to customers. It is unclear what the consequence for problem gambling would be from this amendment. It is for those reasons that the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We underline our concerns raised in the second reading speech that the Weatherill government put up this bill supposedly as a bill that addresses problem gambling, but we have seen very little in this bill that really does address problem gambling.

We have seen this bill put up as supposedly, purportedly, reducing the number of poker machines in this state, and we know that, in fact, it is more than likely to increase them by a substantial amount. There are no guarantees that it will reduce the number of poker machines in this state, and yet here is quite a simple suggestion that will go some way to addressing harm caused by problem gambling and to those who most need that assistance—a five-second break is not much to ask. It seems breathtakingly hypocritical of this government not to entertain this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First will be supporting this amendment. The response from the government to the proposer of this amendment just confirms to us the furphy that the Weatherill government is putting out that this has to be a total package and we have to just rubberstamp something for the government because it has the best of all worlds for everyone.

It has the Casino up and running, the crane is there before the next election, there is a $20 million up-front dividend to Treasury, it has all the problem gambling matters resolved, it has done a good job for clubs—this is the story the government is painting, but the reality is that this, to me, indicates the importance of splitting the bill. The Casino is one thing, but clubs have to be looked after, and also harm minimisation and any initiatives to prevent problem gambling need to be supported.

I think five seconds is not enough time. I personally believe that five minutes every 30 minutes would probably be better, frankly, because then people would have a chance to go and suck in a bit of fresh air and think about how long they have been playing. If a little sign were put up on the screen that said, 'Don't gamble too much,' or something like that, people are so mesmerised on dropping in the next coin they would not even read it, quite frankly.

I have watched a few people play, and the coins are in their hand or in their cup and they are ready to drop the next one in because they know they are not going to win on that one and they are ready to drop in the next coin. The government has just exposed itself for what it is: that is, frauds on this bill. I will be supporting, on behalf of Family First, the Hon. John Darley's amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We will not be supporting the amendment. I am a natural cynic in relation to warning messages. I think the evidence is not there regarding the health warnings that we are constantly bombarded with. Everyone says, 'This will stop someone from smoking,' or whatever it is, but I must admit that the circle of people I associate with who are smokers all know that it is not good for them and the warning messages mean nothing; it is just part of the background.

I think it would be the same thing in relation to gaming machines. If you are one of the 0.4 per cent who have a gambling problem, the fact that the message scrolls across the screen or is in neon lights or jumps up and down or whatever, in my view is not going to cure your addiction or assist you or prevent it in any way.

The second point is in relation to the limitation on the winnings. Again, I speak on behalf of the 99.6 per cent of people who are recreational gamblers. You can win $30 million in X-Lotto, unlimited lumps of money in sports betting or in any variety of other gambling pursuits that you want. For those who, again, I repeat, do not have a problem and who are recreational gamblers and who are not causing problems for their families or their acquaintances, from my viewpoint the issue remains that if you are going to restrict them you should do so only after you have produced hard evidence to indicate that the restriction you are applying to the 99.6 per cent of people will actually do something, in terms of hard evidence, to reduce the 0.4 per cent of people who are problem gamblers. The member and those who support this particular amendment, in my view, have not produced the evidence that this will do just that.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 23, lines 34 to 40 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(9)]—Delete subsection (9) and substitute:

(9) In this section—

prescribed day means—

(a) 31 December 2018; or

(b) if, before 31 December 2018, the Governor prescribes a later date by regulation—on that later date.

In my view, this is consequential on earlier amendments that we have voted on comprehensively.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 23, after line 40 [clause 39, inserted section42B(9)]—After the definition of approved pre-commitment system insert:

audio device means an earphone, earpiece, headphone, headset or any other device to convert signals from a gaming machine to audible sound delivered to the ear of a person playing the machine to the exclusion of everyone else.

This is a consequential amendment on a previous amendment that gained the support of this council, so I would hope, as such, there would be a similar vote. It goes to the audio devices that can potentially be fitted to machines and that new technology.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports the amendment and sees it as consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40.

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

Page 24, after line 14—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Section 43—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) If a child under the age of 16 enters the casino premises and is not accompanied by that child's parent or guardian, the licensee and the staff member who is responsible for supervising entry to the casino premises are each guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

In the case of the licensee—$10,000.

In the case of a staff member—$2,000.

Clause 40 of the bill deals with the exclusion of children from the Casino premises. Currently, section 40 of the Casino Act prevents children from entering the Casino. The bill seeks to draw a distinction between Casino premises and gaming areas. The effect of this is that it allows the child to enter those parts of the Casino premises where gambling is not available.

The amendment seeks to mandate that a child under the age of 16 be accompanied by a parent or guardian while on the Casino premises. If a child is allowed on Casino premises unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, the licensee and the staff member responsible for supervising entry to the Casino premises will each be guilty of an offence. This is consistent with section 43(3) of the act which currently provides that if a child enters the Casino the licensee and the staff member who is responsible for supervising entry to the Casino are each guilty of an offence.

The fact that the bill introduces a distinction between the Casino premises and gaming areas to allow children into the non-gambling parts of the Casino tends to suggest that the Casino is looking to incorporate many additional entertainment facilities such as those that exist in casinos interstate. It might not be intended to go as far as the Crown Casino, which has a theme park and cinema situated on its premises, but it will certainly incorporate some sort of entertainment precinct. Again, anyone who has been to Melbourne's Crown Casino would know that the gambling areas are not hidden away from view. Children walking around the precinct are not shielded from gambling activities; they are, in fact, quite prominent.

The risks about exposing minors to gambling activity have been well documented. Whatever Adelaide Casino's intentions may be, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that minors aged under the age of 16 be accompanied by a parent or guardian when visiting the Casino precinct; it is, after all, still a casino.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. It is a completely impractical amendment that could result in a 15 year old not being able to return to their parents' hotel room. As noted earlier, a new Adelaide Casino complex is expected to include a range of facilities such as a six-star hotel, signature restaurants and bars, live entertainment venues and an outdoor entertainment precinct. The proposed Darley amendment is impractical, given that the complex will include a range of facilities such as a hotel where it may be appropriate for an unaccompanied minor to enter.

This is not the same as a gaming area. This is simply referring to the Casino premises, which is defined in a different way to a gaming area. Regulatory restrictions on access to specific areas will be determined by the nature of the activity being undertaken under the Casino Act and the Liquor Licensing Act. So we oppose this amendment for those reasons.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to indicate the Liberal Party is opposing the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Whilst Family First understand what the Hon. John Darley is trying to do in protection of children, on this occasion, after deliberating, we will not be able to support this amendment. There are quite a lot of complications with the amendment. Whether it is the Casino or a hotel venue, there are occasions, particularly with the new facilities advocated in the Casino, where children and families will be invited to go in there to utilise facilities outside of direct gaming.

I did recently in March visit the Melbourne Casino just to have a look at what they are doing there. There are a lot of actual good things there, with the theatre complexes and the eating facilities, that are, to a fair extent, separated from the gaming areas where we would not want children to be. I think, at the end of the day, if the person is a child, then the parents actually have to take the responsibility for the management, supervision and protection of those children.

To have a criminal offence on an employee simply because there was a negligent parent would do serious injustice to that employee, and it is complicated and difficult to manage. For those reasons, we would be focused more on parental responsibility to those children, and we will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 41 to 45 passed.

New clause 45A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 26, after line 28—After clause 45 insert:

45A—Amendment of section 48—Accounts and audit

Section 48(2)(a)—delete 'in a form approved by the Authority' and substitute:

in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards.

The advice to me from the member for Davenport is that this amendment was requested by the Casino. It requires the Casino to keep accounts in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards, instead of in the form approved by the authority. The Casino Act has always required the Casino to keep accounts in a form approved by the authority, so for those reasons I move the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendment. This amendment limits the ability of the Independent Gambling Authority to request accounting information from SkyCity. The Independent Gambling Authority has an important role in ensuring that SkyCity remains a fit and proper person to hold a casino licence. The Independent Gambling Authority relies on information gathered from a range of sources. A key source of information is the accounting information provided by the licensee to the Independent Gambling Authority. Information prepared to satisfy company law requirements may not provide sufficient granularity for the Independent Gambling Authority to undertake this role. This is a longstanding provision and the government is not aware of any concerns about the exercise of this power by the Independent Gambling Authority.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that perhaps the government's adviser should speak to the Casino. There obviously have been issues because the member for Davenport has advised me that this particular amendment and drafting has been requested by the Casino.

In terms of the amendment, what it is essentially saying is what all companies and organisations are required, and that is you submit accounts and forms in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards. That is the way accounts are prepared in the corporate world. That is the way the Auditor-General operates. Indeed, with the greatest respect, that is the way Treasury and Finance operates. They adopt practices in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards.

In reading between the lines—and I have not had the discussion with the Casino, the member for Davenport has—one would assume the forms that are being requested by the authority, on some occasions, have not been in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards, otherwise they would not have been raising the issue with the member for Davenport.

With the greatest respect to the Independent Gambling Authority, there have been the odd occasions that some have indicated where they have flexed their muscles in terms of their requirements. If there is good cause for that, that is fine, but one could infer from their support for this particular amendment that the Casino is suggesting that, in this particular case, there has been no good cause for the information being requested in this particular form.

In terms of reducing red tape, generally accepted accounting standards is a very common provision. If you are producing all your information in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards, it does not seem unreasonable to think that information being requested by the IGA should follow the same sort of principles that Treasury follows, the Auditor-General follows and most of the corporate world follows—that is a generally accepted accounting standard.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not surprised that SkyCity would want a less onerous method of accountability. That is not surprising at all. This will provide less accountability required from them and less transparency, so I am not surprised.

It is the Independent Gambling Authority that has the responsibility to provide assurances to the public that the Casino is a reputable organisation doing the things that it is supposed to and is a fit and proper organisation as well to hold a casino licence. The IGA—an independent statutory authority—is saying that it requires additional information to be able to do that. SkyCity has not raised this issue as a significant issue with us. The IGA has indicated that the provision of this information is important to the accountability of SkyCity.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is good to hear that the minister has now clarified her response saying it was never raised. Now she says it has not been raised in a significant way; ipso facto, it has been raised by the Casino and they have run into a brick wall with the government and its advisers in relation this particular issue.

It is an issue of concern to them; no-one is talking here about fit and proper persons. There is a whole probity regime with the IGA and everything else in relation to whether or not the operators of the Casino are fit and proper persons, so let us not get deluded by that sort of nonsense from the minister that this is in some way going to allow people who are not fit and proper persons to be operators of the Casino. This has nothing to do with that at all.

This is merely an issue of red tape; that is, if you are actually going to be producing a form and providing information, would it be unreasonable to expect that it be done in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards? How can anyone actually see that as some way of not being transparent or accountable, or not being a fit and proper person? It would only have to be the fertile imagination of this minister, who must have some hatred of the operators of the Casino even to suggest that this raises the issue of lack of transparency or that, in some way, we are trying to get around the fit and proper person argument. It is a nonsense.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just for the record, it is most important that I set the record straight. The Hon. Robert Lucas has distorted the truth. I never said that this issue was not raised by SkyCity.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I absolutely did not. What I said was the government is not aware of any concerns about the exercise of this power by the Independent Gambling Authority. So, let us just stick to the facts here. The Hon. Rob Lucas does not need to distort the truth. I am quite happy to stand by what I have said. Hansard will record it. My notes are quite clear. I have indicated the correct information for the record and, as I said, it is important that the Hon. Rob Lucas does not distort the truth in this place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was under the impression that the minister had said that there had been no concerns raised; however, I guess Hansard—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Read Hansard.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am trying to say that, minister. I am saying that Hansard will reflect what you said.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you stop heckling me, I can finish what I was going to say, minister.

The CHAIR: I am not heckling you, the Hon. Ms Franks. The Hon. Ms Franks has the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you let me finish my sentence, minister, I said I thought that you had said that there had been no concerns raised, but Hansard would reflect and we can reflect upon that.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Apparently I am wrong, but I am going to read Hansard, which I cannot do at the moment—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —not only because you are heckling me but also because it is not available yet. So, my question was going to be—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Minister, if you want to patronise me—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —I will continue with my questioning.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: 'Poor love' and 'poor dear' are incredibly patronising terms to be employed by a Minister for the Status of Women—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, you have the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —I would have thought.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: You're being incredibly patronising to me.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not being patronising, minister. I am trying to ask you a question.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am simply trying to ask you a question—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —whether there has there been any correspondence from the Casino on this issue to the minister?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, you have the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I simply rose to try and clarify the point, had there been any correspondence to the relevant minister or the relevant minister's office on this issue?

The Hon. G.E. Gago: By whom?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: SkyCity Casino.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice is: not that we are aware of.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, when the minister reflected that it had not been raised as a significant issue, had it been raised in verbal discussions with the relevant officers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is no recollection of SkyCity raising this issue with the department but the adviser has indicated that it is highly likely that at some time or other it may have been raised. What they are confident of is that it has not been raised as a significant issue. We do not believe that there is any correspondence reflecting any concerns. The concerns that I raised were those raised by the Independent Gambling Authority about this provision, not concerns raised by SkyCity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, minister, for not only allowing me to ask my question but for answering the question.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Don't be so patronising.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you will stop heckling me, minister—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —I simply then wanted to ask the mover—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —of the amendment had he had any correspondence from SkyCity on this issue, given that the Greens have received no correspondence and we are told one thing by the government and another thing by the opposition. I am simply trying to get to whether or not SkyCity has put anything in writing on this issue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am very happy to respond in a non-patronising way. The simple answer is—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I don't mind if you patronise me. I think I'm getting used to it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not think that is conducive to good committee stages of parliament, if one behaves in a patronising fashion. The answer is I have had no discussions, because the member for Davenport has—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: She is sort of a little hit-and-run.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas, you have the call.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Davenport has had the carriage of this bill and his notes from his office were that this has been requested by the Casino. My assumption is it probably was not by way of letter but, in terms of the ongoing discussions, it may well have been an issue that was raised in discussions with the member for Davenport and his office. I cannot give you any more information than that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister, given her answer to the Hon. Tammy Franks that the government has taken its advice and focus from the IGA, if she can advise the house what the concerns were that the IGA had with respect to not accepting standard accounting practices?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The issue that I raised initially in my response was that the government is not aware of any concerns about the excise of this power by the Independent Gambling Authority. That is suggesting that SkyCity had not raised with them any issues of concern about the reporting required. That is the advice I have received from the Independent Gambling Authority.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: So, therefore, did the IGA, who should have, I would have expected, had a look at this amendment, make a recommendation to the government or, indeed, to the department that they do not accept this clause and, if they did not, what is your problem?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice that I have received is that the IGA has not indicated any problems with the current reporting arrangements. The IGA, I am advised, did not review this particular amendment. The role of government is to do that. Our understanding is that they are satisfied with the current reporting arrangements and the current provisions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just put on the record that the minister has just confirmed that the IGA has not even looked at the amendment, on the basis of what she has said, yet she would have led the committee to believe quite the contrary in her earlier statements. I think the minister's argument, and the government's argument, is on very shaky and flimsy ground in relation to this amendment. I would urge support.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I need to clarify. The IGA has seen this amendment and are aware of it, and has not provided any specific response to it specifically.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given the lack of substance that the government has provided, the Greens are inclined to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Given the very indecisive answers from the government, again showing the incompetence that they have with respect to the overall input into consideration of amendments, and the holistic approach to this bill, we will be supporting the opposition.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 46 to 59 passed.

Clause 60.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 32, lines 31 to 34 [clause 60(13) and (14)]—Delete subclauses (13) and (14)

This is the first amendment, and there is a series of them that follow. This is not really the substantive clause, but it is probably a test clause for the issue of the debate about major and minor venues. A complicated part of this new regime is this issue of different provisions for major and minor venues. I will not go over the complicated provisions again, but we are obviously going to have venues with potentially up to 60 machines. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has coined the term 'super casinos' or some such phrase.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Mini casinos in the north and southern suburbs.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mini casinos in the north and southern suburbs is the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's description of the proposal. Then there is a different arrangement in relation to those venues which will have under 20 machines. It is the major/minor venue arrangement. I do not propose to revisit all of the argument again here, but to repeat in summary, the Liberal Party's position is that for this whole bill we are prepared to support those aspects that relate to the Casino, but these other aspects which have major implications for clubs in South Australia have been developed with virtually no consultation with the club industry and the club sector in South Australia.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Or the hotel industry, for that matter.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Maybe a little with the hotel industry, but certainly nothing on behalf of the club industry. We unashamedly in the Liberal Party are strong supporters of the club industry and community clubs in South Australia. We have urged members in this chamber, through this whole debate, to support the club industry in South Australia. Their simple proposition has been to force this government to come back to the table, to sit down and negotiate a package after input from all the stakeholders—not just the concerned sector, not just the hotels—and to include the club sector in the negotiations with the government.

As I said earlier this evening, the government should, if a number of these provisions are deleted from the bill, take the time in the break between now and September to sit down with the club industry and other stakeholders and to come back to the parliament with a package which hopefully has the support of the club industry in South Australia. My amendment is part of a package and is consistent with our general premise that these sorts of issues need to go back for further negotiation and should not be approved at this particular stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The government has been mindful about the impact on smaller, regional and community venues of the measures proposed in this bill. To reduce the impact, the government established a new minor class of gaming venues. These venues are low-cost operations that generally have a handful of gaming machines as an adjunct to the food and beverage services offered. Most of these venues do not have extended hours of operation and tend to have a more direct relationship between the customer and the venue staff.

Given the above, the government recognised that these venues would probably find it difficult to fund the implementation of more advanced systems aimed at reducing problem gambling. This bill does not require a minor licensing class to implement advanced responsible gambling systems. The minor licensing classes are an important protection that offers a low-cost approach to smaller, regional and community venues.

The opposition proposes to remove this protection from smaller, regional and community venues. In total, the opposition amendments will require smaller community and regional venues to implement automated risk monitoring systems and alter gaming machines at significant cost to these venues.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On what did the government base its definitions of major and minor venues—on consultation with which groups and which groups support and oppose this particular measure?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, in relation to the minor classification, that is consistent with the size of venues adopted in the national gambling regulation, that is, fewer than 20. In relation to the major, that has been increased to 60. It is consistent with submissions received from the community sector in response to an earlier consultative process.

In relation to those who offer support, Uniting Communities has indicated support, and SACOSS has indicated support for measures to decrease the number of machines, and we believe that this is a measure that will do that by increasing the demand for entitlements. Therefore, through forfeiture, we would take out one in four, some machines, out of the system. We believe that it is a measure to help decrease the number of machines. They are the areas for which we received some support.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My first question to the minister is a point of clarification and to make sure that it is absolutely clear in Hansard. Will the minister please read to the committee the part of her briefing note where it talks about the close relationship between staff and the clients in what I call the smaller pokie venues, typically a country pub with a few pokies? The minister, I understand, did say that there was a close relationship there. I would like to get that on the record and to deliberate on that for a moment, and then I have a subsequent question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not too sure exactly what you are referring to, but I did talk about these venues being low-cost operations that generally have a handful of gaming machines as an adjunct to food and beverage services offered, and most of the venues do not have extended hours of operation and tend to have a more direct relationship between the customer and the venue staff. They are small businesses, small venues, and staff tend to know particularly regular customers and have a closer relationship to them. Given that, the government has recognised that these venues would probably find it difficult also to fund the more advanced systems of reducing problem gambling. Therefore the view is that the risk tends to be lower for this particular group.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you. That is music to my ears because that has been an argument that I have been putting to the government and it is contrary, I might say, to what the lead minister advised me: that these small venues, clubs and pubs with small numbers of poker machines, actually were not in a position to provide the counselling, support, care and attention needed, unlike a proposed mini 60-machine casino venue.

So again I point out to my colleagues that we have totally differing and confusing information coming through on that. We now have that clearly on the public record, and that confirms what I, as a country person, see in my own town when I go to the hotel for dinner with my family, where there are only 12 poker machines. It is a family-owned hotel and they pretty much know everybody in their pokie machine area and they are very caring about them.

I therefore go to the next two points. One, the minister said in a response to the Hon. Tammy Franks that SACOSS had recommended 60 machines in the mini casinos but, from what the minister said, I do not think they had been totally firm on that. To me, it sounds more like the government made that decision, so I ask for confirmation on that because I would not want to have SACOSS misrepresented.

Again, I ask the government to provide evidence relating to mini casinos of 60 machines in the vulnerable metropolitan parts of Adelaide, where Coles and Woolworths have already bought hotels. I have the facts and figures. I have done the research: Coles and Woolworths in particular have deliberately bought hotels in the most vulnerable areas for problem gambling, in the lower socioeconomic areas, where they can actually pull disposable income away from the family unit. So I think it is fair and reasonable that the government provides hard scientific evidence to show us that they are going to be better managed if we were to support these big mini casinos in the metropolitan areas of Adelaide.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I want to take issue with what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has said. While it is certainly true that pokie venues in country areas and in clubs are more likely to know their clientele, be familiar with them and be in a position to intervene if they perceive there could be a problem, it certainly has not always been the case; in fact, quite the contrary. Certainly a couple of cases come to my mind where over $100,000 was lost in a very short period of time on a poker machine in a country pub. It is very difficult to believe that the publican could not have been aware that that person did not have that sort of money to throw around.

Certainly, there are country pubs and venues where gross instances of neglect by the licensees have occurred in terms of intervening with problem gamblers, so I do not accept the argument that ipso facto by going from 40 to 60 and smaller venues being forced out of the market, that can be said automatically to be something that leads to more problem gambling. I would be interested if the minister has any information that she is able to put on the record regarding problem gambling and the question of 40 or 60 machines, because I am not sure what evidence there is that going from 40 to 60 would make a material difference in terms of problem gambling. You may have other reasons for not wanting it to go from 40 to 60 in supporting clubs and so on—I understand that—but if fighting problem gambling is the rationale for opposing it going to 60, I would be interested in the evidence on that question.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sir, I am still waiting on an answer from the minister. Is there an answer to my question about evidence and the SACOSS issue? I will have to get my office to contact SACOSS tomorrow, but I am concerned that they are actually being misrepresented in all this. I have not received any confirmation that I can recall where SACOSS said that they were supporting mini casinos of 60 machines. The government are saying it was a SACOSS initiative, then they are half back-pedalling, but they are saying that you are going to get much better management when it comes to addressing problem gambling with mini casinos of 60 machines, but we need evidence. There must be some evidence. Someone did not just wake up and, using the Hon. Russell Wortley's language, have a thought bubble in all this from the government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In response to my original question the minister indicated that there had been some submissions from the community sector in support of these definitions and I believe the 40 machines being raised to 60 from earlier submissions. How much earlier were these submissions? What date were these submissions made and what was the market penetration of Coles and Woolworths in the poker machine industry at that stage the submission was made?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just to clarify something that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire stated about SACOSS supporting the increase to 60. I am not aware that SACOSS have indicated direct support for the increase to 60. What I indicated was that SACOSS supported measures to decrease the number of machines and we believe that this is a measure to decrease the number of machines. As I indicated, we believe that by increasing demand for entitlements, therefore through forfeiture, we would take out one in four of some of these machines from the system. We believe—and I clarified this earlier in statements—that we believe that going from 40 to 60 was a measure to decrease the number of machines. What SACOSS has done is indicate support for those measures to decrease the number of machines. I was careful to clarify that in the first place. It is a clarified support, if you like, and I indicated that upfront. In relation to the earlier consultative process that I referred to, I have been advised that that was in relation to consultation around the 2010 bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, what consultation with regard to the development and drafting of this bill was made to create the number of 60?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry; were you asking in relation to the 2010 bill consultative process, or the consultative process in relation to this particular bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I quite clearly said that given that consultation you just spoke about was the 2010 bill, what consultation was undertaken for this bill?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In January and February 2013, consultation began on the draft bill with key agencies: SACOSS, Uniting Communities, AHA(SA), Clubs SA, Club One, United Voice and the IGC. Some of these agencies had multiple meetings to discuss the specific concerns and further refine the bill, and I have outlined to you the outcomes from that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given the clause that we are discussing my question was: which of these groups in the consultation for this bill wanted the 60 machines level and definition?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have already clearly said, the answer is the Uniting Communities, as I have already said quite clearly, and SACOSS support clarified, as I have said, supporting the measures to decrease the number of machines and we believe this is a measure to decrease machines. So, I have already said that a couple of times. It is on the record: that was the result of these consultations. So, I have already said that, clearly.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Given that we are not going to finish tonight, unless we bring our swags in, I ask the minister whether, given that we actually, in good faith, had a working group, a responsible working group, working for years actually, and two specific years into this, to allegedly be ignored, then I think it is only fair and reasonable that we ask that the minister table all of the documentation tomorrow morning at 10:30 from all of the contacts they made with all of the agencies so that members can then see, transparently, what occurred and then deliberate from there. So, I ask the minister, will she table all of that documentation that, clearly, Treasury managed so that we can actually have a democratic look at this matter?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I remind the minister of my original question also asking for the information about the market penetration of Coles and Woolworths into this particular industry, and to correlate that information with the positions taken by the various groups.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take both those questions on notice. I am not clear about what level of documentation is available, but we can have a look at that overnight and tomorrow morning and bring what we can back tomorrow morning.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 33, lines 2 to 12 [clause 60(16), inserted subsections (4) and (5)]—

Delete inserted subsections (4) and (5)

This is consequential on the amendment we have just moved, and the government accepts that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I just have a question. Earlier it was indicated that the amendment before last was a test clause, but then a couple of honourable members asked for information to be put on the record, which the minister was going to do.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I may not; what I said was that I would have a look at it.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, have a look at it. Can I just clarify that, essentially, that decision has now been made, that the council is supporting the status quo of 40?

An honourable member: That's right.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Based on these last two votes?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: We have tested it.

Clauses 61 to 64 passed.

Clause 65.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 36, after line 8—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) Section 14(1)(ab)—delete 'on premises in respect of which someone else holds a gaming machine licence as agent of the holder of the gaming machine licence' and substitute:

—

(i) on the casino premises as agent of the holder of the casino licence; or

(ii) on premises in respect of which someone else holds a gaming machine licence as agent of the holder of the gaming machine licence;

This amendment provides Club One with the ability to place its entitlements in the Adelaide Casino. The bill extends the concept of gaming machine entitlements to the Adelaide Casino between the houses. The government identified an omission in the bill that would frustrate the government's intention to allow Club One to have an agreement with the Adelaide Casino to place entitlements in the Adelaide Casino. This amendment makes it clear that the special club licence under the Gaming Machines Act authorises Club One to do this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Will this allow Club One machines in the VIP area?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They could be placed anywhere.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Davenport has advised me that the party's position is that we are prepared to support the amendment and we will do so. I just have one further question. Clearly, if they can be placed anywhere is the government aware of the extent of discussions with the Casino in relation to the possible location of these particular licences?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we are not aware of any discussions.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 66 passed.

Clause 67.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This is another sort of test clause that is probably going to be lengthy, as well.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.