STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 23 July 2013.)

Clause 67.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There were a number of questions asked during the committee stage last night and I have some responses that it might be timely for me to put onto the record. The Hon. Tammy Franks asked a question about market share for Coles and Woolworths. I have been advised that Consumer and Business Services undertook a manual check of their licensing records and have advised that:

the Woolworths ALH Group has 30 venues, owns 1,036 gaming machine entitlements, and also has 23 gaming machine entitlements currently allocated to it by Club One;

the Liquorland, Coles and Wesfarmers group has seven venues, owns 238 gaming machine entitlements, and also has 21 gaming machine entitlements currently allocated by Club One.

Taken together, these two groups own about 7 per cent of South Australian hotel venues and around 10 per cent of gaming machine entitlements.

A number of members expressed an interest in receiving information about the gambling prevalence statistics to be presented in a report currently being finalised by the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion and the Independent Gambling Authority. The government can offer a briefing by officers from these agencies to interested members of parliament about the key aspects of the report once it is finalised.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire asked a question about changes in gambling prevalence in Victoria over time. I am advised that the gaming machine venue cap of 105 gaming machines in Victoria did not change with the commencement of Victoria's new licensing arrangements in August last year. I repeat: I am advised that they did not change. The government is not aware of any Victorian prevalence study conducted by anyone since the transition to the new licensing arrangements.

The Hon. Tammy Franks sought additional documentation about the consultation around the proposal to increase the gaming machine venue cap. In a submission from the Heads of Christian Churches Gambling Taskforce, UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide and SACOSS, responding to proposed amendments to the Gaming Machines Act in 2008, they stated:

The same submission proposed lifting the cap on the maximum number of entitlements that could be located in any one venue.

These are public documents. It continued:

There are mixed opinions about this proposal, however there is a very high likelihood that an increase in the number of entitlements that could be located in any hotel or club would deliver at least two benefits:

lifting the venue cap would most certainly provide greater incentive for trading to occur

greater concentration of poker machines in venues would provide greater incentive to venues to comply with harm reducing codes, programs and initiatives and would also enable compliance enforcement inspection visits to be more frequent.

These were the benefits identified in the submission. It states:

It is suggested that this measure still warrants careful attention.

For members' information, the 'same submission' refers to a submission made in 2006 to the IGA's 2004 amendments inquiry by the agencies concerned about gambling harm. The 2006 submission recommended that:

The priority Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) gambling policy is proposed as being a reduction in the number of venues.

Again, that submission has also been made public—

This is even more crucial than reducing the number of machines, although this also needs to be achieved. Three measures are suggested to achieve this:

removing the legislated price cap for EGM entitlements to enable the 'market' established by the 2004 legislation to operate more freely

increasing the maximum number of machines permitted per venue to up to 50 entitlements

removing one poker machine for every 3 purchased.

The 2010 amendments were successful in removing the fixed price in the approved trading system. Those amendments resulted in a substantial increase in the supply of gaming machine entitlements in the approved trading system and the potential for reduction in gaming venues.

Nevertheless, as I noted earlier, there remains an excessive supply of gaming machine entitlements because there is insufficient demand. In addressing this problem, the government took the policy decision that increasing the venue cap was preferable to a further round of mandatory gaming machine entitlement reduction, and the government remains of that view.

The government included this policy position in the draft bill that was provided to stakeholders in January and February—so that was the position that was consulted on—and the view of various stakeholders is well known to the government and members of parliament. It is the government's view that there is no need to table further documents about those consultations. I have indicated those submissions which are, as I said, either on the public record or have been on the public record at some time.

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

Page 36, lines 28 to 37 [clause 67(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

Just before speaking to the amendment, given that the minister has just taken the opportunity to put on the record a number of issues, can I indicate that I have also now been provided with information in relation to a significant issue of debate yesterday, that is, the recommendations of the Responsible Gambling Working Party.

I have been provided with minutes of the Responsible Gambling Working Party meetings and, without unnecessarily delaying the committee proceedings, it is clear from those minutes that the Responsible Gambling Working Party did unanimously take the view that these decisions we were talking about yesterday and will continue today, in terms of the timing of these major changes, should be done consistent with the federal changes.

That is a logical and common-sense approach, and I completely understand why the Responsible Gambling Working Party would recommend that. However, this was an issue of some dispute yesterday; I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, the Hon. Ms Franks and myself raised the issue. In the end, I think we teased out the fact of the situation from the minister but, as I said, I have now been provided with copies of minutes of the Responsible Gambling Working Party meetings and conclusions, and they make it quite clear—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Can we table those minutes?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would need to check. Do you have them?

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I have them.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You can seek to table them if the people who have provided them are happy to have them tabled and you are happy to do that, that is fine. The main thing is that the point that was being discussed yesterday is quite clear: in relation to these things, it makes great sense that they be done consistent with the federal timetable changes for a whole variety of reasons.

In my view, this is an amendment which is inextricably tied to or consequential upon the debate that we had yesterday, and the council has expressed its view not to support the division between major and minor venues. This is just an extension, in my view, of that argument and it is the debate about the 50 per cent increase in gaming machines at venues from 40 up to a maximum of 60. I think the phrase the Hon. Mr Brokenshire used was 'mini casinos' to describe this aspect of the government's proposal.

Our view is quite clear on this: we asked the question as to what evidence there was that a 50 per cent increase in the number of machines in venues would lead to a reduction in problem gambling, and the government and the minister have been unable to produce any evidence to back up that particular argument.

We do accept that there is a range of views from people. As I said yesterday, people believe that larger numbers in fewer venues will be a good thing, and they have a view that this will lead to a reduction in problem gambling. Whilst, from our side, we understand and respect the fact that they have a view, in the end what we are looking for is evidence to demonstrate that that is indeed the case.

As I quoted in the second reading, in some of those other jurisdictions where there are significantly larger numbers of machines in clubs in particular, the problem gambling measures are almost double the problem gambling measures here in South Australia. As I said in the second reading, that is not necessarily proof of anything, other than it certainly does not lead one to believe that there is any evidence to support the argument that a 50 per cent increase is going to lead to a reduction in problem gambling, which is what the minister and the government are saying.

The government is saying that this proposal will lead to fewer venues, fewer machines, and lowering problem gambling; that is the claim by the minister and the government. We say, 'Well, produce the evidence,' but they have been unable to do so.

As I said, this amendment is a natural extension. To me, given that we have removed the references to major and minor, it would certainly make no sense to actually leave in the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's mini casino provision of allowing the government to increase the numbers up to 60, with all the arguments about Coles, Woolworths and the wealthy end of town in terms of the AHA, or those sections of the AHA that may be able to afford to buy up the extra machines, to increase their numbers to up to 60.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. As noted earlier, this series of amendments would result in important protections being removed from smaller regional community venues, and it is clear from the last three trading rounds that there is a persistent excess supply of gaming machine entitlements—that is, venues want to exit the industry but cannot. This bill adopts measures to increase the demand for gaming machine entitlements and address this excess supply.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have some questions to the minister as we deliberate the debate on these amendments in this clause. First of all, for the record, can the minister confirm that Coles and Woolworths in South Australia own 7 per cent of the hotels and 10 per cent of the GMEs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I knew I would have to read this out again because you were not in the chamber at the time when I was here. But, anyway, we will waste the time of the chamber again to repeat this. Consumer and Business Services undertook a manual check of their licensing records and has advised that Woolworths' ALH Group has 30 venues and owns 1,036 gaming machine entitlements. It also has 23 gaming machine entitlements currently allocated to it by Club One.

The Liquorland, Coles and Wesfarmers group has seven venues and owns 238 gaming machine entitlements. It also has 21 gaming machine entitlements currently allocated to it by Club One. Taken together, these two groups own around 7 per cent of the South Australian hotel venues and owns around 10 per cent of the gaming machine entitlements.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I apologise and ask for indulgence from my colleagues, but I missed whether or not documentation is going to be tabled. Have you found any documentation, minister, or are they still digging for it? Are we going to get anything tabled, or is Treasury going to hide it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is an outrageous assertion, given that the honourable member failed to be here in the chamber at the time that I provided the material, and now he asserts that I am hiding it. He failed to be present while I delivered the information requested, and now he asserts that I am hiding things. It is outrageous and incredibly offensive. So I will read it out again. I provided the information that was requested and I will read it out again; I will waste the time of this chamber.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You said you were not going to table it because it would not serve any purpose.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I said it is on the public record. I referred you to documents that are on the public record that were the documents which were requested and involved in submissions and consultations.

The Hon. Tammy Franks sought additional documentation about consultation around the proposal to increase the gaming machine venue cap. The submission from the heads of Christian Churches Gambling Taskforce, UnitingCare Wesley, Adelaide, and SACOSS, responding to proposed amendments to the Gaming Machines Act in 2008, stated that:

The same submission proposed lifting the cap on the maximum number of entitlements that could be located in any one venue. There are mixed opinions about this proposal; however, there is a very high likelihood that an increase in the number of entitlements that could be located in any hotel or club could deliver at least two benefits. First, lifting the venue cap will most certainly provide greater incentive for trading to occur and, secondly, the greater concentration of poker machines in venues—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not going to repeat it again while you talk through it. He wants the thing on the record; he missed it the first time and now he talks through it.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you might also assist the committee by moving your amendment as well.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

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

Page 36, lines 28 to 35 [clause 67(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 16(3)—delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) The Commissioner cannot approve more than 40 gaming machines for operation under a gaming machine licence.

Note—

No more than 10 gaming machines may be operated under a gaming machine licence unless the holder of the licence has notified the Commissioner that the premises are to be a major gaming venue—see section 51AA.

Page 36, lines 36 to 37 [clause 67(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

For the sake of convenience, I will also speak to my proposed amendment 21, which deals with the same issue as these two amendments. Whilst the amendments do not do away with the concept of major and minor venues, they do ensure that the regulatory requirements or numbers that apply to each are more reasonable. Under the government bill there are a number of provisions that minor venues will not be required to comply with if we proceed with the distinction between major and minor venues. That is to say, if minor venues are not subject to the same regulatory requirements as major venues, then it is extremely important that the number of poker machines that they can operate be confined to a lesser amount.

If this is to be the case, then I would argue strongly that minor venues should be capped at no more than 10 poker machines. I understand the AHA is opposed to this amendment on the basis that around half of its members have venues with more than 10 but less than 20 poker machines.

The government is, as I understand it, satisfied that this warrants enough of a justification for not supporting a further reduction. I see it as quite the opposite. It means that half of the hotels out there will not be required to comply with the new regulatory requirements the government has argued so hard over—the same regulatory requirements that we are told are necessary in terms of addressing problem gambling.

The alternative position is to make major and minor venues subject to the same requirements regarding key problem gambling measures, albeit at a later date. For example, precommitment, onscreen messaging, automated risk management, and lower maximum bet limits would apply to all venues, irrespective of size. This is the basis of further amendments that I propose to move.

By the same token, I do not agree with the justifications given by the government for allowing major venues to operate up to 60 machines, especially since problem gamblers are more inclined to gamble at larger venues with more machines. My biggest fear is that such an increase will result in mini casinos operating throughout Adelaide. This goes against everything that the government says it is trying to achieve with this bill.

Coles and Woolworths are the largest operators of poker machines in Australia. According to GetUp!, they own more poker machines than the five largest casinos in Las Vegas. These venues are not going to be set up by struggling clubs. They are going to be set up by two mega conglomerates that already reap enough profit from our communities.

My only comment to the government would be to focus on the real problem. The real problem stems from the fact that these machines pose a real risk not only to problem gamblers but to society as a whole. If you want to address problem gambling then support those measures which will actually make a difference. Capping the number of machines that may be operated in major venues to 40 is definitely a good first step, but there is no question that we need to go further. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to clarify a point with the Hon. Mr Darley. Given the committee has now voted against a series of amendments on major and minor venues, I am not sure how this amendment stands in relation to that. In the note to the new subclause (2), it talks about 'no more than 10 gaming machines may be operated under a gaming machine licence unless the holder has notified that the premises are to be a major gaming venue'.

In the Hon. Mr Darley's explanation it would appear that this amendment is predicated on the basis of having major and minor venues. Given that we voted on that yesterday and removed the major and minor venues—which, whilst this debate goes on, it would be worthwhile seeking clarification—my question is: how does this amendment fit now with the decision of the committee to remove major and minor venues from the structure? I see that as a particular problem.

There is significant overlap between the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment and the amendment that we are moving, in that the Hon. Mr Darley seeks to delete subclause (2), which we do. The next amendment the Hon. Mr Darley has spoken to, which is amendment No. 15, seeks to delete subclause (3), which we do. So, there is consistency there. It would appear—correct me if I am wrong—that the only difference is that we are seeking to delete subclauses (2) and (3) and the Hon. Mr Darley wants to delete subclauses (2) and (3) but he wants now to replace it with a new subclause (2), which still makes some reference to major and minor venues.

The consistency is fine because we both want to get rid of subclauses (2) and (3), which is the 60 provision, but the problem I see in relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment—and nothing prevents the Hon. Mr Darley, obviously, moving it, but the point I am making to the Hon. Mr Darley and to other members is that, given we have taken the decision about major and minor venues being removed (and that was a fairly comprehensive vote yesterday afternoon), this would appear to be inconsistent with that decision.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: What the Hon. Rob Lucas says is quite correct. My major concern is that the requirements for all machines would be the same.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have two or three questions to the minister but, for clarification, could the minister remind the house, when the government brought in legislation for the buyback and the maximum amount of machines that a hotel or a club could have then was 40—there was a reduction. Can the minister tell us the story so that we can recall exactly what occurred then from 40 back to 32, or whether some were still able to have 40? If so, how many licensed premises have 40 or 32? If we can get that clarified. Secondly, how many licensed venues have less than 20 gaming machines in their premises?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the cap remained 40 for all venues after they were mandatorily reduced under the gaming machine entitlements reduction that occurred in 2005, so they remain 40 for all venues. With the venues that had 40 entitlements, of these hotels were reduced by eight to 32. There was no reduction for clubs, and hotels that had 40 were reduced to 32 and are able to purchase entitlements through trading systems to return to a maximum of 40, if they like. I am just getting the figures on those that are less than 20. I am advised that there are 266 with 20 or less.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Will the minister confirm whether or not I am right: during that debate when the decision was made with capping at 40 and those that had 40 coming back to 32 and all of that debate, the one key intent was to take machines out of the marketplace, with the argument being that if there were fewer machines in the marketplace that would assist in preventing vulnerable people becoming addicted to gambling, or gaming in particular. The government's argument was specifically that.

Therefore, the government was saying, 'We can't let things get too big; if we can take machines out of the marketplace then we can help problem gamblers. We'll take out 3,000 and we'll reduce the machines across the board.' That is my understanding of the government's main thrust of that debate, and therefore my question of the minister is: given that that was the thrust of the debate, what has changed between then and now that the government is saying that 60 is the magic number and that many casinos are the way to go for preventing vulnerable gaming? What has changed over those last few years, minister?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: What underpinned the amendments in 2004 was a report from the IGA about gaming machine numbers. The authority's longstanding 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. This underpinned the original recommendation in 2003 and continues to be the authority's view, supported by the evidence taken then by the authority and its ongoing observations. So, it is about gaming machine numbers and venues and there is obviously a policy consistency, we believe, between the two.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could I ask the minister, of the 266 premises that have gaming licences of 20 or less, how many licences are held? How many licences in total are held by those 266 premises?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We will have to take that on notice. We do not have that level of detail with us at the moment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There is a table. I am trying to get it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is available somewhere. We will see if we can get it for you.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I wanted to put on the public record that, based on the information, including the information from the minister then, Family First see no reason why the status quo should not remain. That seems to be the sensible approach to this because we know where the status quo is in the marketplace and the industry and how that works. It is almost a guessing game with what the government is putting forward, as I see it, by going up (with the mini casinos) to 60.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I wanted to put on the record that the Greens previously in this debate supported keeping the numbers at 40 rather than raising them to 60. With regard to minor venues and the definition being lowered from 20 to 10, we are not attracted to that at this stage. I note that the Responsible Gambling Working Party operates with definitions of very small venues, which they define as under 10, and venues between 11 and 20 gaming machines. Those two categories, I think, are considered in their discussions and deliberations about the implementation of both the federal changes and possible state changes as being what I would consider minor venues.

The reason I have asked the minister, for those 266 premises, to list the number of licences is partly to get a sense of how many of those particularly small venues might actually impact on any trading regime getting machines out of the system. I think what we would be doing is putting the onus on those least able to wear it. We have all had correspondence on this bill from the clubs and we know it is the really small venues, the venues that are very much community based, that will be hit the hardest should we change the requirements around what they have to do in terms of the next few years.

Obviously, everyone is going to have to fall in line with the federal changes, and that is as it should be, but I am a bit concerned here that what we are doing is hitting those least able to adapt and forcing them out of the market. It is a market that we have accepted exists and what we are going to do with changing definitions and lowering and putting those extra imposts on the smallest of small venues will mean that they are not able to benefit from those markets.

My questions previously, which the minister partly answered, about the market share of Coles and Woolworths were to be put in contrast with the debates over years. The minister has given me answers to questions raised last night, when I asked whether the advice about moving to what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire calls mini casinos, which we are told comes from some of those in the community sector, was advice that was relevant to a time when Coles and Woolies had increased their market share. Last night, we were given 2010 advice, and today I think we were given 2008 and 2006 advice. I was asking for more current advice; I was asking for advice that went with the contemporary situation in which we find ourselves, where Coles and Woolies and Wesfarmers are moving into this market.

What we are doing, if we lower the number to 10 from 20, is raising the bar on those venues who are not the Coles and Woolies of the world but who are the local footy club, the local netball club, the struggling community clubs, those least able to have that strength in numbers, if you like. I am not sure that that is what we want to be in the business of doing, given that we do have poker machines in this state. That is another debate.

Had we not had them, and had we followed the path of Western Australia, we would be in a very different position. I certainly commend Western Australia for not only standing firm against poker machines but also for ensuring that it has a thriving sport and recreation and live music sector in that state. That is something Western Australians can be proud of, and it is something I wish we had replicated here. I think that what we do, if we hit the smallest players on the head, is hit sport and recreation on the head, and I am not prepared to support that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment; I have already outlined our reasons for that, so I do not need to go into it again. We have found the figures that the Hon. Tammy Franks asked for in relation to the number of entitlements for those machines that were 20 or less, and the total between them is 3,059. That is for 2011-12.

The CHAIR: The question is that subclause (2), as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. Mr Lucas and the Hon. Mr Darley, stand as printed.

The committee divided on the question:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Question thus disagreed to.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The question now becomes that new subclause (2) as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Darley be so inserted.

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

Majority of 11 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: The question now is that subclause (3) as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. Mr Lucas and the Hon. Mr Darley stand as printed.

Question disagreed to; clause as amended passed.

Clause 68.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Minister, we have just learned that the Angle Vale community lost its opposition to the Playford Patriots application to set up a new pokie venue which, if this bill passed, could be 60 machines, not the current 40 limit. My question therefore to the minister is: how many social effect certificates have been required of venues since this passed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There were no social effect certificates issued.

Clause passed.

Clause 69.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The opposition opposes this clause. It is consequential on a vote yesterday afternoon in relation to the major/minor venue issue.

Clause negatived.

Clause 70.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We oppose this clause.

The CHAIR: Is this similar?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is, but I just need to explain it, I guess. The advice I have got, Mr Chairman, is that subclause (1) is definitely directly consequential on the major/minor amendment issue. Subclause (2) is, in my view, also directly consequential, because it is talking about separate requirements for minor venues in terms of closing between 2am and 10am. So, whilst it does raise the issue of the closing hours, given that we are removing the references to major and minor venues, it would appear to be directly consequential on the major/minor venues amendments. I am interested in the government's response to that. If they accept that this is directly consequential I will just put it as it is. If not, it may well be that you and the government would prefer to put subclause (1) and subclause (2) separately. The minister is nodding and saying she accepts it is consequential, and that is certainly my advice.

Clause negatived.

Clause 71 passed.

Clause 72.

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

Page 37, after line 31 [clause 72, inserted section 27AAB]—

Section 27AAB—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, the gaming machine entitlements assigned by the Commissioner under subsection (1) are not transferrable under section 27B.

This is a separate issue. I think it is the only amendment that relates to this issue and I stand corrected on that. It is an issue that the member for Davenport referred to in his contribution in the House of Assembly and I referred to it briefly in my second reading contribution as well. The drafting note provided to me indicates that this amendment provides for the Casino to be granted entitlements, but that they cannot be sold in the approved trading system.

The government's position is—although it is for the government to outline its reasons—that the Casino is to be granted, in essence, additional entitlements or rights which it did not have prior to the possible passage of this particular legislation.

The advice that the member for Davenport has given me is as follows: that on 19 December 2012, the Casino announced an up to $350 million expansion based on agreement being reached with the government. The Casino currently has 995 gaming machines under one entitlement and they therefore cannot be traded. I think that is the important point. The current arrangements are that they have 995 gaming machines under one entitlement and they therefore cannot be traded. Therefore, they do not have any value. I should not say they do not have any value, but they do not have 995 tradeable values I guess is the best way of putting that.

The bill and the government's position seeks to gift the Casino an entitlement for each of its existing 995 machines to increase its entitlements up to 1,500. That is an increase of 505 entitlements. These 505 extra entitlements have to be purchased through the market, through clubs and pubs. However, as part of the agreement, if the 505 entitlements are not purchased by a certain date, then the government has agreed to sell the Casino 300 entitlements for their VIP room at a set price which has not been disclosed, the government says, for commercial reasons and any sold by the government for the VIP area are not tradeable.

So the issue for the government to explain is why they needed to, in essence, gift to the Casino the opportunity to be able to sell their 995 machines—it is highly unlikely that they are going to.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Coles.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Coles Casino! I am not sure why just Coles and you do not put Woolworths in there as well, Mr Brokenshire. The arrangement, which appears to have worked quite satisfactorily for however long we have had the Casino, is that they had these 995 machines with the one entitlement. It was never a problem raised with us by the Casino, whether we were in government or in opposition, and the government, for whatever reason, has decided to gift this additional entitlement to the Casino.

The member for Davenport has raised this issue with the Casino and the member for Davenport's advice to me is that the Casino said this was not an issue that they, the Casino, raised with the government. Whilst I am sure the Casino would be happy to see the government's bill go through, they have also said that they have no problem if a bill goes through with this provision being removed. Certainly, they have indicated to the Liberal Party that they do not see this provision being removed as in some way threatening the proposed redevelopment of the site.

As members know, the Liberal Party's position is that we want to see the Casino redevelopment go through. The member for Davenport has explicitly had discussions with the Casino whereby, should the parliament remove this provision, would this be claimed as a reason not to proceed with the Casino redevelopment, and the Casino has said that, no, that would not be the case and it was not an issue that they had raised with the government.

This is a discrete and separate issue. It is really an issue of whether or not, as part of this deal, we believe we should gift this extra entitlement or entitlements to the Casino. The position the Liberal Party is putting is that the rest of the deal is a very attractive deal for the Casino in terms of tax rates and other provisions that are there. This is an additional part of the deal that we do not believe is required or should be supported.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to support this amendment. We accept that there is concern in both houses about the current drafting of this bill about the initial 995 gaming machine entitlements to be granted to the Adelaide Casino. While it is not anticipated that the Adelaide Casino would seek to sell entitlements provided as an initial grant through the approved trading system, the government is willing to accept an amendment that makes it clear that entitlements provided as the initial grant are non-transferrable, other than with the transfer of the licence under the Casino Act.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 38, lines 1 to 21 [inserted section 27AAC(2)]—Delete subsection (2)

As alluded to earlier, the bill seeks to establish a statewide cap on gaming machine entitlements that covers all gaming sector venues, including the Adelaide Casino. As part of this agreement the Casino will be required to purchase additional gaming machine entitlements through the approved trading system. However, if agreed targets for the Casino obtaining gaming machines are not achieved, then the government can provide these entitlements directly to the Casino. Gaming machine entitlements obtained this way are not transferrable outside of the Adelaide Casino and can only be used in premium gambling areas. This amendment prevents the commissioner from issuing the Casino extra entitlements for premium gaming if those entitlements cannot be obtained through the existing trading system.

It is useful in this context to consider very briefly the background into gaming machine numbers in this state. A freeze on the number and location of gaming machines in South Australia was first imposed in December of 2000. That freeze was due to expire on 31 May 2003 unless parliament legislated otherwise. In 2002, the Independent Gambling Authority recommended that, as a first measure, 3,000 gaming machines be removed from the system and that there be a cap on the number of gaming machines in South Australia fixed initially at 12,000, down from 15,000, so a reduction of 20 per cent.

If the prevalence of problem gambling did not reduce within 18 months, then further reductions would be necessary. In response to the recommendations in December 2004, the government introduced a number of changes to the Gaming Machines Act, with a view to reducing by 3,000 the number of gaming machines operating in South Australia. Early the next year all existing gaming machine licences were issued with a number of entitlements according to the approved number of gaming machines they held. Prior to this, the ability to operate gaming machines was determined by the approved number of gaming machines authorised under the gaming machine licence.

In 2011 the Gaming Machines Act was further amended to remove the fixed price for gaming machine entitlements. Regulations for a new approved trading system for gaming machine entitlements were introduced in July 2011. Under the approved trading system buyers are able to specify the maximum price they are willing to pay per gaming machine entitlement, and sellers are able to specify the minimum price they are willing to receive per gaming machine entitlement.

The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner held the first trading day in June 2012. As a result of that trading round, 81 entitlements were sold, 13 entitlements were cancelled, seven entitlements were transferred to Club One, 61 entitlements were allocated to new venues and the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated in South Australia was reduced from 12,900 to 12,887. In terms of actual gaming machines, the net affect was a reduction of some 13 machines.

The second trading round was held in January 2013. As a result of that trading round, 116 entitlements were sold, 26 entitlements were cancelled and three entitlements were transferred to Club One, reducing the total number of machines operating in South Australia from 12,887 to 12,861. Again, in terms of actual gaming machines, the net effect was a reduction of some 26 machines. The most recent trading round was held in June of this year. That resulted in 57 entitlements being sold, six entitlements being cancelled and nine entitlements being transferred to Club One, reducing the total number of machines operating in South Australia from 12,861 to 12,856.

Since the current trading system began in June of last year, a total of 254 entitlements have been sold and 45 entitlements have been cancelled. In terms of net effect, the total number of gaming machines that may be operated in South Australia has reduced from 12,900 to 12,856. Over a 12-month period we have managed to reduce the number of gaming machines by a measly 44—that is 44 machines out of a target of 814 entitlements over one year, so about 5 per cent.

In 2000 we had some 15,086 gaming machines in South Australia. In nine years we have only managed to reduce that number by 2,230. We still have another 770 to go to reach the government's target of 3,000 trumpeted in 2004. Bear in mind also that section 27E of the Gaming Machines Act provides that it is not intended to further reduce the number of gaming machines beyond the one-in-four forfeiture of gaming machine entitlements traded from the for-profit sector before 30 June 2014.

The one-in-four forfeiture of entitlements means that of every four entitlements sold from the for-profit sector, three are transferred to purchasers and one is cancelled until the government's objective of 3,000 reduction in gaming machines is achieved. At this rate it could take years to reach the government's target of 3,000. I remind honourable members that in 2002, when the IGA considered the management of gaming machine numbers in this jurisdiction, it provided that, if the prevalence of problem gambling did not reduce within 18 months (that is, from 2004), then further reductions would be necessary. There is absolutely no question that the prevalence of problem gambling has increased significantly. There is no question that the number of individuals with a gambling addiction has increased significantly, yet here we are being asked to increase, at least in the short term, the number of poker machines in the state.

On the issue of the Casino, it currently operates 995 poker machines. As part of its agreement with the government that number will, as I understand it, increase to 1,500, with most of those additional machines to be operated in the proposed premium gaming areas. That is an increase of 505 poker machines for the Casino. Again, the bill provides the Casino with the ability to obtain 300 of the 505 additional poker machine entitlements directly from the government without having to go through the trading system. Those machines would not be transferrable and the Casino would only be allowed to operate them in premium gaming areas.

There is absolutely no reason why the Casino ought to be able to obtain entitlements outside of the trading system. Any such proposal flies in the face of the government's targeted reduction of poker machines and, more particularly, its claim that this bill will, in its current form, address problem gambling. I will admit that I do not think reaching the target of 3,000 or allowing the Casino to have additional machines will address problem gambling, but I certainly do not think we should be supporting any measure that allows that number to be increased, even if it is only a short-term increase.

On that note, I would ask the minister to confirm in her response to this amendment what steps the Casino will have to go through to establish that they have endeavoured to obtain the additional entitlements through the trading system before any decision is made to provide it with additional entitlements. I also foreshadow that if this amendment is not supported, and once again I am not holding my breath, I will be moving an alternative amendment aimed at ensuring that any entitlements issued to the Casino outside of the trading system are to be issued only if the authority is satisfied that the Casino has made reasonable efforts to meet the targets specified in the approved licensing agreement. This is not my preferred approach, but I suspect that it may be the only option available to those of us who are concerned about what the government is proposing through this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. It is the government's policy that the Adelaide Casino should purchase all of its entitlements through the approved trading system. SkyCity intends to make significant investment, transforming the Adelaide Casino into an integrated entertainment complex. It is underpinned by certain assumptions about its right to operate gaming machines. The purpose of this provision is to deal with the possibility that the approved trading system may not deliver sufficient gaming machine entitlements at a reasonable price and time frame. If this amendment is not opposed it would place significant additional risk on the Adelaide Casino project, which would alter SkyCity's view about the investment. I am working on an answer to your other question and I will get back to you, if I can.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party is not supporting this particular amendment. We would be interested to clarify: the minister gave a response to a question I asked yesterday about the time frame within which the Casino had to make its genuine endeavours to purchase the machines. My recollection is that it was either 2015 or 2016. So, I would ask if the minister could confirm again that particular date. The other issue related to that is when the government would envisage, if this bill goes through parliament this week, the potential trading rounds under the new regime might be able to commence.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the questions of the Hon. John Darley, in terms of time frame I am advised that it is 30 June 2016. The price remains commercial-in-confidence because of the potential to influence the approved trading system and completely upset the whole marketplace.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister, but I want to place on the record that we do not actually like the way this has been proposed. I did put to the government—but I was knocked back—that it would have been good for the community of South Australia if Club One and/or Clubs SA could have had an opportunity to put up the machines that they have out there that are surplus at this point in time, or are leased to hotels or the Casino, for management and partnership, with a profit-share arrangement going back to clubs to support the inadequate funding of sporting clubs.

Unfortunately, the government did not seem to have any interest in that at all, as in taking that up to the Casino, and just dismissed it, as the Casino wanted to get its own machines. That made me even more concerned about whether we have done a good enough job here in this parliament to ensure that they are going to use their best endeavours to buy the machines out of the marketplace, or are they are going to get into a go-slow mode, knowing full well that they will get their 300 machines into the VIP section in any case?

Can the minister advise the committee whether the government is absolutely confident that it has enough checks and balances in this to ensure that the Casino is going to be forced, wherever possible, to buy these machines out of the marketplace? We found out yesterday that, at best, we will see only 125 machines traded out of the overall numbers over a four-year period, I think.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, we are confident.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister was taking advice on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's questions when I put part of my question. I think she has answered the issue about the time period being 30 June 2016, but, should the bill pass the parliament in this last sitting week before the coming break, when do government advisers envisage the first trading rounds under the new regime being able to commence? Will they be able to commence before the end of this year or are we talking about early next year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that if we are able to get it through and completed in both houses this week, we anticipate that the first trading round could commence in January 2014.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It would appear to be about five months or so after the passage of legislation through the parliament. Can the minister indicate what the government's intention is in terms of the number of trading rounds? They have been few and far between over the last few years, as I think the Hon. Mr Darley catalogued. Does the government have in mind a proposed approximate number of trading rounds per year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that under the regulations the trading rounds are anticipated by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, so basically it is up to that person. However, I am advised that we anticipate at least two a year.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only other comment I will make I guess in part comments on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's contribution and the Hon. Mr Darley's question. From the Liberal Party's viewpoint, we understand the position in relation to being unable to reveal the price the Casino deal has been pitched at because of the commercial arrangements. I guess that if, post March 2014, we are in the fortunate position that the government changes, we will have an opportunity to see the nature of the deal struck by this particular government.

Certainly, speaking conceptually, in terms of whether or not the Casino, in essence and in good faith, participates in the trading rounds—that is, it would seem to make sense that hopefully Treasury has negotiated a price which is pitched at a penalty rate to something a little bit above whatever the average of a trading round might be, that there is an incentive for the Casino to participate in the trading round because it might think that it is in its commercial interest to get them earlier (which it should be, given that it has advised the Stock Exchange that it is going to have this number of machines, etc.), and clearly the sooner it can get them it is in its commercial interests to get them. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire should bear that in mind in terms of the commercial interests of the Casino. If it they just sit fat, dumb and mute to 30 June 2016 to pick up el cheapo entitlements at 30 June they do lose significant commercial trading advantage for the period between now and 30 June 2016.

Equally, one would hope that there is some sort of penalty encouragement so that if it was negotiated at a price which was pitched at a level above whatever it is that they are able to achieve in an average trading round or something like that, that would give them an incentive to get in there and purchase as many of these within the particular trading period.

There are difficulties with that. Certainly from the opposition we understand that ultimately you have to settle on one particular price (whatever that might be) and you are trying to predict a market. As I think I indicated yesterday, the government's best advice when all this was set up was that their model was the best. They pitched a fixed price. There were a number of us who moved amendments and argued the case that they did not understand the market and the trading would not work on the basis of the trading model that they had put together. Eight or nine years later we now know that the best advice they had at the time was wrong in terms of how the trading would work. Nothing is perfect; we accept that. However, whatever advice the government had at that stage was wrong. We hope the advice they have on this particular occasion is more soundly based and more commercially based.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Further to that, my question to the minister was: first, with respect to the trading rounds, it is fair to say that they have been pretty dismal in terms of success. I have constituents who are very keen to sell poker machines but have been frustrated by the processes of the trading rounds. The family is now under pressure because the trading rounds are announced and then they are dropped off and then reannounced—months drag on.

Given that this bill, from a Casino point of view, goes through the parliament this week and then it is a green flag for the Casino to spend the $300 million and build its expansion and get on with the purchasing of the 500 machines, has the government or will the government consider changing so that anyone who has an entitlement and wants to put a machine on the market over that period in which the Casino have to purchase these machines before they can go to the government and say, 'Well, we weren't able to purchase them,' to just have a process set up so that people can put machines on the market at any time rather than just at trading rounds? Has the government done anything like that?

I know, having had a chat with them, that the AHA do not see it as the best way of marketing entitlements, as the government is doing it at the moment. I certainly know from one hotelier the incredible frustrations. Has the government considered that? It would be a win for those people who want to trade and satisfy their banks, etc., and also give the Casino a better chance of being able to get its best possible, hopefully, 505 out of the marketplace? That is my first question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the problem facing the approved trading system is one of excess supply of gaming machine entitlements (that is, that there are more sellers than buyers). I am advised that no change in the trading model would help overcome this fundamental problem. Basically, the reason that we need trading rounds is in an effort to pool machines so that we meet a one-in-four forfeiture requirement. If we did not do that, it is doubtful that we would be able to gain that one-in-four forfeiture access.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not personally buy that argument; I think that is a pup being sold, but anyway we will move on in the interest of time. Without breaching commercial-in-confidence, can the minister assure the house that there is, within the contractual arrangements with the Casino, a figure specified if the government does actually have to provide additional machines? Again, without breaching commercial-in-confidence, can the government advise the house whether or not they are confident that that figure is a sufficient figure to ensure the Casino do use their best endeavours to buy out of the marketplace in the interim period?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that yes, there is a figure, and yes, we are confident.

Amendment negatived.

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

Page 38, after line 21 [clause 72, inserted section 27AAC]—After subsection (2) insert:

(2a) However, the holder of the casino licence must not be assigned any gaming machine entitlements in accordance with provisions of the approved licensing agreement referred to in subsection (2)(c) unless the Authority notifies the Commissioner, in writing, that the Authority is satisfied that the holder of the casino licence has made reasonable efforts to meet the targets specified in the approved licensing agreement in accordance with subsection (2)(a).

As previously foreshadowed, this amendment provides that the Casino must not be assigned any gaming machine entitlements, in accordance with the provisions of the approved licensing agreement, that are outside the trading system unless the authority notifies the commissioner that it is satisfied that the holder of the Casino licence has made reasonable efforts to meet the targets specified in the approved licensing agreement.

In short, it requires the authority to confirm that the Casino has made a bona fide attempt to obtain its entitlements via the trading system. If the authority is not satisfied, the Casino does not get its additional entitlements. As I mentioned previously, this is not the preferred option in terms of dealing with this issue. That said, I am confident that the authority is best equipped in terms of overseeing this process and ensuring that the Casino acts reasonably and appropriately. I ask all honourable members to support this alternative position.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The government does not consider that this amendment is necessary. The approved licensing agreement will provide for specific measurable targets against which SkyCity will be assessed.

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

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I can count, but I still want to put on the public record that the Family First Party will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Likewise, I can count, but for the record, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If everyone else is doing it, the Greens will put on record that we support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Mr Darley, will you be proceeding with your next amendment?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No, Mr Chairman.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 73 and 74 passed.

Clause 75.

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

Page 39, lines 21 to 24 [clause 75(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

Section 27C of the Gaming Machines Act deals with premises to which gaming machine entitlements relate. It is under these provisions that Club One is able to park its entitlements. Basically, section 27C(3) provides that the commissioner may approve the acquisition of gaming machine entitlements by Club One on the basis that the entitlements will be subsequently allocated to licensed premises with the commissioner's approval.

Subsection (4) provides that the commissioner may approve the reallocation by Club One of gaming machine entitlements from one set of licensed premises to another, but gaming machine entitlements allocated to premises in respect of which Club One itself holds a gaming machine licence cannot be reallocated under this subsection.

The government bill aims to broaden these two provisions, thereby enabling Club One to allocate entitlements to a gaming area within the Casino, as well as to licensed premises. The effect of these provisions is that they can be used by the Casino to lease gaming machine entitlements. If the Casino wants more entitlements, it should purchase them through the trading system. I ask all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The parliament established this special club licence, Club One, in its 2004 amendments to the Gaming Machines Act. The proposed Club One was established to support the sustainability of licensed community and sporting clubs. The 2004 amendments included provisions that would result in one in four gaming machine entitlements sold by licensed clubs through the approved trading system being forfeited and assigned to Club One; thus, gaming machine entitlements are the key asset for Club One.

The 2004 amendments allowed Club One to place its entitlements in clubs and hotels. This allowed Club One to make decisions that would maximise its revenue to the benefit of community and sporting clubs. The bill adopts a similar approach and allows Club One to place its entitlements in the Adelaide Casino. If a commercial arrangement can be concluded, the proposed amendment would remove this flexibility.

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

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 75A.

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

Page 39, after line 24—After clause 75 insert:

75A—Substitution of section 27E

Delete section 27E and substitute:

27E—Target for reduction in gaming machine numbers

(1) If, by the prescribed day, less than 3,000 gaming machine entitlements have been surrendered to the Crown under the approved trading system since the commencement of this Division, the Commissioner must conduct a ballot to select gaming machine entitlements to be surrendered in accordance with this section.

(2) The ballot must—

(a) be conducted in such manner that each gaming machine entitlement has an equal chance of being selected for surrender in any given draw (and be conducted in accordance with any requirements prescribed by the regulations); and

(b) result in a number of entitlements being selected for surrender equal to the difference between 3,000 and the number of gaming machine entitlements surrendered to the Crown under the approved trading system since the commencement of this Division.

(3) The Commissioner must, by notice in writing to the holder of a gaming machine entitlement selected for surrender in accordance with this section, advise the holder of the day on which the entitlement will be cancelled (in accordance with subsection (4)).

(4) The Commissioner must 14 days after giving notice in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to surrender of an entitlement, cancel the entitlement.

(5) In this section—

prescribed day means the day falling 2 years after the commencement of section 72 of this Act, as enacted by the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Act 2013.

At the risk of repeating myself during the debate on previous clauses, I explain that, since the trading system began in June of last year, a total of 254 entitlements have been sold and 45 entitlements cancelled. It has taken us nine years to reduce the total number of poker machines by 2,230 and we still have another 770 to go. It should be clear to all of us now that reaching the target of 3,000 is looking impossible unless there is some sort of directed approach on this matter.

The aim of this amendment is just that: it provides that, if the target of 3,000 has not been reached within the given time frame, the commissioner will be responsible for conducting a ballot to select gaming machine entitlements to be surrendered in accordance with the following process: firstly, a ballot must be conducted in such manner that each gaming machine entitlement has an equal chance of being selected for surrender in any give draw and, secondly, it must result in a number of entitlements being selected for surrender equal to the difference between 3,000 and the number of gaming machine entitlements surrendered to the Crown under the approved trading system.

The time for meaningless rhetoric is well and truly over. Nothing has improved since 2011, and I hasten to say that nothing will improve if this bill passes in its current form. If this government is serious about reducing the number of poker machines in this state, it needs to adopt an alternative approach which actually achieves that purpose. This amendment provides that opportunity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a similar amendment to this, but the general intent of what the Hon. John Darley is aiming to do—whilst we believe there is a better way to do it than a ballot— we support the intent and therefore will support the amendment and test it.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Likewise, I am supporting the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government is opposing this amendment. The government strongly supports the underlying intent of the amendment. However, the government wants to accelerate the reduction in the number of gaming machine entitlements. The difference is that the government also wants to encourage the reduction in the number of venues. The trading rounds already show a persistent excess supply in gaming machine entitlements, signifying that there are venues that want to exit from the industry but cannot.

Applying a threat of a further mandatory reduction will not change the underlying problem of excess supply but will penalise those venues that want to exit in a couple of ways: first, it does nothing to create the demand necessary to eliminate excess supply, forcing the venues to hold on to gaming machine entitlements that they wish to sell for another two years and, secondly, it has the potential to remove entitlements without compensation from those venues wishing to exit.

The best way to reduce gaming machine entitlements and to provide compensation to venues that exit the industry, which can be reinvested, is to maintain the current approved trading system and to fix the fundamental excess supply problem.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party does not support the amendment either, I guess from two points; one is that we think that this would be manifestly unfair in terms of the way it is approached, given that it is just a random ballot and, as the minister has just indicated, potentially, or perhaps intended to be, without compensation. I was contemplating this this morning: I assume also that this would leave untouched the Casino's entitlements and that these would be mandatorily required on a random basis from the pubs and clubs.

Perhaps I will put that question to the Hon. Mr Darley. I assume, given that there will be a commercial contract with the Casino, that these mandatory acquisitions on a random basis would be just from those that the pubs and clubs have, or does the Hon. Mr Darley intend in some way for the Casino's allocation to be similarly impacted?

The Hon. J.A. Darley interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst I can understand that, because there is a commercial and contractual arrangement with the Casino, I suspect that the pubs and clubs would be mightily miffed if they were to lose, on a compulsory acquisition basis with no compensation, assets and entitlements they have, borrowings they have engaged in on a commercial basis or family-owned businesses.

Whilst I understand that Coles and Woolworths, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire reminds us, have 10 per cent of the market, there is another 90 per cent of people out there; some of those, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has conceded, are smaller family-operated businesses. They would have entered into borrowings to finance their businesses, and then we would have the government compulsorily acquiring some of their assets, with no compensation. It is not a regime that, certainly from our viewpoint, we would be comfortable with.

The second point I make, which again is a more personal reflection as outlined earlier, is this notion that 3,000 is in some way an evidence-based claim as to reduce problem gambling: it is just fanciful nonsense. No-one ever produced hard evidence as to why the number of 3,000 was ever plucked out of the air. It suited the premier and the government of the day to have a number. It needed to be sufficiently big enough to guarantee a media headline and a media hit, and the number of 3,000 was plucked out of the air.

The Independent Gambling Authority at varying stages has been supportive of it, but again it has not produced any hard evidence to demonstrate that a reduction of 3,000 would actually have an impact. A significant part of the 3,000, which was achieved very quickly (this reduction of 40 to 32), in the end had no significant impact on problem gambling anyway because, if you look at the venues, there are always the very popular machines, the moderately popular machines and some machines that are hardly used at all.

Most of the venue operators were able to negotiate arrangements where they managed to generate out of their 32 machines almost the same amount of revenue as the 40 machines in the first place, so we did not really see any significant impact on net gaming revenue as a result of those particular changes. We certainly have not seen any impact on the number of problem gamblers, putting aside the issue of net gaming revenue, which obviously impacts on 99.6 per cent of recreational gamblers and 0.4 per cent of problem gamblers. From that viewpoint, there is no evidence at all in relation to this fact that 3,000 was going to lead to a reduction in problem gamblers.

The fact that we dropped to whatever the number was—2,200-ish or 2,300 or something—relatively quickly (and this is all about trying to get back up to the 3,000), as if, if we get to the 3,000, that will do something.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Michael Wright said it would.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, and former premier Rann said it—but you know what I think of the validity of claims made by former premier Rann, current Premier Weatherill or former minister Wright, with the greatest of respect. I would not be placing any great reliance on their claims in terms of the impact on problem gambling.

So, we dropped by 2,300. The Hon. Mr Darley and those who support the particular view say that, in their view—there is no hard evidence for this—that problem gambling has increased significantly since that has occurred. I do not think you can have it both ways—you can try to have it both ways—but I am saying that there has been this drop of 2,200 or 2,300, yet the argument is that there has continued to be a significant increase in problem gambling.

I do not accept the second part of that premise, but that is certainly the argument from the concerned sector—the Hon. Mr Xenophon. I have heard that parroted on for a decade or more, in relation to this particular issue. There was this big reduction of 2,200 or 2,300 and yet the claim is that it is getting worse and worse. If we take another 600 or 700 out through this particular mechanism, where is the evidence to say that is going to do anything at all in relation to problem gambling? Ministers in this chamber say, in relation to the water issue and other issues, 'We are only going to make decisions on an evidence basis.' I take that with a grain of salt as well. Where is the evidence for these particular changes? For those reasons, the Liberal Party is not supporting this particular package of amendments.

New clause negatived.

New clause 75A.

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

Page 39, after line 24—After clause 75 insert:

75A—Substitution of section 27E

Section 27E—delete the section and substitute:

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

(1) It is the intention of Parliament that, by the prescribed day, there be a reduction of 3,000 gaming machines from the number of gaming machines approved for operation under this Act immediately before the commencement of section 27A.

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

(3) In this section—

prescribed day means the day falling 2 years after the commencement of section 72 of this Act, as enacted by the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Act 2013.

With your indulgence, sir, I will speak briefly to the amendment but advise the council that I have asked for parliamentary counsel to redraft this and I would seek to recommit it at the end. The reason being that I was of the understanding that with buyback the club situation had been different to that of the hotel situation, whereby their entitlements were that one in four went to Club One, and that was still to be the intent with this amendment. So, I advise the council of that. I have asked that it be redrawn to ensure that is the case.

I have just been advised that whilst that did occur initially it has changed now. I understand that clubs are in the same situation as hotels. That is not the intent of what we want with this amendment because clubs are not-for-profit, they invest their money back into communities, families and sporting clubs to address health issues and social benefit issues. So, I just advise you of that, Mr Chairman. I will speak briefly as to why we are moving this amendment. It is a pretty simple reason.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sorry; your redrafted amendment is going to, what, just take the machines off the hotels. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes. Everyone must be fairly confused because back in 2004 the then minister, on behalf of the government, said, 'We had to get 3,000 machines out of the marketplace', and, contrary to the Hon. Rob Lucas's strong performance earlier, that was supposed to be the panacea to address vulnerable people when it came to preventing them from becoming addicted to gaming.

We were actually promised—and I well remember the debate, I also remember the comments from the government in the media—that we would see these 3,000 machines removed quite quickly. That was the commitment from the government. Well, 'quite quickly' is now nine years and at this point in time there are somewhere between 750 and 800 machines still to be removed. From the debate and information given to the council yesterday, at best we are only going to see 125 machines removed in the next four years.

So, at best, there are still going to be something like 550 to 575 machines in the marketplace. I might add that the majority of members of parliament in both houses back then supported the legislation on the basis of the removal quickly. I think there has to be a time when you say enough is enough and you have to implement a situation to get those machines out of the marketplace. Notwithstanding what I have just said, the government has contradicted itself. On the one hand it has said that it will help problem gamblers and will get machines out of the marketplace by setting up the mini casinos—and that is actually evidence—but on the other hand, yesterday the government said that the staff in small venues actually did a really good job in looking after problem gamblers. So, frankly, I have no idea where the government is on this. That is why am I moving this amendment, because I believe we have to put a time line there.

Obviously, people have to be compensated. The government is the government, and it can bring in other initiatives to speed up the process, and it has an opportunity now to do that. However, in summary, this clause provides that after a sunset period, two years after the commencement of section 72 of this act, the independent commissioner and the Independent Gaming Authority would have to implement procedures to ensure that those machines are acquired and paid for. We cannot expect them to be pulled away without compensation, and the government has to budget for that. Finally, some 11 or 12 years later, we would ultimately get some 3,000 machines out of the marketplace.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. As I have stated previously, the government's preferred approach to accelerating the reduction of gaming machine entitlements is to continue the voluntary approved trading system and to address the problem of excess supply by stimulating demand. This amendment would see the government purchasing gaming machine entitlements from licensees. The cost of this scheme to the government would need to be funded either by increasing taxes or reducing government services, and it is estimated that the cost would be more than $28 million, based on the current sale price and reduction target. For these reasons the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At least in relation to this a compensation aspect is contemplated. One of the issues with the earlier amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley was, as I said, that businesses that have geared themselves, borrowed and made an investment would potentially lose a significant part of the value of their business through a compulsory acquisition at no price. I was surprised that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would support an amendment on that basis, particularly as he had an alternative amendment that at least canvassed compensation. It is an interesting principle that has been established, but I am surprised that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire supported that.

I guess the other difference between this and the previous amendment is that this amendment still canvasses taking machines from pubs and clubs, but the Hon. Mr Brokenshire says that in the end his intent on a recommittal would be to take them just from pubs. I can see that that is consistent with his position in relation to not impacting on the clubs industry, and I acknowledge that, but with the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, when I asked the Hon. Mr Darley whether the Casino was involved or whether it was just the clubs and pubs, he said that he was taking it compulsorily from both the pubs and clubs. Again, I was surprised that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire supported that, because it was an explicit question put to the Hon. Mr Darley, whether he was taking it from the clubs, and he—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It was the principle of getting the machines out, but not the clubs, because the numbers would show—Liberal and Labor were together on it—that it was going to get knocked out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But as I said, I would have thought that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would have had, from his viewpoint, a quantifiably more defensible amendment that he has flagged; that is, not to impact on the clubs and to at least canvass the issue of compensation. The Hon. Mr Darley's amendment was, in essence, to impact on the clubs as well as the pubs. For similar reasons as I have outlined regarding why we could not support the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, we will not support the amendment that we are voting on now, nor any foreshadowed amendment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, should he pursue it on a recommittal.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 76 to 91 passed.

Clause 92.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I do not propose to move my amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We oppose this clause. This is consequential on the earlier issue of major/minor venue amendments.

Clause negatived.

Clause 93 passed.

Clause 94.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is my understanding that the minister is going to make a statement, so I am advised by the member for Davenport, which has been negotiated with the minister in charge of the bill. My understanding is that that statement, should it be made, is acceptable to both the ATM industry and the Liberal Party. In that set of circumstances we would not proceed with the amendment that we have flagged.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These were comments included in clause 1 but for neatness of the record I will put them in this part of Hansard as well. These are comments in relation to amendments to the automatic teller machines. Some councillors have noted during debate that the new commonwealth gaming machine laws have added another layer of complexity for compliance for the industry. The government has received information from the ATM industry about compliance with the measures that the bill proposes as part of the ATM industry's ongoing diligence to ensure that it continues to meet its legal obligations in South Australia.

The bill provides for the repeal of existing provisions that are incompatible with the commonwealth's ATM regulations and replaces it with the power for the Governor to make regulations that prescribe withdrawal limits for cash facilities including ATMs. This means the existing $200 per withdrawal limit for transactions involving ATMs at gaming venues will cease to exist.

It is the government's intention to only prescribe a $200 per transaction limit for EFTPOS. This represents the current operational practice in the gaming sector. No limit will be prescribed for ATMs. This will remove the possibility of incompatibility between the commonwealth and South Australian regulatory regimes. The effect is that the ATM withdrawal limit in South Australia will be set under the commonwealth gaming regulation at a limit of $250 per card per 24-hour period at ATMs which are located in club and hotel venues. The government will prepare draft regulations for consultation with the industry well in advance of the commonwealth's commencement date of 1 February 2014, with the objective of making the regulations in October, for concurrent commencement on 1 February 2014.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that and, on the basis of that statement from the minister as to the government's intention, I withdraw the amendment standing in my name to this clause.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman, I will not be moving my amendment.

Clause passed.

Clause 95 passed.

Clause 96.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman, I am withdrawing my amendment No. 23.

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

Page 46, lines 26 to 27 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(2)]—Delete:

'in respect of a major gaming venue must not' and substitute:

must not, on or after the prescribed day,

This is a consequential amendment on the major and minor amendments that have already been passed. It also provides for commencement of automated risk monitoring at the same time as federal precommitment. Again, that is consequential on an earlier amendment that has passed in this chamber.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I just have a very brief contribution on clause 96, particularly as it pertains to maximum bets, which was an issue of some contention last evening. There is one very brief point I just want to raise in terms of the Liberals' approach to the concept of maximum bets. As members would be aware, the Liberals supported a $10 maximum bet; the government wished to have $5; and myself, Mr Darley, the Greens and Family First (unless I have that wrong), were supportive of $1 maximum bets.

The Hon. Mr Lucas got up in this place last night and said there was no point supporting a decrease in maximum bets because it would have no impact on gambling or problem gambling whatsoever. One of the issues he used to support that claim was that he believed that the introduction of plain packaging had no impact on the prevalence of smoking.

I thought Mr Lucas, as well as other members of the chamber, might be interested to know that a member of my staff is a very keen reader of the Medical Observer, and one of the articles in that just today was entitled 'Plain-packaged ciggies increase urgency to quit'. The article states:

Plain-pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were of poorer quality compared with a year earlier and were 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying.

They were also 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the previous week and to rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives compared to smokers of brand packs.

I think that goes to show that perhaps the Hon. Mr Lucas needs to develop his own addiction to research.

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

Page 46, lines 31 to 39 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(3) and (4)]—Delete subsections (3) and (4)

This is a consequential amendment based on a decision taken earlier in relation to the precommitment debate.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you also have an amendment, are you proceeding with that one?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No sir.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 47, lines 1 to 2 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(5)]—Delete:

'in respect of a major gaming venue must not' and substitute:

must not, on or after the prescribed day,

This is consequential on earlier major and minor amendments, and also the earlier amendment in relation to federal precommitment and onscreen messages. It is consequential.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you will not be proceeding with yours?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No, Mr Chairman.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 47, lines 5 to 6 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(6)]—Delete 'in respect of a major gaming venue'

This is a consequential amendment.

The CHAIR: I am sure we all agree that it is consequential. The Hon. Mr Darley?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 47, line 7 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(6)]—Delete '$5' and substitute '$10'

I think we have had this debate, and I do not intend to repeat the argument. I am not sure, again, what the process of voting on this was. What happened last time, as the minister will recall, is that in the end we wiped everything out and there is nothing there, and we are now going to await recommittal.

I am assuming it is the table's advice that if we go that way, we are likely to end up with the same process. If that is the case, from our viewpoint it would prevent a whole series of divisions. From our viewpoint, we see this as the same position as the debate we had yesterday; that is, there was not majority support for the government position of $5, there was not majority support for the Liberal Party position of $10, and there was not majority support for the Hon. Mr Darley's position of $1. I think we might have had two divisions to sort that out yesterday.

From our viewpoint, we are relaxed about doing whatever is required if it assists the committee to, in essence, agree that if we are not going to get agreement on the number we wipe everything out (if that is what it is) and then will have to decide between $5 and $10 on recommittal. But that is just my suggestion to the committee. It is entirely up to the minister and the committee and, indeed, you, Mr Chairman, as to how we might proceed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas; this issue has not been resolved further to yesterday's debate, so I think there would be little use in going through it all again. The government intends to recommit the appropriate clause, and we need to enter into negotiations and see if we cannot land on a resolution at a later date.

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

Page 47, line 7 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(6)]—Delete '$5' and substitute '$1'

This is a consequential amendment.

The CHAIR: The first question is that '$5' in line 7 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. Mr Lucas and the Hon. Mr Darley stand as printed.

Question disagreed to.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment negatived; the Hon. J.A. Darley's amendment negatived.

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

Page 47, lines 9 to 22 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(7) and (8)]—Delete subsections (7) and (8)

This is consequential on the earlier major/minor venues vote.

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

Page 47, lines 21 to 22 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(8)]—Delete 'if the gaming machine was lawfully being provided by the licensee immediately before the prescribed day' and substitute:

if—

(a) the gaming machine was lawfully being provided by the licensee immediately before the prescribed day; and

(b) the gaming machine has not been modified, in any way, on or after the prescribed day.

Subclauses (7) and (8) prevent the holder of a gaming machine licence in respect of a minor venue from providing any gaming machine that may be operated without the insertion of a coin or other token or, subject to subclause (8), that allows the machine to be operated in a way that allows a maximum bet of more than $5. Subclause (8) provides that a gaming machine licence in respect of a minor venue may provide a gaming machine that does not comply with that last provision regarding maximum bet limits if the machine was lawfully being provided by the licensee immediately before the prescribed date.

In short, it allows minor venues to continue to allow $10 maximum bets on poker machines unless and until those machines are replaced with new machines. The amendment seeks—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, on my misunderstanding, you should not be proceeding with this amendment, so could you withdraw your amendment?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will withdraw it.

The Hon. J.A. Darley's amendment withdrawn; the Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment carried.

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

Page 47, after line 26 [clause 96, inserted section 53A]—After subsection (9) insert:

(9a) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not permit the use of an audio device on any gaming machine on the licensed premises if the use of the device is not intended primarily to assist a person with a hearing impairment.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

This is a consequential amendment on an amendment that had the support of the council last night. It simply seeks to remove the technologies of isolating a person playing a poker machine with an audio device, except where that person needs the device because of a hearing impairment. Certainly it has been undertaken in other jurisdictions; I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I withdraw my amendment [Darley—4] 29.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports the amendment; it is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I withdraw my amendments [Darley—4] 30 and 31.

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

Page 47, lines 38 to 42 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(12)]—

Definition of approved pre-commitment system—delete the definition

This amendment is consequential on earlier amendments on precommitment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is consequential.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 47, after line 42 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(12)]—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;

Again, this is consequential and goes to the provisions around audio devices and ensuring that they are not introduced into South Australia.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 47, lines 43 to 44 [clause 96, inserted section 43A(12)]—Definition of prescribed day—delete the definition and substitute:

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.

It is consequential on earlier votes.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 97.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I withdraw my amendments [Darley—4] 32, 33 and 34.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We oppose this clause. This is consequential on the major/minor venues debate. We no longer have that, so it is consequential on those earlier votes.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is consequential.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 98 to 107 passed.

Clause 108.

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

Page 49, before line 25—Before its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (2)) insert:

(1) Section 72A(4)(a)—delete '$3.5 million' and substitute:

5% of all revenue received under this section

This amendment is about enshrining in legislation an opportunity for sport and recreation in the future, and it is similar to the request the music industry has also put forward. We are seeing very strong and solid growth in gaming revenue in the out years. As a result of everything we are debating today, there is clear evidence that the government intends to continue to seek growth in gaming and gambling revenue.

We have seen the Adelaide Oval stadium upgrade and the footbridge of over $0.5 billion. In fact, if you add the two together, it is getting towards $575 million or thereabouts for an elite stadium, but wherever you go in residential metropolitan Adelaide, and in the country, sporting facilities and clubs are just falling back, and in fact it is becoming quite embarrassing. When you travel interstate and look at the money other state governments are putting into sport, we are an embarrassment, in my humble opinion, and something has to be done.

Back when the former government was dealing with the issues around how they were going to manage gaming, once it came in, clearly there was going to be a revenue stream there. At that point in time the Hon. Iain Evans set up the Active Club grants and some other funding grants to ensure that we did start to see some money going into sport and rec, so I commend the Hon. Iain Evans. But, if you read the Messengers at the moment, if you look at your country papers, if you look at your Advertiser and Sunday Mail, and if you talk to people generally in sport, everyone is screaming out for more money in sport and rec.

What we have actually seen in this budget is a further cut to sport and rec of $3.5 million. In fact, whilst it has not been flagged by the government very publicly, if this Labor government was to get back in in March 2014, there are further cuts. On the other hand, we have a government saying that we have got problems with obesity, we have ripping of the social fabric of our community and damage to the community, and we have young people and others saying that there is not enough to do.

Surely, this is a way to lock in some sort of sustainability of funding for sport and rec into the future. What this amendment actually does is triple the amount of current output and index the growth opportunities for sport and rec. Based on the revenue streams that are projected by the government but based on this year's revenue from gaming and gambling, it would generate a $14.5 million quarantined fund for sport and rec.

So, we are moving that 10 per cent of the revenue from gaming machines must be allocated to a dedicated sport and recreation fund which may be used only for the purposes of allocating grants, etc., to sporting and recreational clubs. There are other dedicated funds, and I believe that it is a good way to go. This is a growth tax for the government in the future. The government is struggling to fund sport and rec at the moment. This would take a problem away from the government because it will be offset by the growth in gambling.

I could talk for a long time on this. I say to my colleagues that, when you look at the fact that the government is bringing in close to $1 million a day, to enshrine, just with CPI growth, a trebling of that money to $14.5 million is still small in the overall picture of the amount of money being received by the government from revenue.

I want to finish with one other point on this. People like myself do not have the bodies to be able to be actively involved in sport now, but we still go and watch our children and our families play. We still enjoy the clubs and the community activity at night and during the day. All of my family are very active in sport. Eight hundred thousand people in this state are directly involved in some sort of sport or recreation. I would suggest to you that out of the other 1.5 or 1.6 million people there are probably another 300,000 or 400,000, like myself, indirectly benefitting.

So, we have to do something about this. This will become—I say this to you, minister, as a senior minister in the government—an election issue. This alone has the chance to cause a real problem for government if it is not addressed because people have had a gutful of the cuts. I commend this amendment to the council.

The CHAIR: Before we hear from the minister, I have to advise the committee that this section of the act is dealing with the gaming tax and taxation. Therefore, in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, it will not be an amendment. The only question I can put is that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend clause 108 by insisting on new subclause (1).

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. I take that advice and, based on your knowledge, that is still a very strong way forward if that suggestion was to be passed by this council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. As I have stated previously, the government is satisfied with the current funding levels and the operation of the funds on the Gaming Machines Act. The cost of increasing the Sport and Recreation Fund to the government would need to be funded either by increasing taxes or reducing government services, and the estimated cost is around about $15 million.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support this amendment. Indeed, we would have moved a similar amendment but we had the advice that we did not have the power to. However, the fact that the Legislative Council can make the suggestion that we address the grave inadequacy of our Sport and Recreation Fund is an opportunity that the council, I believe, should be seizing here.

It is of concern that the minister says the government is satisfied with the rates of funding to sport and recreation. I thought you had not actually gone that far in the rhetoric. I thought you had begrudgingly admitted that the cuts were not great but you certainly were not previously satisfied with the lack of funding to sport and recreation. The minister, Leon Bignell, prior to being put in the position of Minister for Recreation and Sport, had been very critical of the current levels of funding to sport and recreation. Yet, as minister he, of course, will be bound to be more disciplined in his commentary and perhaps a little less candid.

The most vulnerable people in our community miss out on access to sport and recreation where there is not adequate funding from government. We know that poker machines have had an impact on clubs and sports and recreation in this state. Obviously, I am going to be moving an amendment around live music very soon, but these are two issues, live music and sport and recreation, where pokies have had a profound impact on the culture since they were introduced. We need to ensure, as we did when we first introduced pokies into this state, that they are adequately compensated.

We have found funds under this act. The Sport and Recreation Fund is at the top of the list. We also have the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund, the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund and the Community Development Fund. What I would like to draw attention to—and I am sure council members are aware of it, but I am not sure why it has not been addressed in the past—is that we have never increased those funds according to CPI or any other indexation since we introduced them.

I realise that the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund came in a little later, but when we first introduced this legislation we recognised that causal link between the impact on sport and recreation and, as I will get to later, live music, and we set aside amounts, that are of the day, to address that, but we have never increased them. We have obviously seen an increase in revenue to government from this area, but not an increase to the supports needed to ensure that we have adequate community engagement in sport and recreation.

It is one of those areas where prevention is better than cure. This actually saves our health budget in the long run. It is an investment in our future, not a cost. It should be seen in terms of health economics, and not just physical health but also mental health economics. This is an investment we make to ensure that we have not only a strong community but also individuals who are realising their potential and enjoying their lives in this state. With that, I look forward to the live music debate as well and commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, what they said. All research suggests that we do have an obesity problem in this state, and it seems to me to be a very simple solution: we actually put the funding into things that can make a difference rather than things that make people worse off both financially and in a health sense.

Further to that, sport can also present an important social interaction and access to community for some marginalised groups, whether that is people with disabilities, refugees or people of non-English-speaking backgrounds. I certainly hope that it is the job and the goal of government to make people less marginalised, not lock them up in a room with no clocks or windows, in the dark, and watch them while away their money. I do support this amendment on behalf of Dignity for Disability; or, it not being an amendment now, I suppose all I can say is that I strongly put this suggestion to the other place.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will support the amendment.

The CHAIR: The motion to suggest.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understand that there is still some debate to be had and contributions to be made around this issue, and I also understand that a division is likely to be called.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:18]