STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

Bill recommitted.

Clauses 1 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

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

Page 23, line 33 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(8)]—After 'than' insert '$5'

I have spoken at length about this, but basically it is the government's view that the maximum bet for non-premium gambling machines at the Casino, as well as clubs and hotels, should be reduced. The current maximum bet is $10 and we are proposing to set that at $5. I have outlined in a previous debate the reasons for that and I seek the support of this council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to try to expedite matters, I note that there is another amendment that the minister is about to move, of which I have no knowledge and have had no discussion on. I do not wish to delay the debate. I am seeking to try to get the member for Davenport for urgent discussions, but can the minister, with the concurrence of the Chair, at least at this stage indicate briefly to me what it is about and whether or not the Casino has been consulted and approved the change if it impacts on them? I know it is contrary to the arrangements, Mr Chair, but if we want this bill to be debated, that would assist. If it makes it easier, we can have a private discussion.

The CHAIR: Can we postpone it until after what we are dealing with at the moment, your amendment at clause 39?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am happy to do the amendment at clause 39. I am just trying to work out what else is coming so that I am ready to do it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can just talk at this point about what else I propose to do, so then it is clear from the outset what these three amendments seek to do. So I will make just some general comments at this point. That is, there are three amendments; two that go to the maximum betting limit and—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have moved the amendment standing in my name, and I have spoken to it as well. The third amendment to 69 is consequential on the amendment to allow Club One to place its entitlements in the Adelaide Casino if a commercial agreement can be achieved. It was an issue identified by parliamentary counsel, so you might just like some time to discuss it with them.

There has not been consultation with the Casino; it is not deemed to be necessary, given that there needs to be a commercial agreement achieved for it to have effect. It is an enabling provision, if you like. I am happy if you want to take some time to further discuss this with your colleagues.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The main issue which is being debated is the one you have moved and we are about to debate and will satisfactorily resolve. With the agreement of the minister, I would not envisage it would be a long delay. We might be able to report progress before we do the last amendment to 69 so I can have a quick discussion with the member for Davenport.

Whilst we accept that the Casino does not need to be consulted, we would like to consult the Casino to see that this amendment does not impact on it in any way. We need to try to track them down and do that. I would envisage that the member for Davenport should be able to do that before the lunch break and it would all be satisfactorily resolved. With the minister's concurrence, we are happy to expedite the debate prior to the luncheon break.

Let's get back to what has been moved and back into order, the $3—sorry, the $5 not the $3 bet limit. That was a Freudian slip: it was not $3 but the $5 the minister has moved. As I indicated to a number of members yesterday, in the discussions last evening it was certainly our understanding that minister Gago was going to (and in fact she did) seek to recommit last night to do this. From our viewpoint, and all members' viewpoint as I understand it, we were going to resolve this issue last night.

With the greatest of respect to the minister (minister Rau) handling this bill, all of a sudden there was an urgent call not to proceed down the path that was going to be undertaken by minister Gago last night. We were all told that everything had to halt last night and that there were to be urgent discussions at 9am to sort out what had become a Swiss cheese bill, which I think was the phrase used on radio this morning.

As I said, I had discussions with a number of members and, whilst the Liberal Party had moved, whenever we first debated this bill, for a position of the status quo, we ended up in a position where at that stage the majority of this chamber did not support the government's position of $5, the majority did not support the Liberal Party's position of the status quo, and the majority of the committee did not support the Hon. Mr Darley's position of $1, so we were left virtually with the issue still to be resolved.

We in the Liberal Party recognised that there was not the support for our position of the status quo. As I had indicated to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and a number of others, on the recommittal last night of minister Gago we assumed we would go ahead with, we would not be moving an amendment and we would not be dividing on the issue; we would accept the majority view of the committee.

For whatever reason—and I guess it is for minister Rau to explain to his colleagues, advisers and the public—he either did not understand that or sought to try to make political capital out of the situation overnight and on morning radio.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: He didn't do a very good job of it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As my colleague the Hon. Ms Lensink said, that did not work for him either, as I am afraid he was left publicly embarrassed in terms of the actions of himself and senior members of his own staff. That is for another day. It is not really the matter here. The matter here is that this issue was going to be resolved last night. Minister Gago did move for the recommitment of these particular clauses and, for whatever reason, minister Rau made another hash of the handling of the bill and unnecessarily prolonged—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Beg your pardon?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Ignore the interjections.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was saying that minister Gago had the issue under control and perhaps minister Rau should have listened to his advisers and minister Gago, who was accepting their advice. One only had to look at the faces of the advisers when they heard that minister Rau had pulled the plug, and they did not say a word, minister Rau, just in case you or your officers are listening, so please do not intimidate them. They did not say a word.

An honourable member: Or get Danny to intimidate them.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Or get Danny to intimidate them. They were ashen-faced. Their jaws dropped. There was much amusement from members of all persuasions here, not just on our side, as they looked at the crestfallen nature of the advisers in relation to this particular issue. So, the issue could have been resolved, should have been resolved, last evening. As I said to members, and I repeat now on behalf of the Liberal Party, we explored our position and there was no support for it. We do not intend to move an amendment to the minister's amendment and we do not intend to divide on the issue. We accept the majority view of the council in relation to this particular issue.

The only other point I would make, in concluding, is that during this whole debate—the minister is about to move another amendment in relation, partially, to the Casino—the government's position—again, sadly, minister Rau's position—has been that in some way this was going to jeopardise the $350 million Casino redevelopment. My colleague the member for Davenport tells me this morning that at the crisis meeting at 9am the minister acknowledged what we had been saying all along, that is, the bill, as it is passed in the Legislative Council, is no impediment at all to the Casino redevelopment.

Surprise, surprise. That is what we had said all along. That is what the majority of members in this chamber have been prepared to support, albeit with different degrees of passion.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. As I said, albeit with—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Albeit with different degrees of passion—

The CHAIR: Make your contribution later.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —that has been the view in relation to the Casino. But for the last couple of weeks, minister Rau, sadly, has been telling the Casino, the media and a variety of other people that in some way the actions of the Legislative Council were threatening the $350 million redevelopment. Well, surprise, surprise, he told the member for Davenport and other members at the 9am crisis meeting this morning that that was not true, the bill that was going through would not impede in any way the $350 million—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the Casino operators and others will look on minister Rau and the government representatives in a new light. We did warn them all the way along that from our viewpoint we do not trust and we certainly do not believe the sorts of claims that are being made by minister Rau and the government and its advisers in relation to the issue. We were pledged, and the Legislative Council has pledged, to allow the Casino redevelopment to proceed. The bill, as it will pass with this particular amendment, and perhaps one further amendment, will not impede the Casino redevelopment. For that, we in the Liberal Party are strongly supportive and that has been our position all along.

The CHAIR: Do you have something else to add, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do have a bit more to say, followed by a question.

The CHAIR: And you will be heard in silence.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. Our preference would have been to support the Hon. John Darley's $1. The less maximum betting opportunities people have the less money they are going to lose, but we are happy to support the government's $5 as a compromise. In saying that, I have two final questions and then I promise to say no more in this debate. I have two questions—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will have to think about that. I have two questions to the minister. The first is with respect to the $5 betting, the impacts and so on that that may have on gaming and, therefore, taxation revenue. Can the minister assure the committee that by allowing the Casino to have this expansion with the additional poker machines and the VIP high roller room, as I call it, the government are sure that they will get a percentage of the overall taxation from the Casino and more money in future years than they are currently getting? That is my first question.

The second question to the minister is: one thing we missed in getting an answer on, as I recall, is about the $20 million upfront payment from the Casino. Is that an advance on taxation payments from the Casino or is it a gift or is there a lease by which it is liable to make payments to the government which are being amortised and paid upfront? I think it is important for the record that we actually establish if it is a gift—and then I wonder which marginal seats it is going to go into. Could we have an explanation as to why and where comes the $20 million from the Casino?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised in relation to the percentage of total tax forecast, the total level of tax as forecast in the budget will increase compared to previous amounts. The average percentage of the tax rate will be dependent on the split between premium customers and main gaming floor customers. For instance, if the Casino attracts more than what they predict, referring to international and interstate VIPs, then the average tax outcome will be less. However, if they are not as successful at attracting those international and interstate VIPs then it is likely to be more than forecast. In relation to the $20 million, I am advised that it is an upfront payment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to indicate that the Greens will support the two amendments before us put up by the government. As the voting record reflects, we would prefer that $1 bets be the maximum bet, which is certainly in line not only with Greens policy and long-held campaigning from Senator Richard Di Natale on this issue but also is a recommendation of the Productivity Commission and of groups, such as SACOSS, which are well respected in the welfare sector in calling for measures that will indeed address gambling harm.

We recognise that we do not have support for the amendment put forward by the Hon. John Darley for $1 maximum bets and that currently, as the status quo sits, we have the choice of $10 or $5; with that choice we will choose the lower amount, being closer to our end goal of $1, so we will support $5 maximum bets.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: You promised something earlier.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have not had a full answer.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You even broke Mike Rann's record! That was 46 seconds and you broke your promise!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, I sat and watched and learnt from him for years. The $20 million up-front, what is it up-front for? I do not understand what the $20 million is used for? Is it an advance on future taxation? We need to know specifically.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is not an advance on future taxation. It is a simple up-front payment, an additional payment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Whilst I would have preferred the $1 bet, I must admit that $5 is better than $10, so I will support both these amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, as the record will show, Dignity for Disability certainly supports $1 maximum bets, but we concede that we have lost that and, in the words of Mr Darley, whose opinions on problem gambling in particular I believe should be taken very seriously, $5 is certainly better than $10, so I will continue to support this sensible amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as further amended passed.

Clauses 40 to 68 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.