Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:15): I rise today to indicate that Labor will not prevent this bill passing the Legislative Council. We have consistently said that we want to be a constructive opposition, and allowing this bill to pass, despite the precedent the Liberals have set in previous years, is an indication of our willingness to be supportive. We want to be helpful and constructive in opposition. Indeed, being helpful and providing helpful advice generally is one of my mottos in this chamber, as you are well aware, Mr President. This is not to say that the Liberal government should not be held accountable for many of their decisions. They should be, and Labor stands ready to do that.

Even though the new Liberal government is still wet behind the ears, they have managed to send up red flags all over the place. The government speaks about public sector renewal. They say that we need to give our Public Service a new future, so that it is doing what we need in efficient and innovative ways that keep our tax and other costs down, in their words, but we know that the Liberals' instinct is to cut jobs. We would all remember former leader and former member for Heysen Isobel Redmond's plan to slash 25,000 public sector jobs, and we know that it is in the Liberals' DNA to continue to do just those sorts of things.

On 20 October, only a few weeks ago, we passed the 12-month anniversary of the closure of Holden. One wonders what the Liberal government would have done if faced with the possibility of Holden closing. Their 'do nothing but cut' modus operandi to date would suggest that they simply would have let Holden be consigned to the wreckers, which history shows is pretty much what they did in opposition. The state Liberals put no pressure on their federal colleagues. They just put up the white flag of surrender when the federal government chased Holden out of the country.

We saw on 18 October the most recent job figures come out. South Australia's trend figure was 5.6 per cent, and seasonally adjusted it was 5.5 per cent. This is good news for South Australia, but it is not a figure the Liberal government can rightly lay claim to. The figures are only materialising because of the programs and supports that were put in place while Labor was in government.

Just as we are seeing green shoots in the economy, the Liberals are starting to cut some of those programs. As a government we worked hard to nurture and support our innovative entrepreneurs and start-ups. We established the Early Commercialisation Fund to offer specific grants to help entrepreneurs and innovators turn their ideas into commercial realities. We invested in the Adelaide GigCity project to provide ultrafast broadband to innovation and co-working precincts.

We saw under the last Labor government our city start to change, to have a new-found vibrancy in its cultural life and, with that, we saw an increasing reflection in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. Adelaide was becoming the default destination for this part of the world for innovators and entrepreneurs. However, the early signs are that many of the programs will not be continued. The Liberals appear to have cut the games fund. They have indicated they will disband TechInSA and repurpose the Early Commercialisation Fund. They are not innovators: they are wreckers.

The area of Aboriginal affairs saw significant cuts in this budget. Amongst other things in the first budget, the government abolished the office of the treaty commissioner, walked away from Aboriginal self-determination by abandoning Australia's first Aboriginal regional authority policy and almost halved the number of people in the division for Aboriginal affairs in the public sector.

I note that there is an amendment from the Hon. Mark Parnell to this bill that has the effect of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act not being repealed. The member for Mawson has lobbied very strongly about this as well, as has the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. I am in receipt of a letter from the Kangaroo Island commissioner urging members not to repeal the bill. Rather than reading out the whole letter, I seek to table the letter from the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have seen very similar things in the Attorney-General's portfolio. The communication partner grants has a saving, a cut, of $319,000 per annum. This grant has supported adults and children with complex communication needs who come into contact with the justice system. The Disability Justice support training grant program was cut as well. These are mean and petty cuts that will make it much harder for some of our state's most vulnerable people, children and adults with a disability, to access justice. The Attorney-General should be looking after vulnerable people who need to access the justice system, not doing the opposite.

We have seen cuts in community safety areas. Concierge services to managed taxi ranks have been cut, discontinuing such services in Adelaide, Glenelg and Port Augusta. Crime prevention grants have been cut dramatically and grants for the maintenance of CCTV cameras in Adelaide city council areas have been cut. These cuts will make our city and our state a less safe place, and should not have been cut. The Legal Services Commission faces a deep cut of $1.2 million per year and, disturbingly, the SA Native Title Services sees a cut of over half a million dollars per year.

One cannot help but wonder whether the Attorney-General in the other place will look back on her first seven or eight months as Attorney-General with regret in terms of what has occurred. She has established a pattern of behaviour where she ignores or even attacks senior figures and law officers in this state, certainly not treating them with the respect they deserve. We have heard the discussion between the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commissioner and the Attorney-General, a very unedifying public stoush.

We have seen other missteps such as the payment to Henry Keogh of more than $2½ million of taxpayers' money without identifying the legal basis upon which it was made. More recently, we have heard statements made in relation to ICAC, which of course are concerning. Labor has commissioned legal advice in relation to statements that have been made. I seek leave to table that legal advice.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Labor also commissioned an initial set of legal advice about whether the ICAC commissioner could retrospectively authorise statements to be made. I now seek to table a copy of that original first piece of advice.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Both sets of legal advice were provided by Mr Raymond Finkelstein, an eminent QC, a former Victorian Solicitor-General and a former judge of the Federal Court. The first set of advice I have just tabled indicates that, 'there was a contravention of section 56(a) when the Attorney-General uploaded the statement on her website'—and the advice qualifies that to say—if the Attorney-General uploaded her statement on the government's website without first having obtained authorisation from the commissioner and before the commissioner authorised the media to publish the statement.

An initial examination of the time that the statements were published on the internet indicate that the Attorney-General published her statement at approximately 3.24pm on 27 September and that the ICAC commissioner published his statement on the internet at 5.10pm on 27 September this year. Members would have seen today's reports in The Advertiser that the Liberal Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, is subject to an assessment by the police for a possible breach of the ICAC Act.

This is an extraordinary development, which means her position as the state's first law officer has become untenable. Given all of this information, and taken together, the most likely conclusion to be drawn is that the Attorney-General has broken the law and breached the ICAC Act. There is very little option but for the Attorney-General to stand down.

The Attorney-General has been asked repeatedly to provide proof that she received approval from the ICAC commissioner prior to issuing her statement about ICAC. To date, she has been unable or unwilling to do that. If the Attorney-General cannot or will not provide that proof, given the legal advice that has been tabled, the Attorney-General's position has become completely untenable and she must stand down, pending a full investigation. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the second reading of the bill, but we do not support the Attorney-General.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:25): I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill 2018. The bill establishes the proposed legislation necessary to give effect to a number of the government's 2018-19 budget measures and announcements. My contribution will focus on a particular aspect of the budget: the consolidating of the gambling regulatory regime in South Australia. My colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo will focus on a separate aspect of the bill during his second reading contribution.

The effect of the changes is that the Independent Gambling Authority—the IGA as it has become more commonly known—will be consolidated with Consumer and Business Services, which will now be responsible for the regulatory functions of the soon to be defunct IGA. This is to come into effect from 1 December 2018. The bill then amends the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995, the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000, the Casino Act 1997, the Gaming Machines Act 1992, the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009, the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, the Problem Gambling Family Protection Orders Act 2004, the Racing (Proprietary Business Licensing) Act 2000 and the State Lotteries Act 1966 to remove the reference to the IGA and replace it with a reference to the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner.

The genesis of the consolidation of gambling operations into a single regulator is consistent with the recommendations of the Administrative Review of Gambling Regulation in South Australia by the Hon. T.R. Anderson QC, which was initiated by the former Labor government in 2016. I add that I gave a submission to that review, together with Nick Xenophon. That review was completed on 9 December 2016 by retired Supreme Court Justice, Tim Anderson QC, yet the former Labor government sat on the report until the Marshall government released the report this year.

The reasons for this mystify me, but I will not waste time dwelling on it; suffice to say that the inexplicable delay by the former Labor government is just another wasted opportunity for substantive change with respect to gambling harm. In addition, the 2010 Productivity Commission inquiry into gambling identified the need for a single regulator and stated:

In South Australia there are effectively two regulators. The Independent Gambling Authority (a statutory body) is the principal regulator and undertakes 'structural regulatory' activities. The Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner is housed within the government and performs the role of an 'operational regulator' carrying out both regulatory and enforcement functions, including approving gaming machines and undertaking on-the-ground enforcement. Such an arrangement may lead to confusion and inefficiencies.

Indeed, the current arrangement has led to confusion and inefficiencies and industry gambling harm support services and gambling addicts have been left with a substandard system of regulation. The 1999 Productivity Commission report into gambling has previously identified that a single regulator would minimise the risk and states:

Special arrangements will be established and maintained by different groups, venues or providers at the expense of the broader public interest…

And:

…inconsistent policies will be put in place in what are ostensibly like circumstances, especially so far as measures to protect consumers are concerned.

The need for reform and streamlining of the regulatory framework is clear because the current system has certainly let down gambling addicts. An earlier external consultancy report was commissioned in June 2014 by the board of the IGA to review the organisation generally and the performance of its director. Tim Anderson QC was provided with a copy of that report, which raised its own concerns with the board, yet no action was taken. It is damning that Tim Anderson QC said:

I am afraid to say that the IGA brand within the industry is tarnished to such an extent and regarded so poorly that the powers and functions of any replacement body would, at the very least, need to be established under a different organisation with a new charter…

Only this week it was revealed that almost 650 barring orders preventing people from gambling were not renewed by the IGA because the IGA was unable to contact them during a review of the scheme. We found this out in the context of an annual report. We do not know the extent to which the IGA tried to make contact with these individuals other than, apparently, two attempts were made to contact them. After that, no further attempts were made. So there were two phone calls: 'We can't reach the person who is subject to a barring order; we won't try anything further.'

This has put hundreds of South Australians at risk of causing harm to themselves and indeed their families. That is because of the IGA's decision, allowing them to freely walk into a poker machine venue, or the Casino, to gamble away their life savings, their wages, their livelihoods, their homes and their families. This is just one example where the IGA has failed in its obligation to protect gambling addicts by revoking the barring orders simply because it could not contact those individuals in question. No rationale was provided for the decision for revoking hundreds of barring orders in the previous 2017-18 annual report.

You have to ask yourself: where is the duty of care to gambling addicts and their families? In my view, it was absent. The decision was reckless and made without any consideration for the impact it may have on a gambling addict, their families and loved ones. The lack of any meaningful attempt to reach out to the 642 individuals with identified gambling addictions, who required barring orders in the first place, with no follow-up, is akin to throwing gambling addicts back into the lion's den. It is an outrage, and I am not alone in this sentiment. Even the Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, agrees, and recently stated:

The review by Tim Anderson QC had noted complaints about the way in which the Authority had treated people who had been barred and the process for reviewing orders had effectively broken down.

The revocation of barring orders on vulnerable gambling addicts by the IGA is pathetic, given the 2010 Productivity Commission report into gambling, which found that around 4 per cent of the adult population play the poker machines at least weekly. At least 15 per cent of those players are problem gamblers, with their share of total spending on poker machines estimated to be between 40 and 60 per cent. I would suggest that they are very conservative estimates as well.

From the judgement in the South Australian Jockey Club's application for a social effect certificate, we know that the training provided by industry bodies Gaming Care and Club Safe, which are designed to identify gambling addicts, is woefully inadequate and not fit for purpose. Professor Delfabbro of the University of Adelaide gave evidence during the hearing that the content of training material provided by Club Safe was fairly cursory, and the training itself would not turn a staff member into an effective venue staff member in dealing with problem gamblers. More alarmingly, Professor Delfabbro gave evidence that he had received feedback from staff in gaming venues, and stated:

Although they had done the training, they were told not to take it too seriously, and that the venue was really more interested in profits.

We must stop prioritising profit over people. The compelling evidence presented during the SAJC hearing should be of great concern to the government as it is an indication of the failure of the poker machine industry in South Australia to appropriately train staff in harm minimisation. The government continues to be conflicted by receiving revenue from poker machines and regulating the machines that cause such devastation to so many South Australians, as was the previous South Australian government.

The net gambling revenue for 2016-17 was $680.27 million, which delivered the government $264.87 million in taxes derived from poker machines. We have still today over 12,337 poker machines in this state, which have their highest density in the lowest socio-economic areas and affect our disadvantaged more than any other cohort.

Barring orders are an important and imperative initiative, but they must work, they must be monitored and they must be effective. I note that the Attorney-General is currently reviewing the legislation about gambling, and I look forward to the resulting report, but I place on the record very clearly that we will not accept any future legislation that waters down existing protections.

For example, we are heartened to learn that since the introduction of the social effect inquiry process, which must be completed and assessed before an applicant can apply for a gaming machine licence, no new gaming machines have been granted, which is a testament to the success of that legislation. It is clear, though, that the gambling codes of conduct require updating, given modern technology and its impact on new forms of gambling which have exploded online to devastate more and more vulnerable people.

I note that the transfer of the IGA's existing powers and functions to the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will soon take effect from 1 December 2018, with the abolition of the IGA. The transfer of its functions to Consumer and Business Services, as I have already alluded to, is expected to provide savings of about $483,000, indexed per annum from 2019-20.

However, one criticism of the IGA was its under-resourcing, and I will have some questions of the minister about the additional resources provided to Consumer and Business Services following the passage of the provisions of this bill. I will also add that I have met with the Attorney in relation to this particular aspect of the bill and she has made the commissioner, Dini Soulio, available.

I have certainly aired our concerns in relation to the changes with both the Attorney and the commissioner. I think it is fair to say that the commissioner is genuinely committed to ensuring that there are changes in relation to the enforcement of the legislation with respect to gambling and also with respect to the codes of practice. We will be watching closely to ensure that that actually eventuates. Tim Anderson QC noted in his report that:

If the Commissioner through CBS is to become the sole regulator it must be better resourced with expertise in all areas of gambling at a senior level encompassing the policy, licensing, compliance and enforcement aspect of regulation.

These are the precise issues that we have raised with the commissioner and the Attorney, and these are the issues that we will be following up on very carefully to ensure that everything that needs to be done is being done to assist with that enforcement, but also to ensure that those with problem gambling addictions receive the best possible care that they can within our current structures, which, I might add, SA-Best still maintains are woefully inadequate. With those words, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (11:38): As my honourable colleague has indicated, SA-Best is supporting the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill, but also will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment that will not repeal the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act. The Treasurer has already indicated that the government will not fund the office beyond 2020, but why is there a need to repeal the act? It does not cost taxpayers any money for it to lie dormant, and a future government may want to resurrect the function of the office.

Many in this house know my affinity with and strong connection to the island. My wife and I have a property there. If my bridge proposal ever gets to see the light of day, islanders may well require the services of an island commissioner to provide input on the island's requirements, and there are plenty right now.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It is not going to be a one-way bridge, is it?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, if you are in government, it will be.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Not at all. We build things, not like that mob over there.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I still do not understand the government's reasoning for scrapping the role of the commissioner. I commend the previous Labor government and the then tourism minister and member for Mawson, Leon Bignell, for having the foresight to establish the office so that Kangaroo Island can reach its potential as Australia's number one tourist destination.

My hardworking Centre Alliance colleague and very popular member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, is also supportive of the valuable work done by the commissioner in her electorate and is aware of the strong level of support for the OKIC from the island community at large. I have met with the commissioner, Wendy Campana, after being elected, and she outlined the important and valuable work that she has undertaken.

This is not a cushy role just to lie back and take in the sun in what has been aptly described by the Economic Development Board as paradise girt by sea. The commissioner is both a conduit and advocate for developing the island's economic, social and environmental capacity and is a channel direct to the government for the community, its business sector, agribusiness and developers as well as local government. The role is designed to improve the management and delivery of services by government agencies, deal with those agencies and assist in the ongoing improvement of the local economy.

Many have said, 'Why do we need one for Kangaroo Island? What about the other regions of the state?' Well, there is a big difference here, and it is the island's biggest challenge and hurdle: its isolation. As the Economic Development Board's report for the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority reported in 2015, the seas surrounding the island are its greatest asset and its enduring burden. It has it all, but then it does not.

This is a massive pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. You will not find a more beautiful, pristine, natural wonderland with spectacular vistas and landscapes, unspoilt beaches, incredible produce and sustainable agriculture, all within touch of the mainland, anywhere else in Australia. Tourism is its future to prosperity, but the entire community is burdened by costs of getting to and from the island, ranging from freight, fuel and supplies to things we all take for granted on the mainland like access to broader educational opportunities, health services, vocational training and housing needs.

The young leave the island because the opportunities are greater. The vagaries of the weather in winter are another factor, while much of the island is reliant on rainwater, and power is delivered by an underground cable. So, unlike other regions, this natural barrier hinders more economic growth. That pot of gold is just waiting to be reached. However, there has been much progress, like a bigger airport, a fabulous walking trail, more hotel accommodation and improved services. Maybe a bridge or a tunnel one day. Tourism numbers are certainly on an upward trajectory, but something that still bewilders me are the small numbers of South Australians who have visited. I put that to a panel of young engineers recently, and out of about 60 in the room only one had been there.

The office of the commissioner was established following extensive consultation with the island's community. It still has strong support from more than 350 businesses, including mine. They have seen and experienced the value of this office. Scrapping the office is a retrograde step. Compare the costs; they are miniscule in comparison to the $35 million the government wants to waste on a right-hand tram turn onto North Terrace that nobody gives a toss about. Kangaroo Island needs a voice to government, and that should be a priority. With that, I support the second reading.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:43): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading of the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill 2018. Before addressing some of the individual aspects of the bill, I will not repeat the broad premise underlying the 4 September budget introduced by the government. The Appropriation Bill has already passed this place, and this is the attendant bill which implements some of the measures outlined in the budget speech and also referred to broadly in the Appropriation Bill in terms of funding.

I must say that in my very long period in parliament I have been called many things, but I did note that the Leader of the Opposition referred to the government as being wet behind in the ears in relation to budget matters and this particular budget. I am not sure how many more years I have to serve in parliament before I would not be described in such a way. As I said, I have been called many things but I think that is the first time in recent years that I have been called wet behind the ears. I thank the honourable leader for that acknowledgement.

In terms of specific issues, the Hon. Ms Bonaros raised the issue of gambling regulation. I cannot answer the question that she put rhetorically in terms of why the former government did not respond to the very impressive review that former Judge Anderson had done in terms of gambling regulation. I guess ultimately that can only be a question directed to the former government and its representatives. All I can say, as one member of the new government, is that it did present, I think, a very persuasive case for the need for change.

As the Hon. Ms Bonaros has indicated, this is not the only learned report that has pointed in that direction. I think she referred to an earlier report by the Productivity Commission. Indeed, I think anybody who consulted with people in industry would have known that there were criticisms of the Independent Gambling Authority and its operations. To be fair, a lot of those criticisms, I suspect, were directed at the former chief executive and perhaps the way that organisation was being run. I will not go too far down that particular path on the public record.

However, I think the intriguing thing in relation to gambling regulation is that people come at the gambling debate from completely different directions. The Hon. Ms Bonaros and others with whom she has associated recently, and I am sure presently, come from a perspective which she has clearly outlined. I come from a completely different perspective. I have proudly indicated that in all of my time in the parliament I have supported almost every expansion of gambling options available in the state, from the first vote for the establishment of the Casino to being a supporter of actually introducing gaming machines into South Australia.

Currently, here in the parliament you have people from completely opposing directions in relation to the gambling debate but with an absolutely united view about the usefulness of the current state of gambling regulation in the state. It takes a special sort of accomplishment to achieve a unity of both supporters of gaming options and gambling options in the state and opponents, but nevertheless united in their view that the current mechanisms for gambling regulation, in particular the IGA, have not worked.

I was part of the government, I think on reflection, who argued for the need for a powerful independent gambling authority. It came soon after the establishment of gaming machines in South Australia, and I think part of the debate at the time was, 'Okay, if you are going to have gaming machines introduced, even though we do have gambling regulation available in the state, perhaps we need this bright new body called the IGA', which was going to be independent and add value to gambling regulation.

So 20-plus years later, or whatever it is, I think the reality was, given the evidence that had been produced in various learned reports, whatever the goals might have been it had not worked and therefore it was time to take bold and decisive action. Why the former government did not do so is a decision for them, but the reality is that at the very first opportunity, as part of this particular budget, it nevertheless fitted our general approach, which I have outlined before in this place, and that is that our clear message to ministers and CEOs in terms of this budget is that we cannot continue to do everything that we have done and just take a bit off the top of everything.

If we want to do new things as a government—new projects, new programs, new policies—at some stage you have to take difficult decisions and jettison some of the projects, programs and policies of the former government. Some of them are harder, in terms of the decisions; some of them are relatively easier. This one is in the relatively easier category because there was the Anderson review report and there was the Productivity Commission report. There was this united view from people who were pro-gaming or gambling and those who were antigambling and gaming, if you took the time to speak to them, that it was not adding any value and maybe, even worse than that, not just not adding value it was probably causing more damage in terms of what it was meant to be doing and it was not doing.

I think that is an interesting perspective in that there is a unity of purpose from people from all sorts of perspectives in relation to the gambling regulation debate, generally. Unsurprisingly, there were some other aspects of the Hon. Ms Bonaros's contribution that, given my own bias and perspective, I did not agree with, but they are not necessarily part of this debate: they will be part of subsequent debates.

I think, as she has referred to, the Attorney-General has carriage for much of the legislation in this area; albeit, as Treasurer, I have an ongoing interest, but putting aside the position of Treasurer, as someone who supports sensible gambling options being available to the vast majority of people in this state who in my view are responsible gamblers and have the capacity to make their own adult decisions in terms of how they spend their money and therefore should be entitled to do so, whilst at the same time acknowledging a very small number of people cannot and are designated as problem gamblers or at-risk gamblers and the government and the state owes a responsibility to them and to their families to do whatever it can to assist them in the problems they might confront.

That is not an issue that we have to address in the broad in this particular debate. We are just making a decision that the current body has not added value and might have in fact even caused the additional problems and it is time to get rid of it. We welcome the Hon. Ms Bonaros's support for that, and that of her party. While I do not think it was directly addressed by members of the opposition, I think the mere fact that they did not is probably an indication that they are not going to be opposing that aspect of the bill either.

The other issue that has attracted some debate has been the issue of the Kangaroo Island commissioner. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, having rightly identified his own interest in Kangaroo Island, has been, as with other members, a passionate supporter of the continuing role of the Kangaroo Island commissioner. From the discussions I have had with him and various statements, it will not surprise the Hon. Mr Pangallo that I have a completely contrary view and always have had. This has nothing to do with the current incumbent of the position, I might say. The view I had about the merit or otherwise of establishing this particular position was known both within my party and within the parliament when we were debating the original establishment of the Kangaroo Island commissioner as a position, putting aside the issue of the incumbent.

I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo, with a weather eye to other regions, made an attempt to justify why there should be a Commissioner for Kangaroo Island as opposed to many other regional areas which have mounted the argument that they too would like to have a commissioner—the West Coast, for example, with its own particular distance problems and geographic disadvantage. It does not have the advantage that Kangaroo Island has of being closer to Adelaide and being compact. Services such as education, health and transport, all of those issues, are much, much more complicated for the good residents of Eyre Peninsula as opposed to a compact island like Kangaroo Island.

The member rightly identifies a significant problem for Kangaroo Island is in terms of the sea in between the island and Adelaide, and that is acknowledged. But, as I said, in my view it was not a persuasive argument. If you are going to argue the case that a particular region such as Kangaroo Island is entitled to a commissioner, then I do not think too many people in other regions would have been convinced that they too could not mount a case that they too should have a commissioner for Eyre Peninsula or a commissioner for the Yorke Peninsula or a commissioner for God's own country in the South-East of South Australia, the Mount Gambier region.

I think it comes back to principles. We already have, in many people's view, a system of government that is erring on the side of over-government with federal, state government and local government, each with their responsibilities and many examples of where they overlap. To add another element to that governance process of federal government, state government and local government, a Commissioner for Kangaroo Island, in my view, adds precious little value, if any at all, and at cost to the taxpayers of the state.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The people spoke on the weekend at the local government elections.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Dawkins, perhaps out of order, interjects. Let me respond to that. I was going to raise the point that the very popularly elected—by an overwhelming majority—new Mayor of Kangaroo Island is quite public in terms of his criticism of the whole role of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. The people of Kangaroo Island, at the recent local government election, knew very well his particular attitude to this issue and yet responded in droves. An overwhelming majority of people flocked to support Mr Pengilly as the new mayor, even with the views that he had expressed on this particular issue.

I do not believe the claims that have been made that there is an overwhelming tidal wave of support for the position of Kangaroo Island commissioner from everyone on the island. Business groups—I think the honourable member referred to the business association and others—perhaps the former mayor, I am not sure, but indeed others are on the public record in terms of supporting it. I noted some of the claimed benefits of the Kangaroo Island commissioner, but all of these issues are actually decisions of ministers and governments.

The commissioner has no power or authority to put money into a new airport, build a new school or health facility, provide money for tourism facility upgrades, or whatever else. Sure, he or she can lobby and advocate. Why do we have local government, in terms of representing Kangaroo Island? Why do we have mayors and councillors? Why do we have CEOs and staff officers? Surely, their role is to lobby governments. Surely, their role is to advocate for their community. Surely, their role is to actually do all the sorts of things that in every other regional community either the local council or the equivalent to a regional development board argue for their particular region or council areas.

I can assure the Hon. Mr Pangallo that if the position of commissioner were to continue under this government, with me as Treasurer, the mere fact that the commissioner was wanting to knock on my door and to argue the toss for something would carry no weight with me at all. There is a duly elected local council, there are ministers responsible for the delivery of health, transport and education services and there is a federal government with responsibilities as well.

The commissioner is just an overpaid lobbyist working between government agencies and councils. Good luck to him or her that the taxpayers pay them a good sum of money to undertake the job. They are unelected and they have no direct responsibility to anyone other than to themselves. Frankly, the responsibility for the delivery of health, education and transport services is with the ministers and the departments they run.

Certainly, under the new government and under the budget framework that we are outlining, if there are criticisms in terms of tourism facilities, education or health, those criticisms should be directed to the ministers responsible, to the Premier and to me as Treasurer. We have the ultimate responsibility in terms of the quality of the services delivered not only to Kangaroo Island but to all regional areas throughout the state.

The mere fact that the taxpayers are paying additional sums of money for a commissioner to ferry between government departments and agencies, in the government's view adds no value to the circumstances. The Hon. Mr Pangallo said that the significant difference with Kangaroo Island is the sea in between, and the additional costs that are incurred by the good residents of Kangaroo Island. Again, that is acknowledged, but I am not sure what, in the last couple of years, or whatever it is, the commissioner has done or achieved in terms of reducing the costs. What has actually been achieved in the last two years by the commissioner in terms of reducing the costs that the Hon. Mr Pangallo raised?

I guess my view of the world would be that the cost disadvantage that existed there before is the same cost disadvantage that exists there now after we have had two or three years, or however long, that the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island has been operating. That should not be a criticism of the commissioner, because he or she has no power or authority anyway to do anything in relation to the costs that are incurred by the residents. He or she can lobby on whatever it is, but again that is what you have a mayor for, that is what you have a council for, that is what you have a CEO for: to advocate on behalf of your local community. The Hon. Mr Pangallo and others have said that they are not sure why the government is so opposed to this. It is fundamentally opposed in principle to the whole concept of another layer of bureaucracy paid for by the taxpayers of the state in terms of a Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

As I said, if you have one there, there are arguments about having commissioners in other areas as well. So, from the government's viewpoint, should the parliament insist on opposing this particular provision of the budget measures bill, I have indicated publicly and privately that, for so long as I draw breath and for so long as I hold the position of Treasurer, there will not be a dollar directed towards what will be in name and statute only a position of Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

Can I indicate that this is not an unusual set of circumstances. There are a number of examples, but the most obvious, for those who have been on parliamentary committees, like the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, is that the former government refused to establish the Economic Development Board under the Economic Development Act for 16 years. They refused to appoint the board, refused to appoint commissioners, I think it might have been for about six months and then they got rid of it. It existed in statute only.

The reason we have simplify bills—we have one before us at the moment—is that you actually repeal bills that have been sitting there because they serve no good purpose at all. People have not been appointed, the bodies have not been appointed, they have not been funded, because the government of the day believes they serve no good purpose. So the logic of leaving a bill there, opposing a part of the budget measures and leaving a provision for a Kangaroo Island commissioner's bill, escapes me. Certainly, for as long as I hold the position, it will not be funded and will exist in name and title only.

If the Labor opposition wants to campaign right through to the next election promising to reinstate the Kangaroo Island commissioner, and a range of other commissioners if they want to, good luck to them. They can campaign on that particular issue and, as part of their policy platform, they can introduce either the existing bill or they can introduce perhaps a new refined version of a Kangaroo Island commissioner that meets some of the criticisms that have been made about the operations. I think it is silly to leave it on the statute, when clearly the government was elected on a platform. I did not highlight this earlier, but it is not as if this is something we did not campaign on. We clearly indicated our intention to get rid of this.

This is one of the policy commitments we took to the election. We announced it in our policy costing document as a saving to be achieved, and we are now at the first opportunity, as part of the budget measures bill, seeking to implement the policy promise we made at the time of the election. There is no secret about this particular policy commitment. We were open about it, we campaigned on it and we were transparent and accountable for the particular position that we have.

The other criticisms made generally were essentially about difficult budget decisions, Service SA centre reductions, Housing Trust rent increases and a range of other issues like that. Most of those we have addressed either through question time or other debate, and I do not intend to go over the government's explanation or defence of its position about them during my reply to the second reading. With that, I thank honourable members for their indication of support for the second reading of the budget measures bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: My amendment is simply an advice to the committee that I will be opposing clause 63. Clause 63 repeals the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act. I spoke at some little length in my second reading contribution about why I felt it was inappropriate to take that statute from our statute book, but the Hon. Rob Lucas has said a few things in his summing-up that I need to respond to, so I will quickly refer to some of those. He mentioned that it is a legitimate role of the government to go through the statute book and remove from it things that no longer have any work to do.

I will say that I agree with him entirely. I will shed no tears when the Liens on Fruit Act 1923 is eventually repealed. It is an excellent case study on how not to draft legislation. There is one part of that act that goes for 23 lines without a full stop, the longest sentence I have ever seen in a South Australian statute. It can be summarised as follows: if you do not pay your bills, the creditors get the apricots. I do not think that act has any more work to do. I am happy for it to go, but the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act I think is in a different category.

Ultimately, what the Treasurer has told the council today is that the Liberals are reverting to type: anything that might be regarded as small government must be good by definition. He raised the floodgate argument—although he did not use the word—saying, 'Well, if the people of Kangaroo Island get someone to represent their interests and help them to deal with the bureaucracy, what about the people on the West Coast? What about the people in God's own country (I think he said) down in the South-East?'

That is a very good question. Why should people in disadvantaged, far-flung regional communities not have someone whose job it is to bat for them when it comes to dealing with bureaucracy and red tape? The minister said that that is the proper role of local government. Local government has a clear set of responsibilities, but I am not aware that there are many local councils that take on the role of batting for citizens when they have trouble dealing with state government departments or agencies. They just do not do that. It is not their role. I think that referring to the office as simply an overpaid lobbyist sells the position short.

I remind people, as I did the other day, that this legislation was reviewed as recently as last year. The review committee consisted of Liberal, Labor and Greens. The committee unanimously resolved that the office was worth keeping. It did not recommend getting rid of it and it did not recommend getting rid of the legislation. The submissions are on the Environment, Resources and Development Committee website and members can read the submissions made by business owners, expressing their support for the continuation of the office.

Interestingly, in responding to an out of order interjection, the Treasurer seemed to indicate that the election of Mr Pengilly is some sort of referendum on whether the office of commissioner should continue. I make the prediction here now that we might hear the election of Mr Pengilly as being a referendum on a whole manner of issues coming up. We will be told that it represents the overwhelming support of Kangaroo Island for oil and gas drilling offshore. It will be overwhelming support for anything that Mr Pengilly, in all his years in state parliament, advocated or opposed. But, we know that local government elections are fought on different grounds. With those brief words, I indicate that when the question is put that clause 63 stand as printed, the Greens will be opposing that clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have only one other point which I should have made. I will not repeat everything I said in my second reading contribution. The honourable member's comments have prompted me to put on the public record that in relation to, for example, representing local businesses—which was an issue I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo raised, and the Hon. Mr Parnell asked why should people not have someone representing them to government departments and agencies—at the moment in South Australia there are other governance structures available.

The Small Business Commissioner immediately springs to mind. If any individual small business, whether they be on Kangaroo Island or Eyre Peninsula or wherever, is having problems with government departments and agencies, we already have a Small Business Commissioner, which is there to advocate on behalf of the small business person who is having a problem with the transport department, tax department, SA Water, or whatever. We are already paying the Small Business Commissioner to undertake that particular function.

You can always come up with a bright idea for another commissioner. In my time in the parliament, commissioners have grown like Topsy in terms of: we need a commissioner for this area or that area, or whatever it might happen to be. The Kangaroo Island commissioner just happens to be the latest iteration of the commissioner fetish that some people have.

In relation to advocating for individual businesses, in this case with government departments and agencies I should have placed on the record that we do have a structure for that in terms of the Small Business Commissioner. In other more specific areas, we have the Office of the Industry Advocate, which deals with government contracts and small businesses that have problems with government departments and agencies in terms of accessing government contracts right across the board.

We have another advocate in this case, not called a commissioner, who advocates on behalf of businesses as they seek to be treated fairly by government departments and agencies. So there are any number of these commissioners, advocates and agencies that are there already in terms of assisting individuals, businesses or others in terms of their negotiations or discussions.

The other issue of course is that you do have members of parliament. The Hon. Mr Parnell says, 'Who is going to advocate on behalf of a citizen with a government department?' That is what you elect a local member of parliament to do, at least in my comprehension of the situation. That is not just your local member; if you do not like your local member, you could actually go to the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: And they do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And they do. Well, there you go. There is a frank confession. Some constituents do go to the Hon. Mr Parnell to ask him to advocate on their behalf with government departments, ministers and agencies. That is the job for which we have been elected. We are state members of parliament, elected to represent our constituents, whether it be as a lower house member or as a whole-of-state Legislative Council elected member, to advocate on behalf of our constituents with ministers and with government departments and agencies.

I think this binary notion that unless you have the commissioner there is no-one out there advocating on behalf of the poor constituent—whether it be on Kangaroo Island or the West Coast—is fanciful. There are any number of advocates. We are just saying that enough is enough. A Kangaroo Island commissioner is a step too far. We are going to get rid of it and, if the parliament will not let us, we just will not fund it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The opposition has similar views to those expressed by the Hon. Mark Parnell and we will be opposing the repeal clause.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell.

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

Clauses 64 to 66 passed.

Clause 67.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During the second reading debate, I raised the issue of the woefully inadequate resourcing of the soon to be defunct IGA and the consolidation of the gambling operations into the single regulator, namely, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. Our view remains that that was related to resourcing issues in many respects.

My question to the Treasurer is: can you advise what, if any, new funds will be made available to the commissioner specifically in relation to issues of licensing compliance and enforcement? In so doing, can the Treasurer also confirm that these responsibilities will not simply fall within existing funding arrangements?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the existing staffing complement from the IGA will be coming across to the commissioner's office, so there will be a net increment of approximately 5.8 FTEs—let's round it up to around about 6. The savings, in terms of the abolition of the IGA, are obviously the board, the overall governance structure, the accommodation, those sorts of things, but the warm bodies that do all the hard work within the IGA—the positions, anyway; I am not sure whether they are the same people—are entitled to come across to the commissioner's office. So there will actually be an increase in the number of staff in the commissioner's jurisdiction as a result of the transfer of those staff entitlement positions from the IGA to the commissioner's operations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to confirm: will those 5.8 FTEs who are transferring over be specifically undertaking roles in relation to gambling or liquor and gambling, or will they go into a general pool of staff for the commissioner?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the first instance, there is a specialist gambling team—unit, squad, crack unit; I am not sure what they are called—with specific responsibilities for gambling regulation in the commissioner's jurisdiction. These 5.8 FTEs will immediately go there, but given there is this review being conducted by the Attorney, we are not saying, and I am not saying—ultimately, it is not my specific call; it will be an issue for the Attorney and the commissioner—that that might be the ongoing structure going forward.

The whole purpose of the review of gambling regulation will be to review the adequacy of gaming regulation and then there will be advice from the commissioner and the Attorney in terms of, 'Okay, what's the best way of structuring whatever resources we've got to achieve the purposes that might be agreed in terms of gambling regulation?'

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on the issue of the review: do we have a time frame within which we can expect to receive the outcome of that review? Also, will that review include the adequacy or otherwise of funding for gambling addiction programs and bodies that provide those programs?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; at this stage there is no firm time line in relation to it. I think it will be an issue the Attorney-General may want to discuss with colleagues, including the Premier, myself and others who may have an interest in the area as well. At this stage we are not in a position to say when that might be. What we can say is that it is going to be a substantial piece of work, so it is not likely to be done either quickly or in the very near future. It is going to take some time.

Clearly, the issue the honourable member has referred to in terms of the adequacy of how we tackle problem gambling—and that is not just the issue of how you fund particular programs or indeed what particular programs—would necessarily, I would assume, be part of that, but at this stage there are no formal terms of reference. It does not say, 'Is the lump of money that is currently going to this particular program adequate or not?' It will be a more generic review, and then within that context there will be the debate about how best we tackle problem gambling within whatever new or revised structure the government might agree upon.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer also provide details if any action is being taken by the government, or the IGA or the commissioner, when those powers are transferred over, in relation to the 650 barring orders that were deemed redundant as a result of not being able to make contact, apparently, with those individuals involved?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We will say barleys on the issue of retrospectivity and what might or might not be possible there. However, in terms of prospectively, I am advised that the commissioner is already considering, in the event that this legislation passes and the responsibility transfers to him, what the appropriate course of action is in terms of—from the time that he has responsibility, or they have responsibility onwards—better managing the process in terms of the barring orders. He has already commenced work in the anticipation that parliament might agree to the budget measures bill and the responsibility will be transferring to him, so he will be in a position to hit the ground running—I am not necessarily saying on day one but certainly soon after that—in terms of how to manage the process from then on.

The issue of what happens in relation to the specific 650-odd barring orders from the past will have to be taken on notice at this stage. I think that is a complicated legal question and the honourable member is probably better placed than I am to understand some of the complexities of that and what might or might not be able to be done in terms of perhaps the inadequacy of the way those barring orders were policed or monitored. We would have to take that issue on notice. However, certainly in relation to once the responsibilities are transferred the commissioner is well on the way to preparing himself from then as to how they will better manage the process from the date that he is given responsibility.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to issues that are outstanding with the IGA, if this bill does pass and that body becomes defunct there are a number of issues outstanding. There was the social effect inquiry review undertaken by the IGA, the results of which have not been released. Is this something where we can expect to have the results provided before the move over to the commissioner, or what will happen with those outstanding inquiries?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I might make some general comment and then, on behalf of the member, I indicate that I will have the issues raised with the Attorney-General and if she thinks she can add anything further to my broad response she will correspond with the member. If you do not get a letter from her then she is quite comfortable with what I have said on the public record.

Within this transfer of power there is the capacity for an existing inquiry that the IGA was working on—and the answer to your question is that the IGA had not completed the social effects test inquiry; it was part way through. I am not sure whether that means they had just started or they had almost finished and were about to write it; I cannot tell you how far advanced it was, but my advice is that it is not concluded. So there is the capacity in this for that to be concluded.

If, however, they had only just started the process, my view would be—and this is as an individual; it is not a government view—it would not seem to make much sense to, in essence, initiate a whole process in a transitional provision just because they have technically started it when we are doing a review of everything. I accept the Hon. Ms Bonaros's view, which is different to mine in relation to the social effects test. The honourable member says the fact that nothing has been transferred is testimony to the great success of the legislation. There are certainly other stakeholders who have a completely different view to that, and the member would be aware of that.

I think there are arguments that the government will need to consider where sporting associations seek to move on their existing property, from one side of the property to the other side of the property, the gaming machine entitlements they have because of a redevelopment, for example, or something like that, and the sheer impossibility of getting anything through the social effects test, which the honourable member is delighted with, has proved impossible either to get it through or the judgement in terms of the costs of going through that particular process for that to occur.

Certainly, from my viewpoint—and this is not the government's position at this stage—it would make sense to review the social effects test. If the IGA inquiry has almost completed their review and it is just a question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's on whatever it is that they were going to do, then it might make sense to conclude that and then to refer that to whoever is going to do the overall review of gambling legislation. I think it makes sense that when we are talking about reviewing gaming regulation and gambling regulation that issues like social effects tests and others ought to be part of an overall review.

From my viewpoint, the fact that the views of a particular body that we are getting rid of because everyone agrees it did not add value, in and of itself should not be a binding issue. It might be useful information, but it should not be binding on a new government and it would not be binding on a new government anyway; it is only a recommendation. It no longer exists and it would have been concluded by the commissioner under the new powers.

It is a potentially confused, convoluted response because I am not sure how far advanced the IGA inquiry into the social effects test had proceeded. All we know is it has not finished. I can give you that amount of information. If there is anything more the Attorney-General can usefully offer you, she will do that by way of correspondence.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate what the Treasurer has said, but there was also the call from the IGA in relation to the inquiry into online gambling, and submissions were called for in relation to that. I completely understand that it was your position that it may or may not proceed, but if we could confirm whether that one is likely to proceed. I would like to say for the record that the Independent Gambling Authority has, over the years, conducted a number of reviews, many of which we have relied on and which we have found very helpful. I want to place that on the record because I would not like it to be suggested that we did not support the IGA in those functions, because we certainly have and we have provided submissions and evidence to those inquiries over numerous years.

Following on from that, my other question is: there are a number FOIs that our officers have outstanding and they have been outstanding for some time. It has been a struggle in terms of getting a response within the required time frame in relation to those FOIs. So is this something that we envisage will go down the same path? If they are not responded to by the time—assuming, again, the bill gets through—the IGA becomes defunct, will we need to start over again or will they be responded to?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On the second question, we suspect the answer to that is that they would be referred and transferred to the commissioner. But, given this whole area of FOI is such a litigious one, we would need to take advice. If it is anything different to that, the Attorney will correspond with the honourable member. Our suspicion at this stage is that they would be transferred to the commissioner in terms of handling and managing it. There may well be legal issues in relation to that under the FOI legislation, which we would need to address.

In relation to the first question about the online gambling inquiry by the IGA, the answer is that that has not been concluded, so we are not aware of how far advanced that particular one is. I think that is an even more powerful argument: if that has not very significantly gone down the path, it would not seem to make much sense to do that separately as an inquiry, albeit we have a transitional provision that allows it. If you are going to do an overall review of gambling and gaming regulation, clearly the issue of online gambling is a critical part of all of that. Again, if the Attorney thinks there is anything more that she could add to the answer I have just given you, she may well correspond with you.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just by way of a final question, in relation to that review and also in relation to those inquiries that I have just alluded to, the IGA was very good at ensuring that all stakeholders, including members of parliament and political parties, were involved in that consultation process, always had the ability to provide submissions, both written and oral, and were always invited to do so. My question to the Treasurer is: will the review being undertaken by the government be open to that same sort of process? That is, will we have the opportunity to provide evidence, submissions or whatever the case may be in relation to specific gambling regulation components?