Bills

Gambling Administration Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer please respond to the questions that were raised in the second reading debate?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will provide some answers that have been provided here, and if I have missed any of the questions I am sure the honourable member will be kind enough to remind us of the ones that are not included. The first question was a request for roundtable stakeholders. My understanding is that this answer was emailed to the honourable member and other honourable members at 1.44pm on Tuesday, with an attachment. I am happy to quickly refer to that. In terms of the government sector, the roundtable stakeholders were: DHS, Treasury, Finance, Licensing Court, SAPOL, Licensing Enforcement Branch, Lotteries Commission, and the Office for Recreation and Sport. Of those, only two made a formal submission following the roundtable session, which were SAPOL and the Office for Recreation and Sport.

In terms of support services/researchers, that general category: the University of Adelaide, Centre for Economic Studies, School of Psychology, Aboriginal Family Support Service, Anglicare SA, Lifeline Mount Gambier, OARS Community Transitions, Overseas Chinese Association, PsychMed Pty Ltd, Relationships Australia, SACOSS, Statewide Gambling Therapy Service, Uniting Communities, Uniting Country SA, and the Vietnamese Community of Australia. Of those, Lifeline Mount Gambier, Overseas Chinese Association, PsychMed Pty Ltd, Statewide Gambling Therapy Service and Uniting Communities all made a formal submission following the round table.

In terms of industry stakeholders consulted: Adelaide Casino, Club One SA, Independent Gambling Corporation, Australian Hotels Association, Clubs SA, ClubSAFE, Greyhound Racing, Harness Racing, Responsible Wagering Australia, the South Australian Bookmakers League, Thoroughbred Racing, Tabcorp Holdings and Sports SA. Of those, Adelaide Casino and Club One, the Australian Hotels Association, Clubs SA, ClubSAFE, Tabcorp and Sports SA made formal submissions following the round table.

I understand that in the second reading, again, these questions were evidently raised, and a whole series of others. Three pages of answers were provided to the honourable member and other honourable members and crossbench members. Another one that was repeated in the second reading was in relation to facial recognition studies and reports. The answer is that there were a number of harm minimisation reports conducted on the New Zealand facial recognition work. It states, 'Attached is detail about the New Zealand technology. See below articles also relevant.' I will not read the www. references but there are three separate references there that were provided to the Hon. Ms Franks and to other members.

As I said, those two were raised in pre-yesterday briefings and answers were provided, as I said, at 1.44pm on Tuesday. If the honourable member has other questions which she believes were raised in the second reading formally in this house and she wants the answers read into the record, I am happy to comply.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In that briefing on Monday afternoon—and I must say I had negotiated a briefing much earlier than Monday. Through no fault of my office—because we were available on at least three other separate occasions much earlier than Monday for that briefing—we did not receive that briefing until Monday. We then actually joined the SA-Best briefing so that we could have it not at 5 o'clock in the afternoon but earlier, before the cross-party whipping meeting.

While I appreciate some of the responses that were provided within less than a 24-hour turnaround, my main question at the briefing that was unaddressed was regarding the round table. The first question is: on what date was the round table held? The second question is: of those who were consulted at the round table, who was asked for their opinion on note acceptors, EFTPOS in gaming machines and facial recognition technology?

If you could go through each of the government support services, researchers and industry stakeholders and what their consultation was, whether they were asked about EFTPOS in gaming machines, whether they were asked about note acceptors and whether they were asked about facial recognition technology.

I will say that we do not have this information in the crossbench because we asked for the written submissions and we were refused and told to go to the stakeholders ourselves. That was with a briefing less than 24 hours before the debate then commenced.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, could I add just one more request to that. In addition to the matters outlined by the Hon. Tammy Franks, can we also add social effect certificate tests?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the roundtable discussions were held very early in the piece, about February or March this year. So prior to bills being developed there were early discussions with a whole range of stakeholders, I think, in the context of when the budget measures bill moved the IGA functions to the commissioner. So there was a previous decision that members would be aware of in terms of the Independent Gambling Authority. Its functions were moved to the commissioner, and as a result of that the commissioner and others were involved in these particular stakeholder discussions.

My advice is that at that particular stage, whilst there was no bill it was probable that there was no discussion at all about note acceptors and facial recognition, although one cannot be definitive in relation to that. However, there was no bill being discussed at that particular time; it was an early discussion. They believe it is likely that there was some discussion about the social effects test or impacts test as a general issue at that particular stage, but at that stage there was no bill and it was a roundtable discussion earlier on in the whole process.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer clarify that not a single stakeholder at that round table in February or March this year was consulted on note acceptors?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All I can do is based on the advice I am given, and the recollection is that there was no discussion about note acceptors, facial recognition and whatever was the third issue the honourable—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: EFTPOS and gaming machines.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: EFTPOS and gaming machines, but there was—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just finish? In relation to the Hon. Ms Bonaros, it is possible that there may well have been discussion about the social impacts test as a general issue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the Treasurer feel comfortable then that this round table can be linked to discussion of these bills as relevant consultation for this piece of legislation and the accompanying ones?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the interests of being collaborative, as we always are in this chamber, I am advised that on 7 February, the day after that roundtable discussion, a note went out from Consumer and Business Services to all people who participated, and in that was a summary of the discussions. That confirms the social effect inquiry process was discussed at that meeting, and an email or a note has gone to all of those stakeholders, which they would have, dated February, in relation to it. In relation to the honourable member's question, do I feel comfortable about the process? I am very comfortable.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Will the Treasurer table a copy of the summary that went to those groups in relation to that meeting?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to get a copy and provide it to members.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the briefing on Monday of SA-Best and Greens MLCs and their staff, we requested copies of the written submissions made as part of the consultation process. I understand, according to the table, that SAPOL Licensing Enforcement Branch; the Office for Rec and Sport; Lifeline Mount Gambier; Overseas Chinese Association of SA; PsychMed Pty Ltd; Statewide Gambling Therapy Service; Uniting Communities; Adelaide Casino; Club One (SA) Limited; Australian Hotels Association SA/Gaming Care; Clubs SA, Club Safe; Tabcorp Holdings; and Sport SA all made written submissions. We were refused access to these submissions. On what grounds was refusal made to members of the parliament debating this piece of legislation being able to access written submissions that purportedly formed the basis for this piece of legislation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have answered this question before in relation to other bills. The government's position is that if those individuals, like Tabcorp and others, want to share their submissions with honourable members, it is perfectly their entitlement to do so, but as members were advised yesterday or whenever the briefing was—Monday—they can take those issues up with the individuals who made the submissions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which of these stakeholders who made this engagement with government refused permission for their submissions be released further?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is entirely up to the member. If the member has asked and they refused, she would know whether they refused it or not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With respect, these were submissions made to the government. My understanding was, during the Weatherill era, we changed the processes around the making of submissions for government processes that led to the formation of legislation. Has something changed so that SAPOL's submission to government on gambling cannot be released to members of parliament; that the Office for Rec and Sport's submission on gambling cannot be released to members of parliament; that Lifeline Mount Gambier's submission may not be released; that the Overseas Chinese Association's submission may not be released; that PsychMed's submission, which attended the crossbench round table after the announcement of these bills and were very happy to share their opinions there, cannot be released; that Statewide Gambling Therapy Service's submission must somehow be kept secret from parliamentary debate; and that Uniting Communities' position cannot be known by members of parliament when we are debating this piece of legislation?

Regarding the Adelaide Casino; Club One (SA); Australian Hotels Association; Clubs SA, Club Safe; Tabcorp Holdings; and Sport SA, did any of those groups specifically ask that their submissions not be released to members of parliament for the information in support of debate in this chamber?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot add much more than I have added at the moment. As I said, if Tabcorp or Lifeline Mount Gambier agree to provide their submissions to the Hon. Ms Franks they are perfectly entitled to do so. They are their submissions. As to what the process was under the former Weatherill government or indeed any former government, we are always happy to look at what the processes may or may not have been. I am not aware of the particular processes to which the honourable member refers, but I am not proposing to delay the proceedings to do that investigation at the moment.

I am happy to take on advisement and discuss with the Attorney-General and others about general processes of submissions but, in general terms, if a non-government organisation such as Tabcorp or Lifeline Mount Gambier want to make a submission and provide a copy to crossbench members or members of the opposition or indeed anybody else to release it publicly, they are perfectly entitled to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My understanding from the list provided by the Attorney's office is that Gaming Care provided a submission. The inquiries made by my office indicate that Gaming Care did not provide a submission. Can you confirm for the record whether indeed Gaming Care has provided a submission or not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All I can share is the information I have been provided from the Attorney-General's office. Under the 'industry group' it has 'Australian Hotels Association of South Australia/Gaming Care' and next to that 'Made a formal submission following the roundtable session'; it says 'Yes'.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we confirm for the record whether Gaming Care provided a submission at those round tables? Can we get an answer during the course of the debate as to whether Gaming Care provided that submission?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is all I can share with the honourable member. That is the information I have been provided with; that is, Australian Hotels Association of South Australia/Gaming Care made a formal submission following the roundtable session.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not see, given that we have access to the individuals who are advising on this issue, why we cannot get confirmation that is conflicting to the advice that is provided to members. Gaming Care have said explicitly that they did not make a submission. They were at the round table, but they did not make a submission. The advice coming from the Attorney is that they did provide a submission. Can we get some clarity as to whether a submission was provided or not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can take it on notice, but all I can share is the information that I have, which is as I have described it twice. I do not propose to describe it again.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is it correct that the Treasurer has said that following the initial round table, the same groups were then consulted in relation to the issue specifically concerning the matters that the Hon. Tammy Franks has referred to, including note acceptors, EFTPOS and ATMs, and what was the outcome of that round table?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, it is not correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: At the briefing that we attended on Monday, the advice provided to us was that there were round tables both before and after. Note acceptors specifically were not canvassed at the original round table, but the advice provided to us at the briefing was that then there was a subsequent consultation with those same groups and that note acceptors were canvassed during that consultation period. Is that correct, or is the advice provided to us in the briefing incorrect?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I did not have the wonderful privilege of being at the briefing on Monday, so I am not aware as to what was provided to the honourable member or what the honourable member believed she was provided with at that particular meeting. But her first question was: is it correct that the Treasurer's response to the question indicated that, and my answer to that was, no, I did not indicate that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer, then, get some clarification from the advisers that the advice provided to us at the briefing was correct or incorrect insofar as the information provided to us was that there were round tables both before and after the announcement regarding note acceptors?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the roundtable discussions were in and around about the same time: February. One was for industry stakeholders and the other one was for support services, researchers, providers, etc. So the two round tables to which the honourable member is referring on the Monday referred to the two round tables that were conducted in February of this year, but they were on the same set of issues. One was to a group of stakeholders, which involved industry stakeholders, and the other was to that separate group I referred to earlier called support services and researchers. They were the two round tables.

I am advised that we are not aware of any other round table involving all those groups subsequent to those round tables; therefore, the answer to the honourable member's question is that there was no subsequent round table where issues like facial recognition or note acceptors, etc., were canvassed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Does 'round table' include consultation around note acceptors? According to my thorough notes from the meeting on Monday, the question asked was, 'Were note acceptors raised at that initial round table?' The response was no. We then asked, 'When was that issue raised, if at all?' The response was, 'When it became policy.' The next question was, 'What has been the feedback in relation to that policy?' The answer to that was that there was a consultation period that took place post the announcement regarding note acceptors. If that is the information that we are relying on from a briefing, then I would like to know whether that is correct or incorrect.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that there was no subsequent round table.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Does that include consultation? That was the other part of my question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure. Clearly, when the bill was introduced, I am advised that there were submissions made—I assume both for and against, but I do not know—in relation to the bill. That may or may not have included, I assume, issues such as note acceptors and others, but there was no subsequent round table at which there was a discussion about note acceptors and the like.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a problem with the answer that has been provided, because we rely on the briefings and the information that is provided at those briefings. I have documented the notes that were provided at those briefings. I have explained those, and they are very clear. The response was, 'When it became policy, we consulted on the issue of note acceptors.' My next question at that briefing was, 'What was the feedback in relation to that?' I have been waiting for a response on that. If we are waiting for a response on what the feedback was in relation to that consultation, then I would expect that the response given to me at the briefing was correct at the time. I would like that clarified for the record.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If that is an accurate recollection—I was not there, therefore I cannot claim the accuracy of the honourable member's recollection of the events—then I accept the word of the people who have given you the briefings, and that is that there was consultation. I am not in a position to indicate anything other than that there was no further round table in relation to this. If the honourable member had the view that there was another round table where—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: It was not my view.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just saying that, if that was the view, that is not correct. There may or may not have been. If the honourable member was told, on behalf of the Attorney-General, that there was further consultation, ultimately that is an issue for the Attorney-General. I am not in a position to indicate anything further than the information that I have.

I cannot give the honourable member any further information other than, clearly, when the bill was released, note acceptors were there. Everybody's position in relation to these issues is pretty clear. The honourable member's colleague and others read at length the views of those groups who oppose note acceptors. We heard a 5½-hour filibuster from the Hon. Mr Pangallo and others last night outlining the concerns that various groups, organisations and individuals have about note acceptors and the like.

I think it is quite clear as to who opposes note acceptors. It is also quite clear who supports note acceptors. More importantly, it is also quite clear who in the parliament supports note acceptors, and that ultimately the decision-making body is the parliament. The views of interested stakeholders, both for and against, are of great interest, but ultimately the decision rests with members of parliament duly elected, and that is what this process is about.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Indeed it does, and so if we are going to vote on issues, including note acceptors, then I expect that, in order for us to make an informed decision on these issues, we have available to us—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You oppose it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It does not matter what I do. It is your position that that is the issue that we should make an informed decision on, and I will be informed by whomever I like. But my position is that I asked a very specific question, 'What was the feedback in relation to that consultation that your government told us took place?', and I am still waiting for a response. We are debating the bill now, and I expect that we would have an answer to that as we work through this debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The expectations the honourable member has, she is perfectly entitled to have. They may or may not coincide with the expectations of the majority of members of this particular committee, but I am not going to disabuse the honourable member of any expectations she might have as to how the debate will be conducted. She is entitled to ask her questions, and I will answer the questions to the best of my ability. I indicate that I will die with my legs and hands in the air if the Hon. Ms Bonaros changes her position in relation to note acceptors on the basis of any evidence in relation to note acceptors. If the honourable member is purporting to indicate that, on the basis of the merits of the argument or stakeholders' views, she might change her position, as I said, I will die with my legs and feet in the air.

The honourable member's position on note acceptors and gambling generally is understood, is respected, etc. It just happens to be a minority view that exists in the parliament. She is entitled to prosecute her view, and we will listen, as we have, to herself and her colleagues speak, as I said, in a 5½-hour filibuster or whatever, but ultimately it will be a decision of this chamber.

I am not in a position to indicate anything more than I have on behalf of the government; that is, it is clear who opposes note acceptors in the community, because they have been quoted at length. It is also clear who supports the note acceptors in the community, but more importantly, the issue is decided by 22 members in this chamber and 47 members in another chamber, and it is their views, quite rightly, that will prevail.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I take exception to the Treasurer's suggestion that my honourable colleague was filibustering yesterday when we were given no opportunity whatsoever to prepare for this debate as reflected at Monday's whips' meeting. So in order to prepare for today's committee stage debate, in order to prepare for our questions and the responses that we are seeking, we needed someone to take the floor and allow us to do some work so that we could be here and debate this. My question to the Treasurer again is: has there been any feedback in relation to note acceptors post the announcement of the government's bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As reflected at the briefing on Monday, will the Treasurer provide the chamber with a summary of that feedback?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No.

The CHAIR: Have we exhausted clause 1, or do members require a few moments to collect their thoughts?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On a slightly different note, I think we have now clarified that not a single person at the round table was consulted on note acceptors. It appears that not a single person in this sector, regardless of whether they are industry, academic or government, was consulted on facial recognition technology, although I do note that the Casino already does have facial recognition technology and that the responses from government with regard to the questions raised in the second reading pointed to the New Zealand technology as evidence for us to pursue. The questions are: what brand of facial technology is the government seeking to pursue? What brand has been referred to in New Zealand? What brand is used in the Adelaide Casino?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, being such a cooperative Treasurer as I am, can I seek leave to table copies of the Consumer and Business Services email—this was their 7 February response, or whatever date it was, to stakeholders on the reform of South Australian gambling laws that went to the gambling help service providers workshop, which was one session—and then the reform to SA gambling laws CBS industry workshop issues paper.

Leave granted.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sorry, can I continue?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, it would facilitate discussion if we could get copies of that document.

The CHAIR: My apologies, Treasurer. Please go on.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's question, she asserted that Gaming Care had told her that they had never made a submission. I have been shown, on that little wonderful thing called an iPhone, a copy of the actual submission. The letterhead actually has the letters 'AHA' on the left-hand side, and on the right-hand side it has 'Gaming Care'. So the honourable member can assert what she wishes in relation to them not making a submission, but I have seen a copy of the letterhead of the submission, which on the letterhead shows 'AHA' and 'Gaming Care' in the top corners.

In relation to particular brands of facial recognition, etc., no particular brand has been selected. I am advised that this will be the subject of regulations. It will apply, as the honourable member knows, to venues of 30 or more. I think, as the honourable member has referred to, there was publicity in the last week that indicated that the Casino was already using facial recognition technology on its site. In relation to the requirement, should this legislation pass, it will be the subject of regulations that will have to be developed in relation to the type of technology that would be required.

This is not my area, obviously, but I would be surprised if, in these areas, one would mandate a particular brand. The bill may well mandate, I presume, particular facilities or requirements, etc., in terms of what it should do and what it should not be able to do. However, that will be the subject of regulations, should the bill pass the parliament.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, can I let the record reflect that, as the Treasurer indicated, if submissions are not going to be made available to us, we are going to do a ring around and make requests for those submissions. The advice offered to my office from the individuals at Gaming Care was that no submission was made. So that was not an assertion by me; that was advice given to my office. My question was seeking clarification in relation to the advice provided to me by Gaming Care.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All I can give you an indication on is that we have a copy of the actual submission. I have seen a copy of the letterhead, and 'Gaming Care' is clearly visible at the top. I do not purport to speak on behalf of Gaming Care, but if they have advised the Hon. Ms Bonaros of one set of circumstances and the evidence is to the contrary, the Hon. Ms Bonaros might want to take that up with Gaming Care.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer advise on what basis the threshold for facial recognition technology was landed on?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This was a question raised by one of the honourable members at the briefing on Monday and the answer that was sent to the honourable member at 1.44pm on Tuesday of this week reads as follows. The question was, 'Why 30 machines specifically for facial recognition to be in place?' The answer provided to the honourable member was:

By setting the figure at 30 machines, there is a greater likelihood of compliance of venues utilising this product. These are venues [with] higher capabilities, and with greater number of machines. By requiring venues with more than 30 machines, any of which have a note acceptor, to install facial recognition, over 75% of all gaming machines will be covered.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the Treasurer sure that it's 7 per cent or is it 75 per cent?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 75 per cent.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In regard to the facial recognition technology, can the government provide how accurate facial recognition technology has proven in use in casinos and gaming rooms across the globe? What percentage is correct and what percentage is incorrect?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would love to be able to assist the member but, no, I do not have that information.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer clarify whether it is well established that for facial recognition technology in regard to this purpose, the evidence so far is that it is pretty accurate with white men but not very accurate with people of colour?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As someone with a slightly yellow tinge to my skin, I am not sure about that. No, I cannot provide any information to the honourable member along those particular lines.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer elucidate how facial recognition technology will only be employed in our state to protect against gaming harm and address those who are barred and not be used to cultivate gambling itself, which is the other purpose that can be employed in gaming rooms for facial recognition technology?

Just to elaborate on that, for example, welcoming back regular patrons and letting them know that their favourite beverage is waiting for them at the bar are attractive uses of facial recognition technology for the gaming industry and uses that are already employed across the globe. What protections do we have so that, in fact, this Labor deal, supposedly providing the protection of facial recognition technology, will not actually be used to increase gaming and gambling harm rather than protect those who have already suffered?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot offer too much more other than in relation to an answer to the earlier question. That is, these may or may not be some of the issues that the commission will have to look at in terms of the development of regulations. Clearly, the intention of the government, and ultimately the parliament, should the amendment be supported, is to achieve the former purpose rather than the latter, that is, to assist in terms of the management of problem gamblers. I do not think even the honourable member would be suggesting that the intent of the government or the opposition in the parliament is to do anything other than that.

The honourable member is raising genuine questions about other purposes and how you guard against them. That will be an issue for the commissioner and others. If there are to be regulations, they are disallowable instruments, so honourable members in this chamber and in the other chamber will have the opportunity, as they occasionally do, to decide whether they support them or do not support them.

I think everyone would agree the intention of this is an intention for good: it is not an intention for bad or for evil. The issue is: how do you in achieving the good ensure to the extent that you can that bad or evil does not occur? I agree with the tenor of the honourable member's question, but I do not have any better answer than what I am able to share with her at the moment. It will be a challenge for the commissioner by way of regulation and, ultimately, as I said, if it is a regulation, then it will be an issue for the parliament to either agree or disagree.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think the Treasurer very much summed up the basis of my concerns being expressed here. This has been something that has not been well consulted in regard to these pieces of legislation, which I would consider a package, to be treated similarly in the debate. A deal has been done for facial recognition technology to be introduced in exchange for accepting note acceptors. It is the case that facial recognition technology is not 100 per cent accurate; in fact, in some cases, it is significantly inaccurate.

It is the case—well established—that in jurisdictions where the predominant demographics of the population are what you would call 'Anglo-Saxon Celt white' they are very inaccurate with people of colour. I certainly have concerns with several academic papers that have been produced on this technology that show high rates of error. I say that not because barred persons will slip through the net—that is a concern—but facial recognition technology also has the tendency to racially profile people who are of colour.

What safeguards there are to ensure that, for example, Aboriginal people are not unduly harassed because of mistaken facial recognition technology IDs is of concern. What potential those who have these gaming machines may see to use facial recognition technology not just to minimise harm but, indeed, to increase custom is of concern. When deals are done without due consideration, without appropriate consultation, which look more to a headline in The Advertiser to save face of a party that has done a deal but does not want to own up to it, then I think there will be unintended consequences.

I raise my grave concerns that while it is all well and good to say that it will be solved in the regulations—and I have every faith in the commissioner doing a good job, and I actually have every faith in the Attorney-General doing a good job—I raise those concerns and put on the record that facial recognition technology is not the silver bullet of protection that it is being portrayed to be by the Labor opposition. It is a convenient excuse to vote for note acceptors and it is an excuse that is being put forward to this parliament without a nuanced, informed debate that may well have those unintended consequences.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to the issue of facial recognition technology, one of the questions asked at the briefing was whether we had an average cost in relation to that technology. The advice provided was that in New Zealand the set-up cost was around $20,000 and one of the individuals present went on to also offer that there was a one-month trial currently being undertaken in New Zealand in casinos. Can the minister confirm for the record that the decision to exclude venues with fewer than 30 machines had nothing to do with affordability of facial recognition technology?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to give a definitive answer to the honourable member's question in relation to that. I guess all issues in relation to harm minimisation issues, gambling issues, requirements on venues to do certain things, in the end have some element of affordability in them. Whether they are a very small and insignificant part of the consideration or a more significant part of the consideration I guess might vary.

Having debated these issues for 20 or 30 years, I know there have been a number of cases in the past where affordability issues in relation to gambling harm minimisation have been part of the consideration of the parliament's deliberations. I cannot immediately think of an example, but I know there have been examples. The direct answer to the honourable member's question is, no, I am not in a position to be able to provide a definitive answer to the honourable member's question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer provide data in relation to the revenue of those venues with less than 30 machines, compared to a set-up cost of $20,000, and whether that would be reasonable in the circumstances?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position, in the process of this particular debate, to provide information along those lines. I am happy to take the question on notice and see what, if any, information might be either available publicly or might possibly be able to be made publicly available. I do not think there is any doubt, however, in terms of where the honourable member might be heading with the question—having been a regular attender at Clubs SA functions over many years—that there are a number of smaller country venues that do have 10 or 20 machines. The amount of revenue they are generating from those machines—I cannot say it is less than $20,000, but $20,000 would be a very large impost on some of those small country venues.

I am sure, as the honourable member gets around to regional communities, the country clubs would indicate that they are making precious little money out of the machines. In days gone by, when they could sell the machines at a reasonable level, a number of them did and got out of the machines. However, these days, given what has occurred with the gaming industry, the value of the machines has plummeted and, in many cases—and also because of the age of the machines—there is not much of a market to actually purchase the old machines that are 10 or 20 years out of date. There is not much of a demand for the machines they have, even at the prices that are being quoted, and so for them, I am sure, a $20,000 impost, if that was it, would be a very significant hit on some small country clubs.

I am sure the honourable member would be aware that there are certain venues, in particular those smaller regional clubs—and, frankly, having been to the regions, some of the very small regional hotels which bought machines would probably be in a similar position as well. I think they would probably view it as an unreasonable impost on them should they be required to spend $20,000, or whatever it is, for the limited number of people who come through their venue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: This may very well be the only thing the Treasurer has said during this debate that I will agree with him on. For the Treasurer's information, I do make my way around to regional areas and I also make sure that I visit the sorts of places that he has just described when I make those visits. However, what this is a reflection of is not whether or not it is affordable, it is a reflection of the failure of the trading scheme in relation to poker machines. What I am trying to get to the bottom of is how we landed on the magic number of 30. I am sure if the opposition was kind enough to assist us during this debate, they could shed some light on how we arrived at that number of 30.

I do have a question, which I am hoping the Acting Leader of the Opposition will respond to, given that facial recognition technology was their amendment in the lower house, and that is: what consultation was undertaken by the opposition in relation to the implementation of facial recognition technology?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I just remind the chamber that these are government bills. I am not the person responsible for drafting or managing the process of the opposition amendments that were moved in the other place. The bill was passed on 13 November—that is three weeks ago—in the other place, with those amendments forming part of the bill that has come to us. There have been three weeks for honourable members to perhaps seek a briefing from the shadow treasurer, who was responsible for drafting and managing the process of the amendments in the other place.

In terms of the specific question, my understanding is that the commissioner was comfortable with the idea of facial recognition being brought in. Other than that I do not have any further information.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would be keen to do a word count on that and see if that is longer than the acting opposition leader's contribution on the bill itself. Given this was an initiative put forward by the opposition, I think it is only reasonable that an explanation is provided as to whether—it is a very simple question—any consultation was done in relation to the implementation of that facial recognition technology, irrespective of whether the debate took place three weeks ago or the bills were introduced three weeks ago, or if it was dealt with in the lower house.

I was not in the lower house. I am in this house, and this is the opposition in this place. So my question, again, is: was any consultation undertaken with any of the stakeholder groups in relation to facial recognition technology? You owe it to members in this place to provide a response to that.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Do you have anything further to add, the Hon. Ms Scriven?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Simply that I have provided the information I have to hand.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the Acting Leader of the Opposition provide an explanation of how the select committee the Labor Party negotiated as part of its deal to support this legislation will operate?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The select committee would operate in the same way as other select committees in this place operate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The member is saying 'in this place'. Will it be a select committee of the upper house?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that it will be a joint house select committee. When I referred to 'this place' I meant the parliament, and my understanding is that it would operate in the same way as any other joint select committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What will the membership of this joint select committee look like? Will it be Labor or Liberal only or will crossbenchers be involved in it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That would be determined when the committee is established, as it is in all other establishments of joint select committees.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the Acting Leader of the Opposition is confirming that crossbenchers could potentially be locked out—yet again—from important discussions about gambling, and Labor and Liberal will have a cosy arrangement amongst themselves. With regard to facial recognition technology, why was the venue number of 30 gaming machines chosen by the Labor Party?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I again reiterate that these amendments were moved in the other place, and they are part of the bill that has been sitting, having come up to us. It was passed three weeks ago. Perhaps I could ask the crossbenchers whether they sought a briefing from the shadow treasurer, who was responsible for advocating for these changes: have they sought a briefing from him in the three weeks since the bill passed?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would love a briefing from the shadow treasurer on this issue. I would love some justification on who—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Did you ask for one?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The crossbenchers did ask for one.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Did you ask for one?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We were working together on consultation—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Yes; of course you were.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order! The Hon. Ms Franks has the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Of course we were. We would like a briefing from the Labor Party on facial recognition technology and the deal you did with the government to support note acceptors in poker machines across South Australia.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: You couldn't be bothered asking for one.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There is no 'couldn't be bothered'. We only wanted a joint briefing; we did not want separate briefings from the Labor Party. We wanted a single briefing on this, and we would not have to ask for a briefing at all if the details were actually provided by the Labor opposition either in the other place or in this place. Nobody would need a briefing if you actually came in with information about where you had got your harebrained scheme from that was more to save the face of the Labor Party so that they could do a dodgy deal with the government on note acceptors in poker machines, and pretend and wring their hands as if they cared when they put no thought whatsoever into whether or not this technology could actually do more harm than good.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member refers to something she calls a 'hairbrained scheme'. I would just remind the chamber that the commissioner is comfortable with the idea of facial recognition being brought in, so I do not think the commissioner is generally in favour of 'hairbrained schemes'. Could the Hon. Ms Franks provide details of when she requested a briefing from the shadow treasurer, as I do not have any record of that occurring and nor does the shadow treasurer?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did just answer that question and say that had information been provided in the chamber, there would be no need for a briefing. That would be preferable; on the public record is actually the preferred way to get information, but if the Labor opposition wants to provide the briefing, bring it on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sure if the Hon. Ms Franks would like to contact the shadow treasurer and seek a briefing, he would be more than happy to do so; however, in the three weeks since the bill passed, that request has not been forthcoming. Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Ms Bonaros if she has also sought a briefing from the shadow treasurer in the three weeks since it has passed, apart from perhaps today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have not just asked today. The minister responsible for dealing with this bill in the lower house is the Attorney-General. The shadow attorney-general is absent. It is clear that a deal has been done by the two major parties, so I thought I would take my requests for a briefing directly to your leader, the Leader of the Opposition. I think to date, for your knowledge, I have met with him on three occasions in relation to this. I think at both of the first two meetings, we discussed at length the issue of facial recognition technology.

I did request information about consultation on those occasions, in addition to a number of other matters, and I would have thought that the acting shadow attorney-general in this place, the equivalent of the minister responsible in the lower house, would have had those answers available if they are going to be sitting in that chair and providing responses and debating this bill here. So, yes, I have sought my briefings, yes I have attended at least three meetings with the Leader of the Opposition.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Ms Scriven, before I give you the call, I would indicate that we have been on clause 1 for a little over an hour now and I am keen to put the question in the relatively near future. Much of what we have been debating can be teased out as we progress through the bill. I will give you the call, the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. I am glad the Hon. Ms Bonaros has placed on the record that the Leader of the Opposition has met with her on a number of occasions about this, and also that it has now been established that neither the Hon. Ms Bonaros nor the Hon. Ms Franks sought a briefing from the person who is responsible—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Point of order, the Hon. Ms Scriven, from the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think I have made it quite clear that the minister dealing with this legislation, the minister responsible for this legislation, is the Attorney-General, so when I sought my meeting—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Ms Bonaros, that is not a point of order. You can continue the debate after the Hon. Ms Scriven has made her point, so I will go back to the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The shadow treasurer has responsibility for this bill in the other place and was involved in advocating for the amendments which were passed, and he would have been more than happy to receive a request for a briefing in the three weeks since the bill passed the other place. That did not occur.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Does the Acting Leader of the Opposition in this place have no faith in the leader of her party providing briefings on matters regarding gaming reforms?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think that comment deserves a response.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the opposition please explain why crossbenchers need to seek a private briefing with a member of the other place and they cannot answer questions about Labor amendments to this legislation made in the other place? Were they briefed on the facial recognition technology deal? Do they understand the facial recognition technology deal? Why did they not provide any detail whatsoever in their second-reading contribution to this debate?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The amendments were moved in the other place, and the bill has come up to us after it was passed three weeks ago. Therefore, there was ample opportunity to seek additional information. I reiterate this is a government bill. I was not the person responsible for drafting the amendments. It has come up to us as a bill, and that is what we are debating. I have not moved any amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am going to remember these comments on a number of other debates that we are going to have in this place. Can the Acting Leader of the Opposition in this place confirm the advice offered that note acceptors was the deal done for facial recognition technology being implemented in the bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The question is not clear. I am not sure what advice the honourable member is referring to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Acting Leader of the Opposition—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Ms Bonaros, can I ask you to wait until I give you the call, please. The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Acting Leader of the Opposition confirm that facial recognition technology was what the opposition offered in order to allow note acceptors to be implemented as part of this package of reforms?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition sought amendments that were moved in the other place and accepted by the parliament in the other place.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I think it is time to put the question. These matters can be teased out as we progress through the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have one final question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm why the decision was made on this occasion not to deal with this bill as a conscience vote?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It was a decision of our party room.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I am keen to put the question.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do have a question to ask of the Treasurer. Just in relation to the enforcement of regulations and these machines, can the Treasurer please tell us how will the regulator, which I imagine will be the office of liquor and gaming, monitor that transactions, including note acceptors and on-screen messages, are carried out in accordance with regulations, and how often, in particular also with EFTPOS? Can the Treasurer provide some figures on how many times the regulator has detected any abnormalities in this area; for example, cash transactions that have exceeded what is in the regulation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to provide that information, but I am happy to refer the honourable member's question to the commissioner and see what information he might be able to make available.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Also, why does the government not think it is necessary to reveal venue level data on a regular basis?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This question was asked on Monday, and answers were provided to some crossbenchers. I am not sure whether it went to the honourable member's office. The explanation provided at 1.44pm on Tuesday was as follows:

The government does not propose to require disclosure of in-venue specific data. The Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services receives this data, which is appropriate. While there are broader concerns around the commercial confidence of separate venues' earnings, there is also community safety interests to ensure venues are not specifically targeted by crime groups. Venue staff and patron safety may be at risk here. Victoria is the only other state to publish this information.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government provide statistics about what is happening in Victoria with the release of that venue data; for instance, crime statistics, perhaps, that have been linked to the release of that information?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am not in a position to be able to provide any further information as to what happens in other jurisdictions such as Victoria other than the advice I have, which is that Victoria is the only other state to publish this information.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is a question I raised during that briefing. I asked for a response as to whether there had been any request from this government, or any inquiries made by this government, of any other jurisdiction that may publish such data. I note that they have indicated that Victoria is the only other jurisdiction. Did the government seek any advice as to how that has operated in that jurisdiction and whether it has resulted in the sorts of problems that have been highlighted as the reason for maintaining a commercial-in-confidence arrangement?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that information along the lines the honourable member has requested has not been sought.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the government provide any details on the note acceptor technology? Who would be providing that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that gaming machine manufacturers already manufacture machines with note acceptors on them, and they are used in every other jurisdiction. What happens in South Australia is that they actually have to be disabled. The note acceptors are on the machines, but they are disabled, if that is the correct technological description; they are made inoperative. The issue in relation to the type of note acceptor is that they are the ones that will be on the gaming machine manufacturers' machines, which are currently being used in other jurisdictions. The machines are already here and the note acceptors are there. They will just be enabled as opposed to disabled.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will there then be more stringent enforcement of regulations requiring on-screen messaging?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a complicated answer. The only requirement for online messaging for hotels and clubs is if they have cashless gaming—that is, ticket in, ticket out. I am advised that at the moment there are not any hotels and clubs that have cashless gaming—ticket in, ticket out. Under the existing legislation, not under the proposed bill, they can apply to the commissioner to have cashless gaming, so that is not something new.

Hotels and clubs can apply for cashless gaming—or ticket in, ticket out—if they wish, under the existing legislation. It is not something you are being asked to vote on here: it is in the existing law, so I am advised. If they were to do that, then there is a requirement for online messaging, but it is only in relation to cashless gaming that that is a particular requirement.

I am told that the Casino does have cashless gaming, and therefore they have to have online messaging. I think one of the honourable members in the very long contributions last evening talked about online messaging in some venues. It is the Casino where that might have been seen or where it occurs, because they do have cashless gaming—ticket in, ticket out—which is allowed under the existing law. So there is nothing new, so I am advised, that is being introduced in terms of this legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps if I can be a little bit more specific: is that technology also the subject of an enabling versus disabling scenario? I note, of course, that last week in this place we voted on a disallowance motion regarding the same matter, and the extension that was being sought—and it is in law; you are quite correct—was in relation to having to implement and make operational the use of that legislation that was supposed to come into effect, I believe, in December 2018. My question is: is that also a matter of enabling or disabling that technology?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advisers are experts in a whole range of areas, but in relation to the technology in relation to this issue, it is not their area of expertise. Do not take this as the definitive answer, but our best understanding is it is likely to be new software. To the question, 'Is this an enabling/disabling thing?', we think the answer is probably no. We think the answer is probably you have to get new software commissioned or incorporated, etc., but we will take advice on it and I am sure we will be able to, at a later stage, provide an answer to the honourable member's question.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Consumer and Business Services has indicated that it wants to legislate for new payment technologies. The Treasurer has just told us that these machines are actually quite adaptable and the note acceptor software is actually turned off. In that case, will these note acceptor machines also be able to be adapted to accept tap-and-go cards?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that when we get to the companion bill, that is actually addressed in the companion bill. There is actually a specific prohibition included in the companion bill to prevent the installation of tap and go. The honourable member will be able to agree furiously, I suspect, with that toughening requirement by the government in the companion bill, but it is not addressed in this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just ask a question in relation to the social effect inquiry process. I note the response provided by the government following the briefing—the advice provided yesterday at 1.44pm. One of the lines in that advice is:

Indeed, since the introduction of the Social Effect Inquiry Process in 2011, no new gaming licences have been granted.

Did the government take the opportunity to consider the decision of the Cheltenham Park community and sporting club—that is, the SAJC case—in relation to the changes to the social effect inquiry process and the reasons outlined in that, insofar as they relate to the lack of new gaming machine licences granted since the implementation of that test?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Could the member clarify what her question is in relation to that?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There was an SAJC test case, which has provided a precedent as of 29 December 2016. That precedent has resulted in no further gaming machine licences being granted. The response given at the briefing was that no gaming machine licences have been granted since that test was implemented in 2011. My question is: when the government considered the changes to the social effect test, did they take into consideration the comments or findings of the commissioner in the SAJC case?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I am very happy to respond, but this particular issue is in the other bill. However, in the interest of expediting debate in the other bill, I am happy to respond to all questions in relation to this particular bill. I think the correct answer to this is that, inevitably, all the issues relating to the requests from various parties—they appeared mainly to be clubs, but there might be some hotels; I am not sure—were about moving machines, such as the SAJC case.

The Hon. Ms Bonaros has limited it to only the SAJC case, but, with my Treasurer's hat on, I am familiar with complaints from, I think, Harness Racing, which wanted to move their machines from one side of what they believed to be their property to another side. I also know that various football clubs have wanted to move their machines to different locations. I think, and I might stand corrected on this, that the South Australian National Football League may or may not, at some stage, have explored the possibility in relation to the West Lakes development. I also think there was a regional club, perhaps in one of the Spencer Gulf towns, such as Port Pirie.

Having been a regular attendee at Clubs SA events, I know there have been complaints about the challenges of being able to work within the previous legislation to do what, in their view, they would believe to be a reasonable proposition—and I am not purporting that the Hon. Ms Bonaros would agree—to move their existing licences from one part of their property to the next, or down the road, or whatever it might happen to be. They have certainly argued, to anyone who is prepared to listen to them, that the current arrangements are unfair and unreasonable and that the government, or any government at some stage, should seek to address them. This is the government's response.

The answer to the question is that I am sure that the issues relating to the SAJC would have been one factor in consideration, but that factor would not have been the defining factor. There are many other examples that have been raised—certainly with me, and I am not the minister responsible—with members over the years.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Having been involved in a number of the matters the Treasurer has just referred to, I can confirm that it is not my view, but it has been the view of the commissioner and has also been the view espoused by our courts in challenges that have been had in relation to that social effect test. I am happy to canvass that further when we get to the accompanying bill on this issue.

My other question specifically relates to the briefing that we attended on Monday. I am grateful for the breakdown provided in terms of the number of machines in venues and the breakdown in relation to 30 machines or less. Specifically, in relation to the number of inspections and compliance issues, I think I also asked for a breakdown in relation to the number of prosecutions that have occurred, noting, of course, that there is one on foot at the moment (for the last couple of years). So I specifically asked for stats in relation to the number of prosecutions that have also occurred for breaches of obligations by venues.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I refer the honourable member to the answer to the question on 'Penalties for contravention of barring orders under new s47(2) which has been migrated from s15F of the current act'. The answer the honourable member was provided, which certainly answers part of the honourable member's question, is:

Since the Commissioner assumed responsibility for the administration of the current act (post 1/12/2018)—

so 12 months—

no prosecutions have been pursued for a breach of this section, however advice has been received that at least two cases are currently being considered for prosecution, as was advised yesterday.

So there are two cases being considered but at this stage, in the first 12 months, no prosecutions have been pursued.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you for the response. Can we also confirm, perhaps even for the same period, the number of expiation fees that have been issued as opposed to prosecutions?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take that question on notice and provide some sort of response.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 13, lines 10 and 11 [clause 15(4)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-1] is actually consequential on amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-1], but I understand I have to move amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-1], so I will speak to them together. Effectively, these amendments relate to the issue that we were just discussing in relation to expiation fees being payable as opposed to prosecutions. It is SA-Best's position that despite the ability for an officer to go in and offer an on-the-spot fine as a deterrent—so the deterrent effect, perhaps, of an expiation fee—over an actual prosecution, it was noted that the penalties for those expiation fees are significantly low compared with the maximum penalties that would be applicable for an actual prosecution. I note, also, that we have sought to increase the penalties for those prosecutions.

If we look at some of the sorts of offences that we are talking about, this would require us to go to the Gambling Codes of Practice. We then look at the offences that are listed A, B, C and D—I will just chose one of them as an example, which I gave to the government—the penalties that would apply for breaches which would be otherwise considered significant breaches are very low if an expiation fee is provided, as opposed to a maximum penalty under a prosecution. It is not so much that the expiation fees apply in all circumstances, but it is the amount that has been attributed to those expiation fees. They are significantly low but they do deal with significantly important issues insofar as they deal with breaches by venues of their obligations when it comes to providing a safe gambling environment.

As the Treasurer indicated, there are two cases on foot at the moment which highlight how significant these breaches can be. It is SA-Best's position that, whilst I appreciate what the commissioner has at his disposal in terms of being able to provide an expiation fee as a deterrent and perhaps a warning to a venue, there are a number of matters outlined in the code which I do not think should be subject to an expiation fee rather than a prosecution, or at the very least those expiation fees should be a lot higher than what they are. In fact, our position would be that those maximum penalties should be increased from the current penalties that are set in the act. It is for those reasons, that we are moving amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. I think the honourable member has partially explained the government's position on that; that is, the government believes that in relation to disciplinary issues, the range of potential punishments—including expiation and prosecutions and the like—ought to be available to the commissioner in terms of trying to manage poor behaviour. For those reasons, the government opposes it.

In part, regarding the earlier question in relation to prosecutions, even though two prosecutions have been considered, the fact that there have been zero at the moment may well mean that, as the honourable member is a lawyer, based on legal advice, the issue is the chances of successful prosecutions, the seriousness of the offence.

There may well be, in the judgement of the commissioner, a range of offences which are more meritorious of being financially penalised, up to $1,200 in terms of category A expiable offences, and that may be more useful than either proceeding with a prosecution and being unsuccessful or, ultimately, in the commissioner's judgement, deciding that it is not worthwhile proceeding with the prosecution, for whatever purpose that might be. For those reasons, the government opposes the amendment. We believe there should be a range of punishments available, including expiation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment based on the same reasoning as has just been outlined by the Treasurer in terms of giving maximum flexibility to the commissioner.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have some sympathy for, and I understand what SA-Best is attempting to do with the amendments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, but my question is: I understand that the Attorney-General and the commissioner, I think, would like to be able to take action without taking this through the courts, but why were the figures set at the rates they were?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer to the honourable member's question is that the expiation offences already exist for breaches of the gaming machines code of practice at these particular levels, and all this legislation is seeking to do is to extend the same level of expiation offence for offences under the Authorised Betting Operations Act and the Casino Act. The reason we have chosen these, based on advice from counsel, is that that is the existing expiable offence for breaches of gaming machines legislation and, therefore, under the Authorised Betting Operations Act and Casino Act we have just used the same penalties.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you for that answer, Treasurer. I will indicate that to keep the debate alive, the Greens will indicate their support for this amendment. We can see the numbers, though, and we will not be proposing to divide.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Whilst I can understand and have some sympathy for the amendment of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That was a consequential amendment.

The CHAIR: Thank you. For the benefit of the committee and Hansard, amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-1] is consequential, and the honourable member has indicated she will not be moving it. Does that include amendment No. 3 [Bonaros-1] as well?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes.

The CHAIR: So they are both consequential and the member has indicated she will not be moving them.

Clauses 16 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 17, lines 10 to 12 [clause 20(1)]—Delete 'may make publicly availably statistical information about expenditure relating to gambling activities undertaken under a gambling Act if the statistics have' and substitute:

must, in each calendar month, make publicly available, statistical information about expenditure relating to gambling activities undertaken under a gambling Act that has

This amendment also relates to one of the issues we discussed at clause 1 of the bill in relation to the disclosure of venue specific data. Fortunately for me, and for the benefit of the Treasurer, I do have a very good argument in support of this amendment that has been provided by Professor Michael O'Neil in his report, Consideration of Proposed Harm Minimisation Measures: South Australia 2019.

In relation to that sort of data, the government has argued that it does not propose to require disclosure of in-venue specific data. The Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services receives this data, which is appropriate. While there are broader concerns around the commercial-in-confidence aspects of separate venues' earnings, there is also a community safety interest to ensure that venues are not specifically targeted by crime groups. The safety of venue staff and patrons may be at risk here, and Victoria is the only other state to publish this information.

I will take the liberty of providing the Treasurer and the chamber with details regarding the Victorian gambling regulation, where these provisions have worked effectively, according to Professor O'Neil's report:

Gambling policy and impacts of changes to gambling legislation cannot be evaluated or assessed as a contribution to evidence-informed policy or provided to the benefit of informing legislators.

That is us. The report continues:

The principal reasons are twofold:

(a) the reluctance of administrators/regulators to commission and appropriately support research inquiry that is substantive including that it is industry and state specific where required; and

(b) that statistical data which is of public interest and the availability of which should be a condition of a gambling licence is not made available.

The release of revenue data from EGM gambling is in the public interest.

Obviously, that is a view we support wholeheartedly. It continues:

The Victorian Gambling Regulation Act 2003 provides for aggregated and disaggregated data where publication is in the public interest and is not unreasonable.

Specifically Section 10.1.33 on Aggregation of statistical information states:

10.1.33 Aggregation of statistical information

(1) Any statistical information published about gambling expenditure in relation to gaming venues (whether pursuant to an authorisation under section 10.1.32(3) or otherwise) must be aggregated—

(a) to give the total gambling expenditure for all approved venues in a municipal district; and

(b) if a municipal district has less than 3 approved venues, to give the total gambling expenditure for all approved venues in the municipal district together with an adjoining municipal district or districts so that the statistical information indicates gambling expenditure for at least 3 approved venues—

except as authorised by or under subsection (2).

(2) The Minister or the Commission may publish, or authorise the publication of, disaggregated statistical information if the Minister or the Commission (as the case requires) considers that—

(a) publication is in the public interest; or

(b) in the circumstances, publication is not unreasonable.

The provisions of the Act provide for venue level data which is available on a monthly basis.

The Victorian Commission for Liquor and Gambling Regulation (VCLGR) provides the following data:

1) Gaming data: related content

Released bi-annually, this data set provides information relating to the total expenditure at each gaming venue. It includes venue classification and the allocation of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) throughout Victoria.

Current gaming expenditure by venue…

Historical gaming expenditure by venue…

The Expenditure by Venue is a dynamic content page—

this is available in Professor O'Neil's report as well—

profiling the same data as represented in the files [that have been referred to] above with each listing providing details of that gaming venue, including current year expenditure, venue location and classifications, licence and nominee details.

2) Gaming Venue Operator: Electronic Gaming Machines

Released monthly this data set provides gaming expenditure by local government area.

Released monthly on the fourth Friday of each month, this data set provides information relating to the various local government areas (LGAs) throughout Victoria, primarily the region classification, total gaming expenditure and the number of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) and gaming venues per LGA.

The publicly available statistics referred to are considered dynamic:

…profiling the same data as represented in the [information I have referred to] with each LGA listing providing details including identification of gaming venues within the LGA, mapping of geographical location of all venues, current year expenditure, venue location and classifications and licence and nominee details.

3) Population Density and Gaming Expenditure

Released annually, this data set displays gaming expenditure compared to population density.

This data set includes population and expenditure breakdowns by local government area (LGA) and gaming venue, demographic statistics, labour statistics and Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) LGA score and ranking per LGA.

According to the report of the SA Centre for Economic Studies and Professor O'Neil, in Victoria:

…historical gaming data by venue is provided each month, aggregated and disaggregated data is available on a current and historical basis by venue and by LGA and expenditure statistics are calculated and provided on a population basis.

The [data referred to provides] the name of the venue, the region (metropolitan/country), by LGA name, venue type [hotel/club], by month and by six month intervals and the number of EGMs per venue.

The argument in support of the same sorts of rules here is that we need to adopt the Victorian regime and make aggregated and disaggregated data available, and that that data relates to gaming only. It is not commercial-in-confidence and it does not include all revenue generated by a club or hotel that may provide, for instance, accommodation, meeting facilities, food services and bottle services, which has been one of the arguments put by the industry as to why it should not be provided. The report continues:

The lack of transparency and the poor record of serious research commissioned in South Australia provides a veil of secrecy that is certainly not in the public interest. It reflects a lack of maturity in policy debates, leaving policy makers to fall back on conjecture, assumptions or the powerful influence of lobbyists and industry.

I will say that these are not my views, although I do share them; these are the views that have been offered by Professor O'Neil from the SA Centre of Economic Studies, an expert in his field and somebody who has said that time and time again we come to this place and we debate gambling-related legislation and we do so off the back of our own policy positions without having regard to the sort of data that we need to be having regard to in the public interest. Professor O'Neil highlights that:

A number of the proposed changes as signalled by the Attorney-General appear to emanate from considerations in the Anderson (2016) report titled 'Administrative Review of Gambling Regulation in South Australia'. That report DID NOT address the complex question and regulating safeguards for harm minimisation in its review of commercial gambling, noting

1.1.15. The Government has indicated that responsible gambling policies, harm minimisation and problem gambling measures are not to be considered as part of this review, but rather I should concentrate on the regulatory arrangements.

So that was not even considered as part of the Anderson review, according to clause 1.1.15. According to clause 1.1.16:

However, it is not possible to exclude problem gambling and harm minimisation objects from the overall regulatory framework for commercial gambling. To that extent, I will deal with the management and control of these issues.

If we are going to argue that this bill is based on the outcomes of the Anderson review, then it should be noted very clearly for the record that these considerations were not made by Mr Anderson QC as part of his findings in that report, and that is a very important point that should not be lost on any member in this place. They were not taken into consideration, and we know from the evidence made available to us that they are absolutely necessary insofar as any public interest standard is involved.

It is also important, in that context, in terms of knowing where it is that these machines are being concentrated. We do have a breakdown of figures available to us based on LGA—local government area, or municipality—and we can see from those figures alone that, in the main, these machines are concentrated in our most vulnerable communities. That is clear, based on the evidence that is already provided freely, publicly, by the commissioner. If I were to run down that list, I would be able to highlight that the evidence demonstrates clearly that the major losses that occur in gambling venues occur in those local government areas that can afford it the least.

So when we come here and we make informed decisions about poker machines and gambling addiction, then they are factors that we should be taking into consideration. What is more, if we had access to information that was based on venues, we would have further insight into the impact that these machines have in certain areas, and that is certainly something, without question—absolutely—that is in the public interest.

There are a number of instances where we know that the public interest argument far outweighs any other consideration and certainly that of commercial-in-confidence. As has been articulated by Professor O'Neil, the commercial-in-confidence argument in this context simply does not stack up. I am also going to place on the record appendix B of that report, which is correspondence to the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP dated 21 October 2019. Professor O'Neil states:

I follow up my earlier correspondence on proposed reforms to gambling in South Australia. I reiterate a core principle that Parliament should require that EGM venue level data be made available by the relevant authority on a monthly basis. I note that your amendments are intended to 'force online betting firms to provide detailed data on the scale of their activity'…

That is something that the opposition has clearly advocated for and has managed to secure. They have managed to have the government agree that their amendments are intended to force online betting firms to provide detailed data on the scale of their activity. Professor O'Neil goes on to say:

…hence the clear symmetry is for the Commissioner of Liquor and Gaming to make available EGM revenue from hotels and clubs.

Why? Because it is entirely consistent with the position of the opposition in this instance to do so. It continues:

It is not commercial in confidence data as [has been] indicated before and business people in South Australia agree with my position on this matter. The Government licences hotels and clubs and has the power to be totally transparent on this issue and require that data be published on a monthly basis as is the case in Victoria. [It is] untenable to argue 'we are following other states in regard to land tax aggregation, note acceptors, facial recognition, EFTPOS, etc, but we choose not to follow them on making public information that should be in the public domain'.

Why? Because it is in the public interest. It continues:

The issue of transparency seems to be very much in the public domain at this point in time.

Professor O'Neil goes on in his correspondence to the shadow treasurer from the other place, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP, to say:

As I have indicated below it is simply not possible for any person to assert that various changes in the gambling environment will…have this or that effect without the evidence to test the assertion. Government has nothing to fear—

Treasurer, I hope you are listening to this—

in making the data publicly available nor does the industry which in [many cases] is subject to dense and very sophisticated internal and external analysis by financial groups (e.g. Morgan Stanley…venue traders and others. It has had no adverse repercussions as the situation in Victoria amply demonstrates. Quite the opposite, it has enabled more thorough, evidence-based, policy informed research to be undertaken including the use of regional caps, pre-commitment technology and impact assessment with the cooperation of the industry.

Fancy that—if we had some cooperation from the industry. It continues:

SACES [the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies] has completed some 30+ policy based reviews across the gambling industry, more than 20 for the Victorian Government with at least half using venue level data.

The data is available, all machines at all venues are monitored, it is provided to Government, it is the basis for taxation revenue, it is analysed or can be analysed by Treasury and Finance and CBS but it is not available to researchers and the general public. As Government grants the licence it can make available the data as a condition of the licence. There is nothing unique in such a requirement.

Professor O'Neil finishes his letter to the shadow treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP, by saying:

I ask that the South Australian Labor Party commit in its reform platform to require venue level data be made publicly available by the relevant authority on a monthly basis.

That is clearly a request from one of our state's most eminent experts in this field that was completely ignored not only by the government but, of course, by the opposition, which received that correspondence directly. The shadow treasurer, as the Acting Leader of the Opposition, has argued that he is responsible for this legislation. He has received that correspondence directly. The plea has been made to him by one of our most eminent experts in this field in this state, who has worked across all Australian jurisdictions, who knows this work better than any of us ever will, and again it has been ignored.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:15.