Bills

Gambling Administration Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 20.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I was speaking to the clause before the dinner break and I will now continue speaking to that clause. The amendment that we are dealing with, just to refresh members' memories, is the one in relation to data. I was quoting from the Consideration of Proposed Harm Minimisation Measures South Australia 2019 report by Associate Professor Michael O'Neil.

Prior to the dinner break, I was referring to the comments that Associate Professor O'Neil made that the Anderson review did not address the complex question around regulating safeguards for harm minimisation in its review of commercial gambling. Associate Professor O'Neil stated in his report:

The Anderson Inquiry (2016) is critical of the time taken and the extended argument around the proposed SAJC gaming proposal at Cheltenham which was ultimately rejected. Anderson (2016) proposes replacing the current Social Effect Inquiry Process 'with a new Community Impact and Public Interest Test better aligned with liquor licensing requirements'...

It might be said that the industry, local councils, the community sector and individuals are severely restricted in presentation of their case to any inquiry precisely because the lack of access to venue, SLA and LGA gaming data. Without access to the most important source of data related to gaming it is simply not possible to present an objective and verifiable argument.

Would a proposed retail outlet consider setting up a shop without analysis of existing competitors, their floor space, parking, population density, per capita consumption trends, hours of opening and estimate of current turnover?

SACES has assisted the VCGLR revise the data requirements to assist them in decisions regarding new venues and the movement of machines under what is called the 'no-net detriment test' which is heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

It is argued that the 'Cheltenham case/decision' took so long precisely because the necessary data was not available, assumptions were entirely subjective and each was challenged and the final decision was, with great difficulty, almost totally reliant on the credibility of witnesses and the belief that they would or could implement regulatory conditions that might be imposed on them.

Indeed if I was an existing venue operator I might wish to oppose an application on the basis the area is already well served for liquor and gaming and that the proposed new venue will cannibalise my revenue. A local council might wish to use the same argument.

The proposed Community Impact and Social Impact test will fail for the same reason—objective analysis is not possible without access to the most important source of data. Existing venue level data is necessarily required and there is no reason why Parliament should not legislate accordingly.

He concludes by saying:

It is my view that a 'contemporary gambling regulatory framework' is associated with and characterised by an open, transparent, mature and informative supply of data, research and sensible debate regarding the policy framework.

That venue level gambling data is made available is the first test of a contemporary gambling regulatory framework. The availability of data equivalent to that provided by the VCGLR is also essential in the process of any social inquiry and community impact test.

The comments of Professor O'Neil are important in more than one respect because they also point to another issue that has been ignored in this debate, and that is how all these measures combined serve their purpose. When we have one, or change one to the detriment of another, their impact in terms of harm minimisation is limited.

I turn now again to the correspondence. Earlier, I referred to correspondence sent to the shadow treasurer on 21 October 2019, and that was the second piece of correspondence that had been sent to the shadow treasurer. This appendix A, which I will read from now, from Professor O'Neil, is the first of the two letters sent to the shadow treasurer in relation to this very issue. He states:

I am also asking that the Labor Opposition include in its amendment that venue level data each month be available through Consumer and Business Services. This is the case in Victoria. Venue level data is available for all clubs and hotels on a monthly basis, stretching back a number of years, it is not regarded as commercial in confidence and there is no reason to treat it as such. It is not the only source of data for a venue; venues offer accommodation, meals, alcohol, rental of rooms, conference facilities, gambling is one activity. The Government has licensed operators and there is no reason why a venue should argue 'commercial in confidence'. The relevant Minister may publish the data where publication is in the public interest.

Let me illustrate this point again with the example of the cashless debit credit card introduced into Ceduna where there is one venue. Gambling by Indigenous (and others was very high) in Ceduna. What impact has the cashless debit card had? I cannot tell you without access to the venue level data and if Government requires policy based on evidence any researcher requires access to the 'before and after data' to dissect the circumstances, remove confounding events and come to a considered position. This data is not and should not be commercial in confidence and the Ceduna Hotel or the Feathers Hotel are prime examples of venues that offer a range of other revenue generating services. I have asked business people in SA (finance sector, property development, investment groups, to name just a few) if they consider gambling data is 'commercial in confidence' and the resounding reply is NO. I have mentioned this to the Liquor and Gaming Commissioner and I'm asking that the Opposition put this as a non-negotiable amendment. At the very least this is a simple matter of transparency.

What was the impact of allowing gamblers access to cash in the gaming area? Without venue level data no person can say.

What value is a social impact test? No person can say without reference to impact on revenue, cannibalisation of existing venue revenue. A business investor makes a decision based on venue data, not some aggregated data at a SLA or LGA level.

And that is the level that we have available to us. He continues:

You know and I know if any government had a referendum on EGMs in local community hotels and clubs the resounding view of the community would be to remove them, centralise them, whatever but restrict advertising and remove them from local venues. Yet on simple harm minimisation measures both the Government and the Opposition go to water. How is it that Government avoids testing the will of the majority. It cannot be due to adherence to John Stuart Mill 'excessive' liberalism (i.e., government should not intervene…nanny state stuff). It cannot be that both political parties have ties to clubs/venues that generate revenue for political activity or elements of the business sector donate to political parties. It cannot be that Government is desperate for revenue (Ok, so we exploit the most vulnerable).

It is because Government has failed in its duty to protect those who are, at various stages in their life and for various reasons, vulnerable. If Problem gambling is an addiction, then how are you helping to reduce the potential for addiction, such as governments worldwide are doing in regard to alcohol and smoking?

The letter then goes on to state, 'The Labor Party should require venue level data be made available by the relevant authority.'

When the Leader of the Opposition says to me, 'Well, why haven't we seen proposed amendments?' my response to him is, 'Perhaps you should have checked with your shadow treasurer before a deal was stitched up on these two bills, because you don't need to take my word for it on the arguments for the requirement for this data. Professor O'Neil has made a very strong case for the need for that sort of data.'

I can say, for the benefit of the Acting Leader of the Opposition in this place, that I had a discussion with the shadow treasurer today to discuss a number of amendments, including this one. I probably got more out of that short session with him than I have had in this debate so far, not that we saw eye to eye on many of the points raised. Indeed, the shadow treasurer indicated his willingness to consider amendments but highlighted the difficulties he would have in doing so if, as has been agreed in this chamber by the two parties, this bill is finalised this week or next or in coming days, and he indicated that in all likelihood he was not sure how he would be able to speed up a caucus meeting, how he would be able to make that happen before next Monday—assuming, he said, that parliament sits next Monday.

I made my willingness to the shadow treasurer crystal clear and, on that basis, and given the extraordinarily critical nature of these amendments, and for the reasons that have been pointed to—not by me because this is not a case that I have argued; this is a case that has been argued by industry experts—I am keen to hear from the Acting Leader of the Opposition about whether or not in the hours that have passed she has had any discussions with the shadow treasurer regarding our discussion and his willingness, on the part of the opposition, to consider this particular amendment before this bill is finalised, even if that means that the passage of this bill is postponed.

I should reiterate for the record that the correspondence read onto the record earlier tonight, outlining the importance of this amendment—and this is an amendment that I intend to divide on because it is perhaps one of the most critical amendments in the package of amendments that I will be moving, depending on the contribution of other matters—this correspondence, as annexed to the report of the SA Centre for Economic Studies, and addressed to the shadow treasurer, dated 16 October and 21 October respectively, was made available to the opposition well in time for this debate.

If it assists, I remind members opposite that this clause could be recommitted if necessary in order to allow the consideration of the merits that Professor O'Neil has put in relation to the need for this data in line with the discussion that was had with the shadow treasurer a few hours ago. With those words, I commend the amendment to the chamber and look forward to a response both from the government and the opposition specifically in relation to the questions I have just asked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We have already canvassed this issue. The government's position on the amendments is quite clear, and that is that we will be opposing them, and for the reasons that I have outlined, but given that the member has spoken at length in relation to the reasons why she believes they should be supported, I will place again on the record the government's position in relation to the issues.

When we debated this issue on clause 1, I quoted information that had been provided to the honourable member and other members, indicating that we do not propose to require disclosure of in-venue specific data. I quoted as follows:

The Commissioner…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.

Let's make it quite clear: South Australia's practice is the practice generally followed by virtually all other jurisdictions, with the exception of one, which is Victoria.

Whilst I always respect the views of Michael O'Neil in relation to not only this issue and indeed others—we have had respectful conversations in the past—I disagree with his views in relation to gambling regulation. He is aware of that. He disagrees with my views. His views are much closer to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's, which is fair enough.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: No, my views are more closely aligned to his. This is his view.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, that is the same thing. His views are closely aligned to the Hon. Ms Bonaros. Ms Bonaros's views are closely aligned to his. I think it is the same issue. I acknowledge that and respect that. I certainly am not critical personally of Michael O'Neil. He has expertise in terms of economic issues, and he has developed an interest and an ongoing interest in gambling issues over a period of time and is often quoted by members and indeed other commentators in learned journals about the issue. I make no criticism of Michael O'Neil at all.

There is a considerable amount of statistical information that is already made publicly available by the Attorney-General or the commissioner: the annual report for the Attorney-General's Department, gaming revenue (statewide) quarterly statistics, gaming machine licence quarterly statistics, gaming manufacturers' quarterly market report, gaming revenue aggregated by local government area annual statistics, register of gaming machine entitlements sortable by premises, name or suburb and trading round results. I acknowledge that all of that is not what Michael O'Neil is specifically seeking, but the government's position remains firm and that is we will not be supporting the particular amendments.

The Hon. Ms Bonaros seems to be working on the mistaken impression, having quoted Michael O'Neil at length, that her amendments actually support Michael O'Neil's position. They actually don't, because Michael O'Neil is looking for venue-specific data. The Hon. Ms Bonaros's amendments, should they pass, do not actually provide venue-specific data, they provide data in relation to council areas on a monthly basis. It is one aspect of what Michael O'Neil has been talking about. In relation to venue-specific data, they do not actually provide what Michael O'Neil in that letter to the shadow treasurer and his public commentary in other fora is seeking as well. Be that as it may, the government's position remains that we are opposed to this amendment or indeed any other version of the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. I was going to indicate that we would be dividing on it if it is called for the noes. So we look forward to that division.

One of the things that has been made clear to us by stakeholders and indeed just one of the issues that has not been dealt with in these bills when it comes to gambling in South Australia is that it is incredibly difficult to be well informed about the impacts of changes to gambling legislation when we just do not have sufficient data. This, of course, should be of concern to every single one of us in this place as legislators. We cannot form evidence-based or informed policy without that evidence.

In their recent report titled 'Consideration of Proposed Harm Minimisation Measure South Australia 2019', the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies identified the reasons for this lack of information as being due to, and I quote:

(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.

This is not the only report that laments the lack of appropriate timely and public data available to study gambling-related harm in our community. In this debate, we have heard, for example, that localised revenue data cannot be released, as somehow this could have a detrimental commercial effect. Thankfully, we do actually have enough information to know that that particular claim is bogus.

Interstate, the Victorian Gambling Regulation Act 2003 provides for aggregated and disaggregated data, where publication is in the public interest, and it is not unreasonable. This includes total gambling expenditure for all approved venues in a municipal district, and if a municipal district has less than three approved venues, the total gambling expenditure for all approved venues in that municipal district, together with an adjoining municipal district or districts, so that the statistical information indicates gambling expenditure for at least two approved venues. Those provisions provide for venue-level data, which is available on a monthly basis. It can be done, it should be done, and we need to have it done here.

As a total summary of the amount and type of statistical data available under Victoria's act, they have, for example, historical gaming data by venue provided for each month, aggregated and disaggregated data available on a current and historical basis by venue and by local government association, and expenditure statistics that are calculated and provided on a population basis. This data relates to gambling only, and it is clearly not commercial-in-confidence, as it does not have all revenue generated by that club or hotel, which of course may also provide accommodation, meeting facilities, food service, bottle service and the like.

Not having this information available to us leaves us as policymakers and researchers to fall back on conjecture and assumptions, and in this bill and the others that accompany it, we are making some quite significant changes. Some of those changes have been put forward by the Labor opposition as intending to do good, to minimise gambling harm. Without this sort of data, we will not be able to test those assumptions. That gamble, if you like, that the shadow treasurer has taken will be left unsupported by the data.

Should harm be actually increased by some of the changes that we have seen, not just the note acceptors but of course the facial recognition technology and other measures within the Labor amendments to the government bill, as well as within the government bills themselves, who is to know? Certainly, we as legislators are abrogating our responsibility to ensure that full, clear analysis is able to be made by those who do not have an industry stake in this particular debate and to inform better debate in the future, should we be making mistakes in this debate now, and certainly for those mistakes that we have made in the past. With that, I fully support the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Firstly, in response to the Hon. Ms Bonaros, I am very glad that she found her meeting with the shadow treasurer today useful, and I note that he agreed to a meeting on the very day that the honourable member asked for it, being today. Perhaps if that had been sought earlier, some of these things could have been sorted out with due—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Don't be smug.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, show some respect to the member, as she showed you.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Perhaps if that meeting had been sought sooner, some of these issues could have been worked out and the amendments filed in a manner that gave the Labor opposition the time to go through our usual processes to consider their merits or otherwise. My understanding is that the shadow treasurer communicated to the Hon. Ms Bonaros that, given how late they had been developed and filed, it was not feasible for the Labor Party to consider them through our normal processes.

Further, the opposition is unsure what the arguments were both for and against Associate Professor O'Neil's suggestions. He is yet to articulate what benefit to actually reduce problem gambling would result from the change that is being proposed. I note the comments made by the Hon. Ms Franks in regard to data; that may well be useful, but it is not going to directly reduce problem gambling. We would also need to look at what sort of risks his proposal might create, and we do not see any of that information at this stage. Therefore, given all of those matters, the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For my own benefit, when I attend these meetings, I take pretty thorough notes about what is said. I try to take note of absolutely every word that is said, so I completely and utterly reject the assertion that the shadow treasurer did not tell me that this is something that could not be considered in time, and did not suggest to me that if there was a way to expedite that debate he would, but that in all likelihood the earliest he may be able to do that is next Monday. I also reject any assertion that this information was not provided to the shadow treasurer.

Perhaps if, on Monday when we had set the agenda for this debate, the opposition had not agreed to bring on this debate before the amendments were filed, and before they had an opportunity to consider them and had not formed their position on the bill before that was done, then they would now be in a better position to make an enlightened decision in relation to the amendments that have been put before this chamber.

Can I say, in relation to the comments of the Treasurer, that I have sought clarification to make it clear. We have not gone down the path of replicating Victoria's legislation, but what we have done is move an amendment that provides the commissioner with the discretion to provide the information on a venue basis if he so chooses. I have faith that if that discretion was available—I have faith in the commissioner, and I have faith in the Attorney and in the way that she would conduct these issues and reflect on the debates in parliament.

The clear intent of that, while it deals with LGAs, is also to provide the commissioner with the discretion to be able to provide the information that I have been speaking of on this amendment. To correct the record: it is not true to say that this amendment would not enable that data to be made available; the commissioner would have a discretionary power to allow that information to be made available.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure what the honourable member was referring to when she talked about when the information was being provided. Obviously, there were a number of people at the meeting with the shadow treasurer today. The shadow treasurer has communicated to me his understanding of that meeting. The Hon. Ms Bonaros may have a different understanding; that is obviously within her interpretation of what occurred at the meeting.

I think we need to remember that this bill was passed in the other place on 13 November. That was three weeks ago. If the honourable member had not delayed receiving a briefing from the government, then this perhaps could have been debated last week, rather than just this week. We could have had the normal processes go through.

I would like to place on the record that it is the view of the opposition that this has not been rushed through; this bill was passed three weeks ago. The opposition has not proposed any amendments. This is a government bill, and there have been three weeks to file amendments. That is the reason we cannot support anything new that was filed yesterday or today.

The CHAIR: No, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, we are not having any more debate on this. The Hon. Mr Darley, would you like to make a contribution? Honourable members have to remember that, whilst some of these issues are important, we are debating a particular amendment that is before us.

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

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 29, line 23 [clause 44(3)]—Delete 'refuse' and substitute 'accept'

The amendment relates to clause 44 of the bill, which deals with barring orders. As we know, those provisions allow the commissioner to make a barring order in relation to a person at the request of the person, or at the request of a family member, where the person is at risk of harm or causing harm to themselves or to a family member because of their gambling.

I am really pleased that since the commissioner took over the role of barring orders the success rate in relation to those being approved has dramatically improved. In fact, when asked at the briefing on Monday—and I have asked this question of the commissioner previously, and I have kept track of the progress in relation to barring orders since he took over from the IGA—he was able to confirm that there had been 47 involuntary barring orders compared with just 12 the year before, when they were issued by the IGA. I believe that there were only perhaps a handful—maybe two or three—that had been disputed by the individual concerned.

Given the success rate and the extremely timely manner within which the commissioner is dealing with those applications, the question I asked was: what is the need to refuse an application if it is not responded to within the set time frame in the legislation? Clause 44(3) provides:

(3) If no decision is made within 14 days after the making of a request by a person under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a), the Commissioner or the gambling provider (as the case may be) will be taken, for the purposes of this Part, to have made a decision to refuse the request.

My question to the commissioner was whether there would be any objection to making that a positive obligation and ensuring that in those circumstances, and given that it is not taking anywhere near 14 days for those applications to be considered—whether he would consider it appropriate for a positive obligation, which would result in the word 'refuse' being substituted with the word 'accept'. In other words, if a decision has not been given by the commissioner, then it would be deemed to have been accepted if the application has not been dealt with within 14 days.

I will be gobsmacked, absolutely astounded, if, based on the advice provided to me and to the Hon. Tammy Franks at the meeting on Monday, the Treasurer indicates that the government does not support this amendment, because not only did the commissioner indicate his support for the provision, and the fact that he thought it was very reasonable for it to be a positive obligation, but I think it is fair to say he did not even anticipate that such a provision would exist in the legislation.

On that basis, given that the commissioner and not the government is the expert in this area, given that the commissioner is telling us his success rate is great, given that the commissioner is telling us it takes nowhere near 14 days to deal with these and given that the commissioner is telling us he has absolutely no issue with a refusal of an application being replaced with a positive obligation that would see that application accepted when we are dealing with an individual or a family member who has approached the commissioner because they have a gambling problem and are pleading for help to not be able to attend venues, I will be—I do not even have enough words to describe how extremely astounded, but moreover disappointed, I will be if either the government or the opposition were to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the member can prepare herself to be gobsmacked and astounded, I think, to quote her words. The government is opposing the amendment. The amendment is a hangover from the role of the independent gaming authority (IGA) in providing barring orders. The government has already taken proactive steps to ensure same-day barring orders under changes which have moved the barring orders to the commissioner and abolished the IGA.

Since Consumer and Business Services (CBS) assumed all gambling regulatory functions on 1 December last year, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner has approved barring orders involving over 200 individuals. This is a process that the commissioner will proactively continue. The amendment is unnecessary due to the swift action of the government and, therefore, it is not supported.

Following the transfer of responsibilities from the IGA to CBS in December 2018, the commissioner undertook to overhaul the barring process, thus ensuring that people could apply for and receive a barring order on the same day. Under the previous system, it could take up to 10 days for the IGA to process a voluntary barring order and months to review an order to determine whether it should remain in effect.

When comparing the period before and after the transfer of responsibilities, the results speak for themselves. For the period 1 December 2017 to 30 September 2018, the number of barring orders initiated at the request of the person was 158. The number of barring orders initiated by a licensee or third party, not at the request of the person, was 10. The number of orders signed was 8,658. For the period 1 December 2018 to 30 September 2019, the number of barring orders initiated at the request of the person was 312. The number of barring orders initiated by a licensee or third party, not at the request of the person, was 43. The number of orders signed was 18,397.

The final comment I would make on behalf of the government is that it is the government that ultimately determines policy positions in relation to gambling matters and issues that come before the parliament. Of course, we take on board views of the commissioner and others. I am not aware of the views of the commissioner on this particular issue. I am therefore not in a position to confirm or dispute—and I do not seek to dispute—the member's clear impression of the views that might have been expressed by the commissioner.

I just remind the member that it is ultimately the government that is elected by the people of South Australia to make decisions. It is ultimately the parliament that makes the final decision. It is the government's position in relation to this that we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition will not be supporting this amendment on the same basis as I previously mentioned. Perhaps to clarify, my understanding is that the shadow treasurer today said that he would be open to considering changes but we would not—the Labor Party and the opposition—be in a position to support them. Again, had they been filed earlier, obviously that would have been quite different. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I share the Hon. Connie Bonaros's 'gobsmackedness'. I am not sure that is a word but I am also not sure that this is at all logical. At the moment, we now are instituting a provision where we are relying on the bureaucracy to work. Should, after 14 days, the bureaucracy not have worked and supported that person who sought to be barred, then we provide them with no protections whatsoever and we deny their ability to be barred.

So let's hope everything goes well. Let's hope that the commissioner continues to be just as efficient as this one currently is. But in recent memory, there was a government and there was a bureaucracy that was not nearly as efficient as the one that we have now and, in fact, people had to front panels to get themselves barred. They were grilled and asked inappropriate questions by a board that treated them with contempt and a lack of understanding. People who had been barred had those barrings lapse and had to go through the process again.

This is an extraordinary slap in the face to people who have an addiction, who have a health problem, who deserve the protections of legislation that does not require everything to go smoothly and the bureaucracy to get it right every single time. This is extraordinary. This is a very simple change. I was in that briefing as well and I can tell you the commissioner expressed to all of us at that table that this was a very sensible suggestion that would do no harm; in fact, it could do good. I am absolutely disgusted that the opposition and the government see fit not to consider this issue on its merits.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 45 and 46 passed.

Clause 47.

The CHAIR: I give the call to the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Is it consequential, Connie?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, it is not consequential. I move:

Amendment No 6 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 31, lines 11 and 12 [clause 47(2), penalty provision and expiation fee provision]—Delete the penalty provision and expiation fee provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

This amendment deals again with barring orders and, more specifically, with the contravention of a barring order. It seeks to delete the penalty provision and expiation fee provision entirely and substitute it with a maximum penalty of $35,000.

This would apply in instances where one of those problem gamblers we just talked about—somebody who has gone to the commissioner and said, 'I am a problem gambler,' or whose family member has gone to the commissioner and said, 'I am a problem gambler. I am a gambling addict.'—has been approved a barring order, subsequently makes their way into a venue and a venue allows them to gamble, knowing full well that they should not be there in the first instance.

What we are saying is that in that instance there is absolutely no place for an expiation fee to apply because, in this instance, the venue has a very positive obligation to ensure that the individual does not step foot in their gaming room. They have a duty of care to ensure that that individual does not suffer any further harm from gaming in a venue that they should not be in in the first instance because the commissioner, according to the government's policy and legislation, has issued a barring order over them. They have said, 'You are not to step foot in that venue because you are a problem gambler,' 'You having a gambling addiction,' or, 'Your family has made an application saying you are a problem gambler, a gambling addict or are likely to suffer significant harm as a result of your gambling behaviour.'

The commissioner, according to the policy and the legislation implemented by the government, according to its own policy agenda, has agreed that that individual has no place in the gaming venue. There is no place in that instance for an expiation fee to apply, in the first instance, but it is an extraordinarily serious form of offending. The penalty that applies in relation to that should reflect the fact that it is a serious form of offending.

There have been ample cases over the years where individuals have gone into venues that they should not be in and have continued to pour money into poker machines when the commissioner has said that they should not be in that venue. I recall the very first case that I worked on regarding a barring order that went to the courts. It involved an individual who came to see us and said, 'I want to be prosecuted by the police, because it is clear that the authorities are not going to take any action in relation to the venue that lets me go into their gaming room every single day and continue to pour money into a poker machine.'

They pleaded with us. We advised that constituent that, if we were to go down that path, he would be prosecuted because he has breached his own barring order. He said, 'Please do it. Please take me to court. Please prosecute me. Please take me to the police and prosecute me, because I have no control over my own gambling.' That is exactly what we did: we went to court, he was prosecuted and he faced the penalty, because that was the only solution he could think of that would help him against a venue that completely ignored its duty of care to him when a barring order had been put in place.

Funnily enough, after he was prosecuted and after he faced his criminal penalty, our next question was, 'Has the venue been prosecuted? Has there been any investigation into the venue that is the subject of this prosecution?' Lo and behold—wait for it—there had been no investigation and there had been no charges laid against the venue. The venue neglected its duty of care and saw an individual end up in our court system, pleading with a magistrate to prosecute him, because that is the only way he could stay out of a gaming room that he was not meant to be in, based on government policy. If that ought to be the subject of an expiation fee—I have no words. That duty of care towards that individual should take precedence above all else.

His is not the only case. Over the years, we have advocated for a number of gambling addicts who have been in the exact same situation. They have not wanted to front up to the courts and get prosecuted. They have not wanted to have a penalty imposed against them, so they have chosen not to take the same action that that individual did, but it has happened and it continues to happen time and time and time again.

If the government thinks it is fit in that instance for someone to neglect their duty of care towards an individual and give them a slap on the wrist with an expiation fee, then that can be on their head, but it is clear that the penalty that is reflected in the legislation at the moment should be increased to reflect the duty of care owed to that problem gambler, who the commissioner has said has no place in a gaming room.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just have a question for the mover as to how she came up with the figure of $35,000 and whether that compares with some other figure that is considered to be commensurate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The figure of $35,000 was a discussion that we had with parliamentary counsel in relation to the scale that usually applies to penalties. But it is our view that that penalty is in terms of the maximum that can be imposed, given the severity of what we are dealing with—given that we are dealing with a known addict, somebody who has already been barred under the government's own policy by the commissioner and who has no place in the gaming room that they have been barred from. If venues are going to ignore the fact that patrons continue to frequent their venues when they ought not be there because there is a barring order in place, then the maximum penalty that applies should be reflective of the duty that they owe to that individual.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment for the same reasons we opposed amendment No. 2 much earlier in the debate, I think this morning. We see the reasons why we opposed that amendment as consistent with why we oppose this one. The current provisions of the government's bill provide the discretion to the commissioner for an expiation or, indeed, to take formal action for a prosecution in a court. It is ultimately a decision and a discretion available to the commissioner. As we discussed in that earlier amendment much earlier today, the government believes the options available to the commissioner are the most sensible solution, and that should be consistent in relation to this particular provision as well.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just want to follow up my previous question to the mover of the amendment. I heard that she spoke with parliamentary counsel, but it was not clear to me on what schedule or what comparison the figure of $35,000 was arrived at, as opposed to what I understand is the $10,000 figure in the current one. I fully understand the rationale in terms of increasing the penalty, but I am interested to know how that particular figure was arrived at.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will give the Acting Leader of the Opposition the same courtesy that I have had during this debate. That is a penalty—a maximum penalty—that reflects the offending of the venue that has deliberately and wilfully allowed a problem gambler into their venue to continue to pour money into a poker machine when the policy of the day is, and the commissioner has said, they have no place in that venue.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will try one more time. I understand the rationale. I am not disputing that rationale whatsoever for why the mover thinks it should be more. It is just not clear to me how the figure of $35,000 has arisen. If it is simply three and half times what was in the bill, then that is fine. I am just trying to understand what the reasoning is.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There are provisions in the bill that provide for higher penalties. What I am telling the Acting Leader of the Opposition is that we believe that penalty better reflects the offending of a venue that has allowed a problem gambler onto the floor of their premises to continue to pour money into a gaming machine when they should not be there. That is our policy.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support the intent of the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment, but we also have great sympathy for the government that they have actually taken measures here to ensure there are ways of taking action that are far easier than the courses currently available. We do welcome expiation fees in that particular debate, and we do welcome more tools for the commissioner to ensure action is able to be taken, without recourse to the courts, to address gambling harm.

I think that some of the expiation fees are pretty nominal, given the context and the depth of the problem we are talking about. In terms of the fines, the equivalents of these fines are to some quite minor misdemeanours, if you like, yet we are talking about quite significant levels of harm already having been done, to the point where somebody is subject to a barring order. So for that, and for the purpose of keeping the debate alive with government, we would support this.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 48 to 53 passed.

New clause 53A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 33, after line 21—Insert:

53A—Barred person entitled to recover amount from gambling provider

(1) A person subject to a barring order under this Part may apply to the Commissioner for determination of an amount for the purposes of subsection (2).

(2) If a gambling provider suffers or permits a contravention of a barring order under section 47(2), the person subject to the barring order is entitled to recover from the gambling provider—

(a) an amount determined by the Commissioner equal to the total amount spent by the person during the period of the contravention on gambling activities from which the person was barred; or

(b) another amount as determined by the Commissioner.

(3) A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Commissioner under this section may apply to the Commissioner for a review of the decision.

(4) The Commissioner may confirm or revoke the decision and the Commissioner's decision on the matter is not subject to review under section 54.

This amendment effectively flips clause 53 of the bill on its head and applies the exact same scenario not to a gambling provider—in other words, not to a venue—but to an individual who, having been the subject of a barring order manages to go into a venue and continue to lose money in a gaming room that they have no right to be in because they have been barred. For the members' benefit, clause 53 of the bill provides:

(1) A gambling provider may withhold winnings from a person if satisfied that the person is subject to a barring order under this Part, and in that event, must obtain the person's name and address and inform them of the right to have the decision reviewed.

Then there is a further provision which allows:

(2) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to have their winnings withheld may, within 14 days of being informed of the decision under subsection (1), apply to the Commissioner for a review of the decision.

(3) The Commissioner may confirm or revoke the decision and the Commissioner's decision on the matter is not reviewable.

That section goes on to provide:

(4) A gambling provider must deal with any winnings withheld under subsection (1) as follows:

(a) if the Commissioner revokes a decision made under subsection (1), the withheld winnings must be paid to the person;

(b) if the Commissioner upholds a decision under subsection (1) or if the person does not apply to the Commissioner for a review of the decision under subsection (2), the withheld winnings are forfeited to the Commissioner and must be paid into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund…

The amendment that we are seeking to insert provides that:

(1) A person subject to a barring order under this Part may apply to the Commissioner for determination of an amount for the purposes of subsection (2).

(2) If a gambling provider suffers or permits a contravention of a barring order under section 47(2), the person subject to the barring order is entitled to recover from the gambling provider—

(a) an amount determined by the Commissioner equal to the total amount spent by the person during the period of the contravention on gambling activities from which the person was barred; or

(b) another amount as determined by the Commissioner.

(3) A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Commissioner under this section may apply to [them] for a review of the decision.

(4) The Commissioner may confirm or revoke the decision and the Commissioner's decision on the matter is not subject to review under section 54.

This is another amendment that was discussed at the meeting with the Attorney's staff present and the commissioner in relation to ensuring that somebody who has been barred but has been allowed to enter a venue and continue to gamble is able to recover the losses that never should have been poured into a gaming machine in the first instance because they were barred from that venue and that venue had a duty of care towards that individual to ensure that they could not or should not be there in the first place pouring their money into a gaming machine.

We had a conversation with the commissioner about how this sort of provision would work. During that discussion, I referred the commissioner to a number of cases that have occurred in the past where individuals have been able to substantiate via the use of CCTV footage, and via the use of bank records and any other records, how much money has been poured into a poker machine. Those stories have been verified time and time again through investigations conducted by the commissioner in a number of cases.

There is a case on foot at the moment that involves an individual who was withdrawing funds from EFTPOS and ATM facilities above and beyond what the law has prescribed. CCTV footage has an important role to play here as does the commissioner's discretion. If the commissioner is not able to substantiate just how much money somebody has poured into a poker machine when they have no right to be there, obviously, they can make a determination to that effect.

But there have been cases over the years where those amounts of money have been substantiated. Indeed, the facial recognition technology that has been offered as an amendment by the opposition would assist the commissioner in his role in this scenario. If somebody is in a gaming venue, and they have no place there because they have been barred, and they have continued to pour money into a machine, the commissioner can use all tools at his disposal—including CCTV footage, facial recognition technology, bank records and the evidence of staff present in the venue—to verify or otherwise, if he can, the losses of an individual on a poker machine.

If the commissioner, using his discretion, is able to do that, then they can make a determination that the individual should have those funds returned to them because they never should have been in the venue in the first place, because they were an individual barred by the commissioner under the government's legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. The honourable member seeks to insert a new provision in the bill to allow a barred person who has of their own accord actively entered the premises and gambled to be able to recover from the gambling provider their losses and the amount they spent. A scenario similar to this was flagged in the briefing provided to the honourable member. The commissioner provided information about the difficulty in obtaining the amount spent and lost by a barred person.

Furthermore, such an amendment as has been moved by the honourable member appears to diminish significantly the deterrent for a barred person to gamble, in that should they for whatever reason avoid detection and identification as a barred person, and lose money gambling, they are entitled to simply recover that money straight back from the gambling provider. The government in this bill is already taking active steps to ensure that, firstly, barred persons are not permitted into gambling premises and, secondly, that any earnings of a barred person are paid directly to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. For those reasons, the government does not support this amendment.

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Clauses 54 to 56 passed.

Clause 57.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 34, lines 36 to 38 [clause 57(2)(b)(ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute:

(ii) a representative of charitable or social welfare organisations;

(iii) a representative of an organisation or group providing support to persons suffering harm from gambling;

(iv) a person who has suffered harm from gambling;

(v) such other representatives as the commissioner thinks appropriate so as to be representative of the gambling industry and government.

The amendment relates to clause 57 of the bill, which prescribes the gambling advisory council. Those provisions state:

(2) The Gambling Advisory Council consists of—

(a) the Commissioner or a nominee of the Commissioner; and

(b) the following members, appointed, from time to time, by the Commissioner on terms and conditions determined by the Commissioner:

(i) a nominee of the welfare agency;

(ii) such other members as the Commissioner thinks appropriate so as to be representative of charitable, gambling support or social welfare organisations, the gambling industry and government.

The amendment that I am moving seeks to delete subclause (2)(b)(ii) and substitute that with the following: the gambling advisory council, in addition to a nominee of the welfare agency, would also explicitly have to have on it a representative of charitable or social welfare organisations, a representative of an organisation or group providing support to persons suffering harm from gambling, a person who has suffered harm from gambling, and then such other representatives as the commissioner thinks appropriate so as to be representative of the gambling industry and government.

The intent of the amendment ought to be clear to all honourable members, and that is to ensure that those individuals—other than the hotels and clubs lobby, and other than just one nominee of a welfare agency—are explicitly provided a seat at the table of the gambling advisory council. I am sure it is fair to say that they would have appreciated a seat at the table when these bills were being debated so that they could provide their expert knowledge in relation to the matters that are ultimately implemented in law by government and that affect the very individuals that they represent or advocate for.

It is intended simply to make it explicitly clear which individuals will be included in the make up of the gambling advisory council, but importantly it will make it abundantly clear that somebody with lived experience deserves a seat at the table of a gambling advisory council that is considering issues related to problem gambling and gambling harm, and advising the commissioner and the government accordingly.

It is a simple amendment which makes it clear that those individuals should be involved in discussions around our poker machine laws and our gambling laws, especially insofar as they relate to gambling addiction, and especially insofar as they relate to lived experience. I do not think this is the first time we have argued in this place for the inclusion of individuals with lived experience of an issue being included on issues that they know the impacts of better than any of us in this place.

I do note that the commissioner has a discretion under clause 57, but the simple intent of this provision is to make it explicitly clear which individuals it will be expected will have a seat at the table of the gambling advisory council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. The amendment seeks to change the way the government has drafted the clause and specified who may be members of the established gambling advisory council. This council will have a role in directing the use of funds of the GRF and was established in changes through the Budget Measures Bill. Notably, the honourable member seeks, as she has just explained, to require a person who has suffered harm from gambling to be present on the council. Beyond this, the council, under the government's proposal, already requires the council to be representative of the charitable, gambling support or social welfare industry. This group, in the government's view, no doubt covers and advocates for those who have suffered harm; as such, the proposed amendment is opposed by the government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens rise to support this amendment. It is very similar to previous pieces of law reform we have brought before this place for debate and, indeed, to strengthen the voice of those who support those who are harmed by gambling. In these debates we hear time and time again the very meagre resources of groups such as SACOSS and Uniting Communities and those who support those who suffer from gambling harm, minimised and marginalised in these debates. The odds are often stacked against them. The die is always loaded against them. The industry is well resourced. I think that is not lost on any of us tonight: the industry is very well resourced. Those with lived experience of gambling harm, those who support them through our various social welfare organisations, rarely get their voices heard.

I will just outline the gambling advisory council's current membership, which, of course, consists of the commissioner or a nominee of the commissioner. The following members are appointed from time to time by the commissioner on those terms and conditions that the commissioner determines and include, as the honourable Treasurer has noted, a nominee of the welfare agency and such other members that the commissioner thinks appropriate so as to be representative of charitable gambling support or social welfare organisations, the gambling industry and government.

The functions of the gambling advisory council are to assist the commissioner in formulating and advise the commissioner on implementing policies and legislative proposals affecting the minimisation of harm caused by and associated with gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts on communities and to the maintenance of a socially responsible gambling industry. It also is to provide a forum for the exchange of information and views between industry, welfare and government sectors concerning issues relating to responsible gambling and harm minimisation practices, as well as considering any other matters that are referred to it by the commissioner.

Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to require that a representative of a charitable or social welfare organisation be there at the table for that exchange of ideas. It seems quite reasonable that a representative of an organisation or group providing support to persons suffering harm from gambling be at that table and, of course, a person who has suffered harm from gambling, a person with lived experience be at that table.

The fact that these conversations in the past have happened without those voices at the table in appropriate number is to all of our discredit and it can be rectified here quite simply. It is a very simple amendment. It simply ensures that there are more voices at the table for the commissioner to take on different views. We know the industry is cashed up, we know that those the industry takes the cash off do not get a voice at the table.

This amendment here tonight will give people with lived experience and those who support them—the social welfare, the social sector—an actual voice at the table, rather than collecting crumbs at the end of the day when they have already been marginalised, when the deals have already been done and when they have such meagre resources that they are not equipped to provide responses in the way that the industry can.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 35, after line 12—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) The Gambling Advisory Council must, on or before 1 September in each year, prepare and submit to the Commissioner a report in respect of the preceding financial year on the following:

(a) the performance of the Council's functions;

(b) any research or other activities undertaken by the Council;

(c) any other matter the Gambling Advisory Council thinks relevant.

(5) The report under subsection (4) must, as soon as it is received by the Commissioner, be published on a website determined by the Commissioner.

I do not think the amendment could get any simpler than this one. All it requires—I have said that a few times this evening—is that the gambling advisory council prepare and submit to the commissioner a report in respect of the preceding financial year on the following: the performance of the council's functions, any research or other activities undertaken by the council, and any other matter the gambling advisory council thinks relevant.

That report is then required to be published on a website determined by the commissioner. It is a straightforward reporting requirement that would ensure that the commissioner receives a report as to the functions of the committee and the outcomes of that committee, but more importantly that that report is then made publicly available in a way that the commissioner deems fit.

That provides all of us who are interested in following gambling legislation updates, problems and issues that arise in relation to the functions of the Gambling Advisory Committee with an ability to inform ourselves of the issues that the council has informed itself of, especially insofar as that relates to then implementing policies and legislative proposals that affect the minimisation of harm caused by gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts of gambling on communities and the maintenance of a socially responsible gambling industry, and the dialogue and exchange that occurs between various industry welfare and government sectors concerning issues relating to responsible gambling and harm minimisation practices.

It does not get any easier than this. The commissioner gets a report, the report is published on the website, and we are all able to inform ourselves of the progress, or of the issues that have been raised with or by the gambling advisory council, insofar as it relates to legislative proposals that we are required to debate in this place when it comes to recognising not only the negative but also the positive aspects, if there are any, of gambling on communities.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. It requires the gambling advisory council, as outlined by the amendment, to prepare a report on the performance, research and activities undertaken. In the government's view, this amendment is unnecessary due to the new requirement of an annual report to take into account the use of funds from the GRF; therefore, the amendment is not supported.

The note the minister's office has provided me states that we are not sure that any other advisory boards or councils actually provide their own standalone reports. I can certainly acknowledge in my own area two or three advisory boards, committees or councils that provide advice either to me as minister, or to one of my standing agencies. None of those provide separate standalone reports.

This does not mean that, should the parliament ultimately decide that a particular one should do so—the government does not believe this particular one should do so. We believe it is consistent with the general approach by past governments and this government to advisory boards being there to provide advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens rise to support the requirement of an annual report. I do not believe I have ever seen the rejection of the requirement to produce an annual report when it has been put in legislation such as this. I look eagerly to see how the Labor Party justifies this particular betrayal.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question is to the mover of the amendment. Can she outline what information she expects to be included in the report, if this amendment was successful, that would not appear in the annual report?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The information that would be provided in this report relates specifically to the matters outlined in clause 57(3), which specifically relates to the functions of the gambling advisory council, insofar as:

[advising] the Commissioner on implementing, policies and legislative proposals affecting—

(i) the minimisation of harm caused by…gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts of gambling on communities; and

(ii) the maintenance of a socially responsible gambling industry—

and providing for an exchange of views between the various sectors that are represented on the gambling advisory council. If we are going to have a gambling advisory council, it is our position that the council should be reporting on the outcomes of the exchanges they have because they will serve to inform us when we make decisions on policy and legislative proposals around the issues of problem gambling, the benefits of gambling and the exchange of ideas amongst the individuals who are represented on that gambling advisory council.

I acknowledge that some of this may be covered in an annual report, but that is not necessarily the case. Given that is the explicit role of this council, it is only appropriate the commissioner receive a report, which is made available to us, so that we can also be informed of the discussions that are being undertaken by a gambling advisory council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clause 61, which I think was an amendment put forward by the Labor opposition and adopted in the other place, provides:

(1) The Commissioner must…prepare and submit to the Minister a report on the performance of the Commissioner's functions under the gambling Acts during the preceding financial year…

It goes on further. I am just trying to get an understanding of what would not be covered under the annual report that would be covered under this proposal.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is because these are not the functions of the commissioner. These are the functions and powers of the gambling advisory council, made up of the individuals I referred to previously involving the sectors with an interest in gambling. It is not the views of the commissioner that we are interested in; it is the views of the gambling advisory council. I am acutely aware of the provisions relating to the annual report and that the commissioner is to provide a report based on his or her functions under the gambling acts, but this is specifically related to the functions of the gambling advisory council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The gambling advisory council is established under the Gambling Administration Act. Am I correct in thinking that falls under the commissioner's functions and therefore would be covered? I do not know if that is a question for the mover of this amendment or for the government.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I sought advice in relation to that when I was drafting the amendment and I made it clear that we wanted to make it explicitly clear in this bill so that there is no doubt that, in preparing a report on the functions of the gambling advisory council, not the role of the commissioner, the outcomes of those deliberations are included in a separate report and not muddled up in an annual report concerning the functions of the commissioner, which may not cover the issues considered by the gambling advisory council.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 58 to 60 passed.

Clause 61.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 36, lines 1 to 3 [clause 61(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The amendment relates to clause 61 of the bill, which we have just touched upon, and the annual reporting requirements. That clause provides that the commissioner has to prepare and submit to the minister a report on the performance of the commissioner's functions under the gambling act during the preceding financial year. It goes on to provide:

A report of the Commissioner required under this section may be combined with a report of the Commissioner required under any other Act…

It then provides details as to what should be in that report. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that this is a standalone report that cannot be combined with any other act and that deals specifically with the matters contained in subclause (3). That is to say, it needs to be a standalone report commissioned by the commissioner in relation to the total net state wagering revenue of all authorised betting operators under the Authorised Betting Operations Act and the total net gambling revenue of the holders of all gaming machine licences and the special club licence under the Gaming Machines Act. Of course, that report must then be provided to the minister, who is required to table it before parliament.

If we are going to be having reports on social issues as important as these, which impact our most vulnerable members of the community, then it is our view that they should not be tied up with any other reporting requirements that may apply separately. They should be a standalone report and reflect those issues outlined in subclause (3). It is not unreasonable to expect the commissioner to provide a report that deals specifically with the issues outlined in subclause 61(3) and ensure that they are given the level of attention they deserve.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment, as it requires, as the member just outlined, that the commissioner provide a standalone gambling report. In the government's view, this is unnecessary as a report is already required as a part of the Attorney-General's Department annual report, which is tabled in parliament and made public each year.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support more transparency, not less, so we will support this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New clause 61A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 36, after line 12—After clause 61 insert:

61A—Annual report into effect of gaming machines in the State

(1) The Premier must, by 31 October in each year, cause a review to be undertaken of the economic and social impacts of the operation of gaming machines in the State during the preceding financial year and a written report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Premier.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must—

(a) seek and consider written submissions from government representatives and persons with expertise in evaluating the economic and social impact of gaming machines; and

(b) address the effectiveness of any legislative amendments to the Casino Act 1997 or the Gaming Machines Act 1992 proposed or commenced during the relevant financial year.

(3) The Premier must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after its submission.

This amendment seeks to incorporate a new provision into the bill—another annual reporting requirement into the effect of gaming machines in this state—except this time it is not the commissioner we are asking to hear from on the work that he has done. It is the Premier we are asking to hear from. The Treasurer himself has indicated that the commissioner's role is one that is prescribed by legislation and the government of the day has its own role to play in terms of setting gambling policy.

For those reasons, it is entirely appropriate that the Premier causes a review to be undertaken concerning the economic and social impacts of the operation of gaming machines in this state during a preceding financial year and that a report to that effect be prepared and submitted to the Premier. It is entirely appropriate that the review seek and consider written submissions from government representatives and persons with expertise in evaluating the economic and social impact of gaming machines and address the effectiveness of any legislative amendments to the Casino Act and the Gaming Machines Act, proposed or commenced during the relevant financial year.

The Premier would then of course provide a copy of that report to both houses of parliament. This is not asking the commissioner, as such, to provide an annual report; the commissioner will already be providing an annual report. This is ensuring that the Premier causes a review to be undertaken to inform the government of issues surrounding the effectiveness of any legislative amendments of government policy concerning the Casino Act and the Gaming Machines Act.

Again, I think it is entirely consistent with other review provisions that we have inserted into a multitude of acts in this place, which are ordinarily supported by all members of this place because they enable us to be informed of the issues that are at stake. In this instance, the issue that is at stake is the effectiveness of legislation concerning gaming. It is a straightforward amendment. It is entirely consistent with amendments that we have moved on numerous other occasions, and it will enable us to be informed as to the outcome of such a review.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. This amendment would require a full economic and social review into the effects of gaming machines in the state to be undertaken every 12 months. So it is not a one-off, but every 12 months there would be a full economic and social review.

In 2016, a report into gambling in South Australia was finalised by the Hon. Tim Anderson QC. The report was made public by the government in 2018 and progress has been made around the conclusions. The honourable member or someone earlier in this debate, perhaps earlier this morning, has already made a commitment to progress a proposal to establish a select committee to look at online gambling as well. For those reasons and many, many others, the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As mentioned by the Treasurer and has been mentioned elsewhere in this debate, one of the agreements that the government has provided to the opposition is for a select committee to look at online gaming and sports betting. In his contribution earlier in this debate, the Hon. Frank Pangallo talked about online gambling starting to become the preferred mode of gambling.

He talked about more frequent betting by those who bet online and that those who bet online are more likely to be at-risk gamblers. With that in mind, rather than spending money every year on a review of poker machines or gaming machines, it seems more appropriate to address the emerging and rising risks and problems of gambling, specifically, at this point in time, the rise of online gambling and sports betting. As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will come as no surprise that the Greens will support this amendment. It may come as a surprise to some in the chamber that I suspect it would depend on which Premier we had what this report might look like. Indeed, in the words of a former premier, Lynn Arnold, in the last 12 or so hours:

I am appalled—

posts on Facebook the former premier Lynn Arnold—

that our state parliament should have passed these amendments to what was already a very bad piece of legislation…'Hear, hear' [I say to] Mark Parnell, I fully agree with your comments! During my time in state parliament—

goes on the former premier Lynn Arnold—

I crossed the floor when pokies were first introduced, and have not resiled in my opposition to them since.

I fear that we will never see a Premier again allowed to express their conscience in this place on poker machines. I certainly do not believe we are going to see a Premier required by either the Liberal or the Labor parties of this place to actually be called to account by the parliament for their position, which is in lock step, on poker machines and their harm.

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Clause 62 passed.

New clause 62A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 36, after line 20—After clause 62 insert:

62A—Limitations on advertising of gambling activities

(1) A gambling provider must not authorise, cause or permit the publication of gambling advertising that is aimed at inducing a minor to gamble.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

(2) A gambling provider must not authorise, cause or permit the publication of gambling advertising unless—

(a) the advertising contains a mandatory warning message of a kind prescribed in the relevant advertising code of practice; and

(b) if the mandatory warning message is contained in gambling advertising with audible content—the minimum duration of the mandatory warning message is not less than 30% of the total duration of the audible content of the advertisement; and

(c) if the mandatory warning message is contained in gambling advertising with visual content—the size and type of the mandatory warning message is not less than 30% of the total size of the visual content of the advertisement.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

This amendment seeks to include a new clause after clause 62 that relates specifically to the limitations on the advertising of gambling activities targeted at minors. If I was gobsmacked before, then I am absolutely speechless on this one, because now we are not dealing with adults: we are dealing with minors. We are dealing with children.

We have a pretty healthy record in this place of doing our utmost to protect children in every single instance where they are vulnerable. We have done it time and time again. I have passed a bill in this place with the support of the government and the opposition that ensures our children are protected to the utmost level under our laws. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to do when it comes to gambling advertising that is directed specifically at minors.

It is directed at those people who are under 18, those children who manage sometimes to make their ways into venues—and there are plenty of instances of those—those children who manage to be influenced by advertising that is directly aimed at enticing them to take part in an activity that is clearly illegal, which is underage gambling.

The new insertion provides that a gambling provider must not authorise, cause or permit the publication of gambling advertising that is aimed at inducing a minor to gamble. The maximum penalty here is again $35,000, which is reflective of the maximum penalties that apply under the Gaming Machines Act for the more severe type of offending. If this is not the most severe type of offending, then I do not know what is. The new clause provides:

(2) A gambling provider must not authorise, cause or permit the publication of gambling advertising unless—

(a) the advertising contains a mandatory warning message of a kind prescribed in the relevant advertising code of practice; and

(b) if the mandatory warning message is contained in gambling advertising with audible content—the minimum duration of the mandatory warning message is not less than 30% of the total duration of the audible content of the advertisement; and

(c) if the mandatory warning message is contained in gambling advertising with visual content—the size and type of the mandatory warning message is not less than 30% of the total size of the visual content of the advertisement.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

I am expecting the Treasurer is going to say that advertising is covered in the codes of practice, but this provision seeks to make it explicit in the body of the legislation that any advertising material on gambling activities that is aimed at inducing a minor will be the subject of the highest level of penalty that applies under this legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is just too good an offering. We will see whether or not the honourable member keeps her word. She has promised that, if the government opposes this, she will be speechless. She will be judged in accordance with whether she keeps that particular promise or not. I am pleased to say the government will not be supporting this amendment. We will look forward to the honourable member being speechless.

The government's advice is that currently in the codes of practice there are already provisions relating to advertising in the offering of inducements, which cover everybody, including minors, so the provision is not just limited to minors. It is therefore not necessary for them to be replicated in the bill.

The government accepts the need as outlined by the honourable member, but, contrary to the impression sought to be given by the honourable member that this is in some way an additional protection for minors in relation to the offering of inducements, the advice is that this is already covered under the current codes of practice. It includes all people and not just minors, but certainly it does include minors already.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Obviously, the Greens will support this amendment. I note that there are companies out there that have advertisements that include such things as fairytale characters; fluffy kittens; small, cute rhinoceroses and turtles in pastel colours; something called 'Fluffy Favourites', packed with pink elephants and happy hippos and dinky dragons. These marketing measures are the very thing that the Labor opposition say they are concerned about and say they are going to address. They have an opportunity here to support an amendment that will provide penalties not just for a blanket coverage but particularly for advertising that is 'aimed at inducing a minor to gamble'.

I hear time and time again from some in the community, 'What about the children?' I never thought I would say that in this place but, my goodness, what about the children? How about we stop and prohibit behaviours that are aimed at inducing children to gamble. What harm can that cause, supporting what I think 99 per cent of the community would expect us to be passing in this place?

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

New clause thus negatived.

Remaining clauses (63 to 66), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (23:14): I move:

That this bill be now read third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.