Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause passed.

Clause 58.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 27, line 31 [clause 58(3), inserted penalty provision]—Delete '$10,000' and substitute '$50,000'

The amendment seeks to increase the penalty that would apply in instances where children are allowed to enter gaming areas. It seeks to do that by increasing the penalty from $10,000 to $50,000 to reflect the severity of the offence that is being committed when we allow our minors, who have no place in these venues, to be in these venues and indeed, in many cases, to gamble in these venues without being detected. The penalty is intended to reflect the severity of the issue that we are dealing with when we have children in gaming areas when they ought not be there. It is a maximum penalty, obviously.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this particular amendment. The advice we have received is that the penalty that is outlined is commensurate with and consistent with the other penalties within the act. We certainly do not downplay the significance of the offence that is highlighted here. In relation to this, my advice is that the commissioner retains the power for expiable offences under this particular provision, even with the amendments of the Hon. Ms Bonaros. I think that expiation is up to $1,250. Again, it provides a range of options for the commissioner, depending on the circumstances surrounding the particular potential or alleged offence. For those reasons, the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: On behalf of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has instructed me in relation to this item, the Greens are supporting this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question is to the mover of the amendment. Could she explain how the figure of $50,000 was arrived at?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I heard the question correctly, it was about how that figure was arrived at. The figure was arrived at by increasing the current figure fivefold to reflect the severity of the issue that I said we are dealing with. The current maximum figures, which I have quoted earlier, that apply under the Gaming Machines Act are $35,000. In this instance, because we are dealing with minors, SA-Best's position was to increase the current figure to a maximum penalty that is fivefold that that currently applies.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the mover indicate how this compares with other penalties for the sorts of contraventions that she would see as equivalent in significance and seriousness?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am not sure that I understand the question. I have said that it is a significant breach if a child is allowed into a gaming room. The current maximum penalties that apply for the top end of offending under the Gaming Machines Act, for instance, are $35,000. I have said that, given in this instance we are dealing with minors, it warrants a further increase in penalty, and so we increased that penalty fivefold.

Let me add to that. This one here specifically relates to the Casino. With the duty owed by the Casino, there is a very strong argument to back up a claim that, when you are dealing with the Casino—which has the resources that it has, which has the staff availability that it has, which has the obligation and duty of care that it has towards its patrons—it is only reasonable to expect the Casino—if you want to compare that with another gaming venue—to do absolutely everything in its power to make sure that minors do not make it through its front doors.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have two questions. The first one, though, follows up on that. How does this compare to a similar offence for a gaming venue that is not the Casino?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have said that the offences that apply in relation to the Gaming Machines Act, in terms of the higher end of the penalties, are maximums of $35,000. Our position on this issue, I have made clear, is we are dealing with minors who are entering into gaming machine areas when they should not be there. It is a fivefold increase to the penalty that applies. It is higher than the penalty that applies under the Gaming Machines Act by $15,000.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think a fivefold increase would be $175,000.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is $50,000; what is that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is significant if you are receiving that penalty.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 59 to 73 passed.

Clause 74.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 33, line 7 [clause 74(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

This will be a test clause for a number of other amendments to follow. I am not sure if it assists the Chair if I point those out.

The CHAIR: I think it would be important that you did. If they are consequential or if this is a test provision, I would let the committee know. The usual practice is that you would talk to those amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will talk to amendment No. 6. That is the one that is related to the social effect certificate test. The amendments that are associated with that are amendments Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 to 20, 22 and 24 to 27. This will be a test clause for those, so I can go my hardest, Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Unleash!

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Unleash! The amendments seek to keep the social effect certificate process that currently applies in the bill as is, and it does so for good reason. If there is one and only one good thing I can say about the opposition during this debate, it is that the most sensible thing that they ever did in government was introduce the social effect certificate test. That test we know has been used effectively.

The test case concerning that provision is the SAJC case—that is, the Cheltenham Park community and sporting club—which involved an application by the South Australian Jockey Club for the grant of a social effect certificate pursuant to the Gaming Machines Act in relation to a proposed gaming venue to be located at the corner of Cheltenham Parade and St Clair Avenue, St Clair, to be known as Cheltenham Park community and sporting club.

As I mentioned during my second reading contribution on this bill, I will refer to the matters that were considered during that application. It was a very important application because, up until that point, as the Hackham case highlighted very well, every time an application was made, the parameters around which people could object to those applications were weak, to say the least. In the Hackham case—and that is a case that I advocated in—I think the greatest irony is we appeared together with the legal representatives of a number of other owners of those gambling venues in the vicinity of that particular hotel.

For members who are not familiar with the Hackham case, that involved the old Sizzler site at Morphettville and the transfer of the licence to that site from a club. The name of that case was the Hackham Community Sports and Social Club. The matter was heard in the Licensing Court of South Australia in 2008 and that case involved the removal of a club licence. The applicant held both a club licence and a gaming licence for 15 machines. The application before the court was for the removal of the club licence to proposed new premises. As I said, the irony was that various hotels objected to the application together with us on behalf of the local community, and a number of individual objections were also heard.

Judge Chivell, who I appeared before, considered the relevant provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 regarding removal of the liquor licence, including section 53, which provided that a licensing authority had an unqualified discretion to grant or refuse an application under the act on any ground, or for any reason, the authority considered sufficient, but must be refused if the licensing authority were satisfied that the grant of the application would be contrary to the public interest.

The court considered the liquor licensing scheme, including the principles and policies found in the legislation. In his reasons for the decision, Judge Chivell detailed the function of Club One and its management arrangement with Club Management Services. He also considered the issues of whether the removal of the licence would affect the noise levels around the venue, traffic and parking, and the planning aspects of the proposed new venue.

He also set out the evidence from the objectors to the application, and concluded that the premises to which the removal of the licence was sought was of an appropriate standard for carrying on the business and that all relevant planning and business approvals had been obtained. He considered whether the applicant had satisfied the court that the removal of the licence would be unlikely to result in undue influence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience to persons in the vicinity, and he found that many of the concerns of local residents had been addressed by the council in the process.

However, he refused the application. He did so because he considered that the grant of the application would result in the creation of an entity that was a club in name only and that would be much more in nature of a professionally-operated hotel or tavern than a non-profit association or club. He stated in those findings, at paragraph 205:

In particular, I am satisfied that, for the reasons I have already expressed, to grant the application would allow the liquor industry to develop in a way which is not consistent with 'the needs and aspirations of the community'.

As I said, the irony was that we were joined by a number of hotel objectors. They had no care whatsoever for the aspirations of the community; what they were trying to overcome was further competition in their vicinity. That was the reason we had their support during that process. Of course the law, prior to the introduction of the social effect certificate, did not provide them with any other means to make their case.

That is why the SAJC decision is such an important precedent, because under the one good measure that the opposition managed to implement in its time in government we finally had a process that set a very high threshold, and a reasonable threshold, in terms of an application for a new venue. It also clarified the sorts of issues that ought to be considered in those sorts of applications.

There has been some criticism around the length of time and so forth that it took for that decision to be made, and that has been used as a reason to effectively say that the test has been unsatisfactory. In fact, I am sure if we asked the commissioner the same question he would say that the reason it took a year or so to finalise that matter was because there was a very important precedent being set in an area of law that had previously been the subject of hearings that did not really consider the important issues at hand.

We were arguing those applications on very flimsy laws and using every loophole in those laws, particularly hoteliers, to be able to argue for an application to be refused. So the SAJC case set a very clear precedent and paved the way forward for how those decisions would be decided in the future.

It is an important judgement and the fact that there are such a small number of applications that have been granted since the introduction of that test is not a reflection of that test not working. In fact, it is the polar opposite: it is a reflection, for the first time, that we have a test in place which lifts the thresholds, allows the public interest considerations to be considered—which ought to have been considered all along—allows the concerns of the community to be appropriately considered, the concerns of local schools, the concerns of whatever local group it is, and particularly residents, to be considered at an appropriate level. That is not something we had before.

I am blown away that the opposition would seek to undo one of the most effective measures that they implemented in relation to that process but that is, of course, my understanding of what they are seeking to do today.

The SAJC case was also important because it provided the opportunity to hear very important evidence, not only from locals who were vehemently opposed to the application that was being made but also a number of experts, including Dr Charles Livingstone and Dr Paul Delfabbro. Although Nick Xenophon appeared in that case, he also provided written submissions and appeared as a witness as well.

There is a detailed analysis of the evidence that was provided in relation to the issue of responsible gambling and the way that these matters ought to be determined in the judgement, and I would urge all those honourable members who have not looked at the SAJC judgement to do so, irrespective of the outcome today, because there is a lot to be learnt from that.

I say that because the commissioner accepted the evidence that was placed before him during those proceedings and accepted the veracity of the evidence that was placed before him and used that evidence as the basis for the precedent which has paved the way, in terms of similar applications, since.

There was also another application that came up in between and that was the BH application in Port Pirie, another one where I acted. I recall very vividly in that application Bill Cochrane attempting to—I will choose my words carefully here—effectively attempting to bully us into submission. Bill Cochrane was retained on the basis that if that application was successful he would receive a lump sum payment.

I recall the meetings that I had with Bill Cochrane, with other colleagues of mine present at the time, and the bully-ish nature that he used in an attempt to have us, effectively, get out of his way and get his job done so that that application could be pushed through. It was nothing short of disgraceful. Of course, it did not deter us and, ultimately, those applications were withdrawn and that application did not go ahead. It was a good outcome for us, despite Bill Cochrane's behaviour throughout the process.

As I said, the threshold under the test that applies now is a lot higher than it ever has been. Our concern with these amendments is that the amendments that are being proposed seek to do away with that process and replace it with a public interest test. Of course, the threshold that applies under that public interest test is simply not as strong as the one that applied under the former test, so that is our concern.

I have some sympathy for the commissioner here because I think if I were to ask the commissioner he would agree that it has been a very effective process, despite the fact that the first test case—Cheltenham—took as long as it did. The outcome in that case paved a very clear pathway and precedent for all future cases.

The fact that there has been a number of unsuccessful cases since is not a reflection of any technical difficulties associated with that test, it is a reflection of the amount of work that had to go into undoing the mess that we had up until that point and establishing some clear guidelines and thresholds about how we would treat new applications and the effect, detrimental or otherwise, they are capable of having on a local community in particular.

I think I may have referred to this earlier but Professor Michael O'Neil also provided comment in relation to the social effect inquiry process. In his comments, he said that one of the issues that we have with the Anderson review that we are relying on is that it did not consider the question of safeguards for harm minimisation in its reviewing of commercial gambling. Even though it may have been decided to scrap this, there are very specific questions that did not form part of the Anderson review but have still resulted in the move to scrap that test. In his report, Professor O'Neil states:

The Anderson Inquiry…is critical of the time…and the extended argument around the proposed SAJC gaming proposal at Cheltenham which was ultimately rejected.

He also:

…proposes replacing the current…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…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.

He goes on to give the example of whether you would:

…set up a shop without analysis of existing competitors…population density, per capita consumption trends, hours of opening and estimate of current turnover...

Although he takes a slightly different approach on this issue, Professor O'Neil makes the point that we have based our assessment on the social effect inquiry process on the wrong premise insofar as the Anderson review has not taken into consideration all of the other qualifying factors and related safeguards of harm minimisation.

Indeed, the reason Professor O'Neil does that is because he says that, ultimately, these processes are flawed unless we have access to the appropriate and necessary data. Those amendments have already been rejected in this place, but the reason he says that is because otherwise our assumptions are entirely subjective and we are relying purely on the evidence provided by the witnesses.

Of course, without access to the sort of data Professor O'Neil talks about, we do not have any choice but to rely on that evidence. The important part to remember is that the evidence presented throughout the SAJC case was considered very, very carefully by the commissioner. It was weighed up against the evidence of other witnesses, and ultimately the expert evidence in that case was accepted and the Cheltenham application was rejected.

I have spoken at length about the importance of that decision, and in my view it would be a crying shame if we allowed one test, which has not been the subject of the level of scrutiny that has been suggested because of the factors that were taken into account in the Anderson review, to be undone because that process has not resulted in the approval of applications.

It has not resulted in the approval of applications because we have finally set the bar higher, and we have finally taken into consideration the sorts of factors that we ought to have been considering before we allowed venues to open up willy-nilly all over the state and absolutely saturate those areas and demographics that can least afford to have them, those areas and demographics that are made up predominantly of our most vulnerable community members, who can least afford to play these machines, and those areas that have members of our community who suffer the dire consequences of problem gambling and gambling addiction the most.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We canvassed this area, all of us who have different views on this, in earlier stages of the debate, and the government opposes this amendment. As the Hon. Ms Bonaros has acknowledged, there is a series of 13 or 15 consequential or subsequent amendments that all pertain to the same issue, that is, the replacement of the social effect inquiry process.

The current social effect inquiry process is a prerequisite for an application for a gaming machine licence and, in addition to the preparation of a comprehensive statistical compendium, places an onus on an applicant to undertake significant and protracted engagement with the local community. In his review findings, the Hon. Tim Anderson QC found that the current test creates a situation that in practice prohibits the development of new venues. Indeed, since the introduction of the social effect inquiry process in 2011, no new gaming machine licences have been granted.

The statutes bill repeals the concept of a social effect inquiry process in favour of an assessment on the basis that an application for a gaming machine licence is a designated application for the purposes of the act and as a consequence requires the commissioner to be satisfied the application is in the community interest, consistent with the equivalent test under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. The commissioner will retain overall discretion to grant such licences and will be required to have regard for the harm that might be caused by gambling, whether to a community as a whole or a group within the community, and the cultural, recreation, employment and tourism impacts and the social impact in and impact on the amenity of the locality of the premises or proposed premises.

New community impact assessment guidelines will also be developed and published by notice in the Government Gazette for determining whether or not such applications are in the community interest. Following the successful passage of this legislation, the commissioner will then commence consultations on matters that are to be included in the guidelines as relevant to enable an assessment of the likely impact on the community to be assessed.

As I indicated in an earlier contribution in this debate, my long experience with groups representing clubs in South Australia has indicated a number of examples of clubs that have concerns about this particular process. I obviously have a strong footballing background—as in follower, not as in talent; as observer. There are a number of clubs, and I declare an interest. I am a member of the West Adelaide Football Club. They, over the years, have looked to move their machines, but clubs that I have no affiliation with, like the Sturt Football Club, and indeed others, have expressed interest.

But in other sporting areas—the honourable member has referred to the case in relation to the SAJC; but Harness Racing, for example, Mr Acting Chairman, have talked to various people about their desire to be able to move their machines from—and I might not get this strictly correctly: it is either from one side of their property to another or from on their property to very near their property—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: The SAJC was contiguous land.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes. The SAJC was contiguous land, but what about the harness racing?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think Harness Racing might have been contiguous land as well. But anyway, it was that argument. At varying stages—I am not sure whether they ever went ahead and whether indeed it is still an issue or not but the South Australian National Football League, I know, at West Lakes, were exploring what their opportunities were. I highlighted the fact that there is a club, I think a golf club or something, in Port Pirie, which, when I have attended Clubs SA functions the issue has been raised that they wanted to move. Now, it wasn't contiguous land; it was to move to another location.

So, look, there are any number of examples, and not that I can recall, but I am sure there are probably examples of hotels who have sought to move licences as well. But these ones I am more immediately aware of, because over many years they have lobbied me and I guess many other people in parliament about what they see as the unfairness of the current provisions and the impossibility of actually moving any machines.

Anyway, without wishing to unduly delay the debate I indicate for the reasons I have outlined that the government will not be supporting this particular amendment or indeed the other 12 or 15 amendments which are part of the same package.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a couple of questions of the mover. My understanding is that this amendment and the other related amendments will remove the social effects inquiry test and replace it with community impact assessment guidelines. So assuming that my understanding is correct, the member said the proposed new arrangements would be not as strong. Could she be specific about what it is that she thinks will not be as strong such as to have a detriment to this process?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Does the opposition have any intention of supporting these amendments? Because if they don't, then I suggest you go and read the transcripts—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Ms Bonaros, the member has asked—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —of SAJC and inform yourself.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Ms Bonaros, you do not talk when I am talking. The member has asked you a question. You are required to answer, please.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not have a response for her, Acting Chair.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Acting Chair. She is not required to answer and—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): She is required—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —she was actually answering the question. She referred the member to her previous responses. The ALP has made it very clear they are not supporting a single amendment, and so she referred to her previous responses and asked if the position of the ALP had changed and they were willing to entertain this amendment, because then, actually, a repetition of the arguments that have already been put before this place could occur. But why repeat, which is against the standing orders, those same arguments that have been presented to this council now for the benefit of somebody who has already indicated that they are not willing to support these amendments?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): That is not a point of order.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My point of order, Acting Chair, was that she is not required to answer the question.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): And that much is so: she is required to respond to the member but not to ask her another question, which was what she did.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My response is that I have no response for you.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If the honourable member does not want to answer questions about her amendments—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Which you're not supporting, Clare.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —why is she moving them?

The Hon. C. Bonaros: You're not supporting them. Stop wasting our time.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I understand that I have just been accused of wasting the chamber's time. I have asked a short question after the member has given a very lengthy contribution which has not answered my specific query. I find that approach rather interesting. If the member cannot explain what the difference is—why she says that it will not be as strong; we listened in some detail to the SAJC case, but it was not clear, to me at least and perhaps to others in this chamber, what her specific concerns are of what is in the social effects inquiry test which will not be in the proposed community impact assessment guidelines, which the Treasurer has indicated that the commissioner will be consulting on.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated an ounce of her intention to support this amendment, I would be happy to provide the response.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So perhaps a question—and I am not sure if it is for you, Mr Acting Chairman, or for the chamber. Is it usual for a member to refuse to answer a question about an amendment that she is moving unless people in advance indicate that they will support it?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I will give my ruling. The answer is that the member is entitled to answer as she sees fit but, of course, if her answer is not satisfactory to the chamber, then it may not persuade them to support her amendment. Are there any other contributions to be made?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, just some other questions. The honourable member said that if she was to ask the commissioner, he would say that the existing process has been a very effective process. Has she asked the commissioner?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, I have.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, and what was his response?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It was a very effective process.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank you because her wording was, 'If I were to ask the commissioner'. It is good to know that that has actually been asked. Currently, the certificate expires after 18 months, which is my understanding. Does the honourable member have a view of whether that is an appropriate time frame?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the member is suggesting that the Labor Party may be supporting this amendment, given that before the lunch break she made it clear that every time there would be a division she would be supporting no amendments to this bill, then I would happily answer the question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the questions are for the benefit of the entire chamber.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the member is to indicate to me that she is happy to entertain supporting this amendment, I will be happy to respond to her with a detailed analysis about the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If the honourable member does not have an answer, then that is fine if she says so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the member is indicating to me that she is willing to entertain supporting this amendment on behalf of the opposition, I will provide her with every answer she is seeking.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I think it is time to put the question. The question before the chamber is that the amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Bonaros—that is, amendment No. 6 [Bonaros-1]—be agreed to.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, as I understand it from parliamentary counsel, that was the test clause for amendments Nos 6 to 9, 11 to 19, 22 and 24 to 27.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have amendments Nos 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 to 20. If amendment No. 11 and others are also in that package, I might need to refer—

The CHAIR: I just need you to clarify. That is the most current advice that we have from parliamentary counsel, but I need you to be comfortable with that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If that is the advice from parliamentary counsel—

The CHAIR: Yes, but I would like you to confirm that for yourself independently.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. I have faith in parliamentary counsel.

The CHAIR: I want to clarify so that we are all on the same page. Amendment No. 6 was the test, which we have just done. Amendments Nos 6 to 9, 11 to 19, 22 and 24 to 27—other than amendment No. 6, which you have just moved—you will not be moving.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is correct.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 33, lines 25 and 26 [clause 74(10), definition of responsible gambling agreement]—Delete 'an industry body' and substitute 'a person or body'

I indicate that that will also be a test clause for amendments Nos 28 and 29. The amendment seeks to delete 'an industry body' from the definition of 'responsible gambling agreement' and replace it with 'a person or body'. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that, when individuals are seeking to work with and support people who are gambling, then they are appropriate people. In this instance, individuals from an industry body have proven not to be the appropriate people who ought to be assisting those individuals who have a problem with gambling.

When there is direct face-to-face dealings with problem gamblers then the expectation would be that we are not relying on the gambling industry to provide that direct face-to-face dealing but we are relying on an individual—any other individual—who has some experience in problem gambling and who has some understanding of the issues around problem gambling but who is not directly linked to the gambling industry. That is the intent of the amendment.

If there is a link to the industry, there is a very strong argument to be made that the level of advice or assistance being provided to that individual is biased and is not necessarily in the best interests of the problem gambler who is genuinely trying to seek some support and assistance with their gambling addiction or with their gambling problem.

If we are going to have people in the direct face-to-face scenario dealing with problem gamblers, then they should not be associated with the gambling industry. I can give you an example that the Treasurer referred to the other day when we talked of Club Safe. We called Club Safe and they said to us, 'We haven't made a submission to the government on this bill.' We sought their clarification again, and they confirmed again, 'We haven't made a submission on this bill.'

Thankfully, the Treasurer confirmed for the record that Club Safe apparently had provided a submission, because he pointed to the fact that he had a letterhead before him with AHA SA's name on the left-hand side of the page and Club Safe's name on the right-hand side of the page. That is an industry body armed with the task of helping problem gamblers, yet it has been proven time and time again that it simply does not work.

This amendment seeks to ensure that an individual, a person, or a body, somebody from the social welfare sector, somebody from the concerned sector, perhaps be the individual who is listed in a responsible gambling agreement as the individual or body that is to have direct face-to-face dealings with those individuals who have gambling problems.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government does not support this amendment. We agree with the member that amendments Nos 28 and 29, I think it is, are associated amendments as well. To correct the record, the issue that was raised earlier was not in relation to Club Safe; it was in relation to Gaming Care.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Gaming Care—sorry.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that is right. I had shown to me a copy of the letterhead showing the AHA and Gaming Care as having made a submission. I am not sure whether Club Safe did or did not, and I certainly did not claim that. That is a side issue for the moment. In relation to this issue, it is the government's view that it is beneficial for industry bodies to be actively engaged in this space in terms of trying to assist the management of problem gamblers.

Ultimately, it will be their members—if it is the AHA, it will be their members, the hoteliers and the staff employed by them—who can either be used as forces for good in trying to identify and provide assistance to problem gamblers or to create problems, as many comments that have been made in this particular debate expressing concern about the industry generally would lead you to believe.

The government's view is that industry bodies working, in the Hotels Association's case, with Gaming Care, albeit associated, is an appropriate vehicle to encourage as much as possible responsible gambling behaviour. The government also believes that members, such as hoteliers and the staff they employ, are much more likely to take a lead from, be assisted by and look to their industry body to provide assistance in a whole variety of areas.

Whether it be enterprise agreements, whether it be work health and safety legislation, or a whole variety of areas, members of industry bodies rely on their industry body to provide them with assistance. In the complicated area of gambling legislation, it is an important role for industry bodies to continue to play.

I know this is a more specific role, which is talked about here, in terms of responsible gambling agreements, but from the government's viewpoint we see it as an extension of an appropriate role. An example I have used is Gaming Care, which is associated with the Australian Hotels Association, but there are also other examples that the honourable member has referred to. For those reasons and others, the government is not supporting this amendment or the associated amendments Nos 28 and 29.

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

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 75 to 83 passed.

New clause 83A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 39, after line 28—After clause 83 insert:

83A—Insertion of section 26B

After section 26A insert:

26B—Term and renewal of gaming machine licence

(1) A gaming machine licence granted before 1 January 2022 will, unless it is sooner renewed, suspended or cancelled, expire on 1 January 2029.

(2) A gaming machine licence granted on or after 1 January 2022 has effect for a period of 7 years from the day on which it is granted, unless it is sooner surrendered, suspended or cancelled.

(3) The holder of a gaming machine licence may, at least 6 months before the licence is due to expire, apply to the Commissioner for the renewal of the licence for a period determined by the Commissioner and specified in the instrument of renewal.

The amendment seeks to implement a seven-year licence scheme for poker machine licences as a means of doing two things. The first is to combat the scourge of poker machines through an effective trading scheme, because we know that, to date, the schemes we have attempted to implement over the years have bee less than fruitful in terms of reducing the number of poker machines in our state. We have reduced them against all government policy, particular the former government's policy, by about 3,000, but we know that for a number of reasons the scheme has not worked. Despite the fact that there have been several attempts to improve that scheme, it simply has not worked.

Going into the election, our proposal in terms of tackling the scourge of problem gambling was to look at a licence scheme, modelled on other jurisdictions, that would ensure when somebody is getting into the poker machine industry they know there is a limit that applies or, I suppose, an end date that applies. They do not become reliant on that licence for the remainder of their days and then get caught up in a scheme that has no way out for them, which is a situation a number of our clubs, particularly small clubs, and hotels have ended up in.

It is simply not financially viable, one way or another, for them to get out. They cannot recoup the money they would need to recoup in order to give up their licences, so they stay in the game even when they want to leave. There is no appropriate exit strategy because the scheme has failed to work. That has been the subject of many debates in this place over a number of years in an attempt to improve the scheme.

This proposal is one we took to the election. It seeks to convert poker machine licences to seven-year licences. Under the bill that would commence in January 2022. It would deal with the argument that, again, smaller country hotels, in particular, would have their loans at risk with any sudden change. These are small hotels that were at the forefront of our minds when we announced this policy.

Of course, above all else what was most concerning to us was the harm that is caused by poker machines. So converting machines to a seven-year licence would effectively put the industry on notice not to invest beyond that time, with considerations of licence extensions beyond the seven years to be considered by parliament itself. The number of poker machines under such a scheme would then reduce—and there are further amendments to this effect—according to a given formula. The formula that we propose is one which would see a gradual reduction of 10 per cent per annum in the number of machines in hotels, in those venues—a 10 per cent reduction over five years until a 50 per cent reduction has been achieved overall.

It has a two-pronged effect: the first is that you give certainty to licensees that they do not have an indefinite licence, their licence is limited to seven years. They make a decision going into the gaming industry knowing that this is not an open-ended saga and that every seven years they would be required to have a new licence issued to them, and it would ensure that they do not invest above and beyond their means. In terms of actually reducing the number of machines and meeting the quotas, it would require a 10 per cent reduction in the number of hotels for a period of five years until an ultimate reduction of 50 per cent is achieved overall.

I have made the point that the scheme that we have at the moment, the scheme that we have had in the past, has been the subject of continued debate in this place because it has failed to see an appropriate reduction in the number of licences and in the number of venues in this jurisdiction. In fact, under the measures that are proposed now, what we are proposing are measures that—in fact, the measures that were just opposed, and there are some that are soon to be debated—could result in the complete opposite of that; it could result in more applications and more licences being issued. What we are saying is that if we want to tackle this issue and ensure that there is a genuine effort to reduce the number of licences in the state, then we implement a scheme that makes it clear that there will be a 50 per cent reduction of poker machines in this jurisdiction.

I think the point was made during my second reading contribution that I have no doubt that if we went to a referendum on this issue, electronic gaming machines would be yanked out of this jurisdiction in a heartbeat because overwhelmingly they do not have the support of our communities. Despite the rhetoric that is repeated time and time again in this place, the overwhelming support, in fact the evidence that was presented to us on 4 December by the Australian Institute of SA, indicates very clearly that there is very little support for these machines being in our communities, other than by government and the poker machine lobby who rely on the revenue that they get from those machines, to the detriment of our communities and to the detriment of those in our communities who can't afford to be impacted the most.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not think the honourable member will be surprised that the government will not be supporting this particular radical proposal. I think, as the honourable member in part has outlined, those persons with gaming machine licences who currently have, in essence, unrestricted unlimited licences—they own them—will, as a result of this legislation, all of a sudden only have a licence which lasts until 1 January 2029. One would imagine there would be a significant overnight loss of value of the licences that they hold.

Putting that particular argument to the side in relation to the value argument—as I said, the government is not supporting the scheme so we will not be going into too much detail—I am really not sure how it actually would eventually operate because it says:

(1) It is Parliament's intention to reduce the number of gaming machines…by 1 January 2026 to a number not exceeding half the number of gaming machines operating in the State on 1 January…

As I read this particular amendment, everyone who has a gaming machine in a hotel—it clearly does not relate to the Casino—all of a sudden will have a seven-year licence and prior to 1 January 2029 they will have to apply for it and in and around about that time under this process, they lose 10 per cent of machines. So if they have 40 machines, they lose four machines I assume without compensation. That happens to anyone who has machines now. They will all have these. That will happen in 2029.

I am just not sure how the scheme, even if it was to be passed, would actually deliver the half the number by 2026, which is really only six or seven years away. How the maths would work is an interesting question in and of itself. Should the amendments have majority support in the parliament we would have to work through the detail as to exactly how it would be intended to achieve what the honourable member seeks to achieve.

I will not delay the committee by going into too much more detail other than to say, for the reasons outlined and, indeed, many, many others, we do not think the scheme is workable let alone one that we would support. Putting that to the side, we will not be supporting this or the associated amendments that follow.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, the Labor opposition is interested in anything that will reduce the number of gaming machines. One of the amendments that was moved in the other place successfully and has now become part of this bill was to oppose the proposal to allow up to 60 machines in clubs, similarly, retaining the gaming machine reduction target and requiring the government to develop and introduce a new reduction strategy and trading system within 12 months. We think that that is a useful and balanced way to approach the reduction of gaming machines.

We need to remember that there are a large number of sports clubs, for example, that now, for better or for worse, rely on gaming machine revenue. That has been in place for some time. The Treasurer alluded to a number of practical difficulties that he sees may be the case in this proposed amendment and proposed change to this bill. I could ask some questions about how that might work but I am not confident that we will get any answers; therefore, there is no point in asking those questions.

I think we do need to consider that a big part of the change to what is a government bill has come from the opposition, to ensure that there is a continued focus on gaming machine reductions and a target for that, notwithstanding the fact that we have pointed out that as we go forward, the bigger risk and the bigger threat is from online gaming and that becoming a serious problem for problem gamblers.

The issue, of course, is that online gambling has virtually no restrictions and no opportunity for human intervention. In many ways, it is a matter of choosing between something that is bad or worse. We do not want to be encouraging, inadvertently, people to go to online gaming platforms, which can be more addictive, that can have less opportunity for human intervention, can have less opportunity for any kind of screening or self barring, or at least the opportunity to enforce barring, whether it is from the person themselves or from a third party, all of which is now available.

I think we need to keep in perspective the entire gambling system, and we need to remember that those who perhaps move from gaming machines in a pub or a club, or whatever other environment it might be, will quite possibly, if they are a problem gambler, move then to bet online. I have looked for evidence in terms of research around this, and there is some, but it is scant, which is why, again, one of the changes that were successfully moved in the other place by the opposition will ensure that there is some data provided by the gambling companies and sports betting companies—the online gambling companies, that is—to provide data on online gambling and sports betting by South Australians, as well as those that are on South Australia events and fixtures.

I think that really has to be a large focus of the harm minimisation going forward. It is no use for us to focus overly on, put all our attention towards, a type of gambling that is already in decline. Those who bet online, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo mentioned in one of his contributions, are more likely to be at-risk gamblers. Those who bet online are more likely to bet more frequently. It is a growing phenomenon.

We need to look at the entire perspective in terms of gambling, and having that increased attention to online gambling I think is incredibly important. Retaining the current gaming machine reduction target is an important part of that as well, as has been mentioned by a number of contributors to this debate. It is not one thing or another. There is no silver bullet; there is not just one aspect to be concentrated upon.

The Labor changes that were successful in the other place and now form part of this bill, of retaining the target and preventing the proposal that was to allow an increase in the number of electronic gaming machines that were allowed in clubs, which would have gone up to 60, is one part of addressing the current problem, but there is so much more that needs to be done and we have the first step of that in terms of the growing problem of online gambling and betting. We do not have any answers to some of the questions that were raised by the honourable Treasurer, but it is for all these reasons, as well as potentially the unworkability of the proposal, that the opposition will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do have some information for the Treasurer, which other members may find beneficial, given the contribution that has just been made, and I will point to this now. The prevalence of problem gambling amongst those who play poker machines continues to outrank any other form of gambling in this jurisdiction. That is fact. The SA gambling prevalence study released in 2019 demonstrates that 85 per cent of people with a gambling problem in SA play the poker machines, and that is nearly double the rate of any other form of gambling.

What is more, in relation to the numbers declining, based on government data $11,000 more is being lost on poker machines today than it was 17 years ago—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Eleven thousand dollars more is being lost today than it was—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Per person per capita the rate today is higher, and it is $11,000 more being lost on poker machines today than when the numbers ballooned 17 years ago. And the number of individual problem gamblers during that time—during the past 14 years in fact—has almost doubled.

I appreciate the arguments put by the Treasurer in response to this, but I do not accept the assertions that have been made by the opposition. They are assertions that are not based on fact, because studies that have been released as of this year which highlight the growing problem of online gambling and other forms of gambling still demonstrate that gambling on poker machines continues to outrank any other form of gambling and that 85 per cent of those people with problem gambling in this jurisdiction choose the poker machines.

Just for the record, and in response to comments made earlier in this place, I will quote from Hansard from earlier today from the Acting Leader of the Opposition—in response to her claims that I will not answer her questions because she may be supporting amendments. She said:

Hopefully, we can return to the main issue, which is the fact that the shadow treasurer advises me that he told the crossbench that the opposition is unable to form a position on the amendments that the crossbench may be proposing let alone support them. So it is simply not correct to imply that there is some commitment from the opposition to support any crossbench amendments.

That is why the Acting Leader of the Opposition is getting the response that she is getting. There is no genuine desire to support any of these amendments.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 84 and 85 passed.

Clause 86.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 21 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 40, lines 12 to 15 [clause 86, inserted paragraph (b)]—Delete inserted paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) must ensure that there is a continuous period of at least 8 hours in each 24 hour period during which gaming operations cannot be conducted on the premises; and

This amendment seeks to require a continuous period of at least eight hours in each 24-hour period during which gaming operations cannot be conducted on premises. Firstly, we have increased the period of closure, but secondly, we know that at the moment it is not a continuous break in play that is required. I do not think, given the evidence we have before us, it is unreasonable to expect that an eight-hour period, as opposed to a six-hour period, of continuous closure could be imposed on our venues to ensure that those individuals who linger around at all hours of the morning, waiting for those three hours to pass before the venue opens again to go in and continue to pour money into a machine, are given a break from these machines.

If you are not going to give the venues a break, at the very least give those people who are absolutely crippled by these machines a break. Why a person needs to go to a venue at 6 o'clock in the morning or 7 o'clock in the morning or 8 o'clock in the morning or 9 o'clock in the morning to gamble on a poker machine as a form of recreation is still something that is lost on me. If you have nothing better to do with your time than to wake up at the crack of dawn or to be waiting on the steps of a venue at 9am to start pouring money into a machine, then I suggest that you may have a problem with gambling. In fact, we know that the individuals we are talking about do have a problem with gambling and they are given very little opportunity in the current arrangements to have a break from play.

Because we allow these venues to operate continuously, we allow the six-hour break that is prescribed in legislation to be broken in two to ensure that, God forbid, somebody does not miss out on playing a poker machine continuously or for six hours. That is, six hours in 24. So what we are proposing is that (a) the closure period be increased to eight hours and (b) that it be a requirement that it be a continuous eight hours in 24 hours.

We are not proposing when the eight hours take effect but we are proposing that there be a continuous break for a period of eight hours. If this is a genuine form of recreation and entertainment, then I cannot see how anybody could argue against a continuous closure period of eight hours at a time that is nominated by a venue to ensure that those members of the community who should not be at a venue, who cannot afford to be at a venue, who cannot control their gambling, who have a gambling addiction have an opportunity to have a break from the machines that plague and devastate their lives.

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

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government will not be supporting the amendment. The current arrangements we think have worked relatively well. I am advised that it can either be a six-hour block or two three-hour blocks or three two-hour blocks, or some version thereof, in relation to the current arrangements. The government believes that has worked adequately and we therefore do not support the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am wondering if there is any evidence to show one way or the other whether it is better to have several breaks in time for problem gamblers so that they have to leave several times. The proposal before us, if I understand it correctly, would potentially mean that there is a 16-hour straight time that they could be in the venue. I am not suggesting there is necessarily evidence one way or the other. I am interested to know if those who have a particular interest and have read widely on this have found that there might be benefits to problem gamblers in that they would have to have a break of at least two separate periods of time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The industry experts have pointed overwhelmingly to the support for a continuous break in play, and I refer the honourable member to her previous response to us in relation to amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Are they South Australian studies that have shown that, or are they national or international?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There are a host of studies that have been undertaken in South Australia to that effect. Again—and this will be my final answer—I refer the honourable member to her response in the earlier hours of this debate when she indicated that she would not be supporting any amendment on this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her answer.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We have come to amendment No. 4 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am just looking for my bit of paper that has my amendments.

The CHAIR: This is the one in relation to Good Friday, Easter Sunday and ANZAC Day.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was about to say that I am assuming this is one of the consequential ones. It is not consequential because I did not move the original amendment, so I do not intend to move any in this series. I simply wanted to seek a response from government and opposition as to why they amended the bill in the other place.

Clause passed.

Clauses 87 to 91 passed.

Clause 92.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 23 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 42, lines 21 to 23 [clause 92, inserted section 27E(1)]—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) It is Parliament's intention to reduce the number of gaming machines that may be operated in the State by 1 January 2026 to a number not exceeding half the number of gaming machines operating in the State on 1 January 2021 (the statutory objective).

(1a) In order to meet the statutory objective, the regulations establishing the approved trading system under section 27B(2) must include the following:

(a) provision for the Commissioner to purchase gaming machine entitlements from persons other than not for profit associations or the holder of the casino licence (and for those entitlements to be cancelled by the Commissioner accordingly);

(b) provisions requiring assistance for the holder of 10 gaming machine entitlements or fewer to surrender or sell their gaming machine entitlements to the Commissioner or other participants in the approved trading system.

As much as I would like to elaborate on this amendment, I think that the government and the opposition both made their intention clear when I spoke to it previously, and that is in relation to the reduction scheme that I have already highlighted. I spoke to those two together because in our view they are coupled and it would work as an overall scheme, including two elements: (1) the licensing and (2) the ultimate 50 per cent reduction. For the record, the government and the opposition have already stated their position on these amendments, as have other members, so I do not think it is necessary to canvass it again.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Opposed.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 93 to 116 passed.

New clause 116A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 32 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 57, after line 19—After clause 116 insert:

116A—Amendment of section 51A—Cash facilities not to be provided on licensed premises

Section 51A(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not, on or after the prescribed day, provide or allow another person to provide, cash facilities on licensed premises that allow a person to obtain cash by means of those facilities.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

(2) In subsection (1)—

prescribed day means the day falling 6 months after the day on which the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Act 2019 is assented to by the Governor.

The intention of this amendment is to ban the provision of cash facilities on licensed premises. I note that there had been discussion about a similar amendment in relation to the Casino. Those discussions centred around the appropriateness or otherwise of removing all cash facilities from the Casino.

Given that the Casino offers such a diverse range of products and is about to offer an even more diverse range of services within its entire premises, then it would be unreasonable to expect that you would not be able to go, for instance, to their food hall, shopping mall, hotel or whatever it is that we are building over there these days, to access cash whatsoever. However, it is entirely reasonable given the wealth of evidence that exists that indicates that easy access to cash in a gaming venue is to the detriment of those individuals who have a gambling problem.

It is entirely reasonable given the coronial inquest that I spoke of during my second reading speech concerning the death of a 24-year-old mother. I gave instances on the record of the number of ATM and other withdrawals that were made consistently over a long period of time during that individual's gambling at those venues. She consistently went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth from cash facilities located at venues. She continued to withdraw cash and pour that cash into a poker machine and ultimately lost control to such an extent that she took her own life. That is, of course, the worst outcome that we could possibly imagine in terms of gambling addiction.

There is nothing worse than to know that 400 people a year, more than one day, take their lives as a result of gambling addiction. One of the number one drivers in terms of those addictions is easy access to cash. We have in this jurisdiction the easiest access to cash that you can fathom, because some years ago, in all our wisdom, in all the opposition's wisdom when Minister Gago was here, she decided to allow EFTPOS machines back into gaming rooms. No jurisdiction in the entire nation allows EFTPOS facilities in its gaming room—none—but we thought that was a good idea. What did we do when we implemented that measure? Inadvertently we undid the very same caps that that very same government was trying to implement in terms of the limits on access to cash.

On the one hand we were saying, 'We will put in a $250 limit on access to cash through an ATM,' and on the other hand we said, 'And in addition to that, we will give those same individuals unlimited access to cash through an EFTPOS terminal.' In fact, they undid their own policy at the time of implementing limits on access to cash and gave individuals unlimited access to cash and did so to the detriment of patrons who could not control their gambling addiction.

This time around, the government and the opposition have come to this place and said, 'Well, we acknowledge that we got it wrong when we voted those reforms in—to an extent. We acknowledge that the law passed by the opposition with the support of the government the last time it came up for debate took the situation too far, so we will impose limits now on EFTPOS facilities in gaming rooms and of course we will have the existing limits that apply to ATMs.'

As the Treasurer himself referred to earlier, we know that when it comes to problem gambling one of the arguments often offered is that a break in play provides a player, a gambling addict, the opportunity to get up, move away from a poker machine, walk outside, see if the sun is still shining, breathe some fresh air, move away from the bells and whistles and the sound of coins falling into trays, and reflect, hopefully, maybe, on their gambling and the amount of money that they have been withdrawing and pouring into these machines.

The facts speak for themselves. I have referred extensively throughout this debate to the fact that every industry expert will tell you that easy access to cash is the number one driver to gambling addiction and problem gambling. I also keep saying that we need to be reflecting on these harm minimisation measures as a package. Not only are we allowing extraordinarily easy access to cash—and now that access to cash will be limited to $500 per 24 hours, $250 higher than the previous government's own policy—but in addition we will make it easier for them to pour it into a machine by providing for note acceptors.

If these measures are to be considered seriously, if there were any genuine, sincere attempt to address the issue of problem gambling amongst those who play the poker machines, then we would seriously be considering the need to remove all cash facilities from venues on the basis that every ounce of evidence available to us in every report that I have referred to, and hundreds more, tells us that access to cash is the number one driver to gambling addiction in this state.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this particular amendment and related amendments as well. I am advised that in the government's bill there are restrictions, as I am sure the honourable member probably acknowledges, in terms of access to amounts of money through EFTPOS. My advice is that will be restricted to $250, whereas under the current arrangements a gambler can go back on a number of occasions and get $200 lots from the EFTPOS machine.

The honourable member will probably be familiar, from her travels through regional areas, with an argument that she has probably already had canvassed with her: the importance, in regional communities, particularly in isolated regional communities, of the local hotel or the community hotel. Where the banks no longer have branches, in many of those localities the local hotel is the location where you have access to cash facilities such as an ATM.

The blanket ban the honourable member is canvassing here would mean that in a number of those regional communities—which she would be very familiar with—access to cash for isolated farmers and regional workers who do not have access to banking facilities will, with the stroke of a pen, be cut off. We think that is unreasonable.

Of course, our party is a regionally as well as a metropolitan based party and our members, over any number of debates we have had on these sorts of issues, continue to highlight this on behalf of their constituents, who believe they are ignored by those of us who have the pleasure of living in the metropolitan area with access to two million ATM machines every time we walk around a corner. In isolated communities they do not have that sort of access and, with the stroke of a pen, the honourable member would remove that capacity from those constituents, who are as important to the government and to government members as those of us who have the good fortune to live here in Adelaide.

The only other point I make—and the honourable member has heard me say this before—is that problem gamblers would crawl over cut glass to get to their choice of gambling. Not too far from here, for example, they just go around the corner to the nearest ATM, which happens to be in a bank that does not have any sort of restrictions. Then they can go to the next one.

I know the honourable member has the view that some problem gamblers, or perhaps a good percentage of them, may be encouraged not to return to the problem gambling establishment if their play is interrupted. I do not accept that is the case. I think someone who has this insidious problem will find the money wherever it is they need to find it and will return.

I did not follow all the detail of the member's two-hour contribution in the early hours of this morning, where she was listing all the withdrawals from various institutions at various hours late at night and early in the morning. I was not sure which particular institutions the particular individual was, sadly, withdrawing money from. Whether that backs the case I am making or not I am not sure, but there are any number of examples where people have not been able to access the cash within the establishment but have easily been able to access it by going outside the establishment around the corner to the ATM on the wall. They have got the money and then gone back to the establishment.

For all those reasons, and many others, the government will not be supporting this particular amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Port MacDonnell, where I live, is one of those very situations. There are two ATMs in Port MacDonnell: one is at the general store and one is at the Bay Pub. The general store is open at various times; I think it is 7am until about 6pm Monday to Friday and slightly different hours at the weekend. What that means is that after those opening hours at the general store, there is no ATM in the town.

A number of the small businesses there do not accept EFTPOS, so when we need to get cash we head on to the pub. This amendment would prevent that happening and severely disadvantage my neighbours in Port MacDonnell as well as potentially myself and other people in the region. In a very practical sense I do not think it is a good amendment for regional areas. The design and intent, whilst admirable, needs to be achieved in different ways.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I can assure the Treasurer that his quote, some years ago, in relation to problem gamblers walking over cut glass, has remained with me for a very long time. I do not disagree with him in relation to that but the one point that I would like to make, just for the record, is that the Treasurer, with respect, uses faulty logic with small numbers, particularly in this regard, to argue freedom from governance for all.

As we know, only a very small number of individuals threw glass bottles at the football and cricket but glass containers were replaced with plastic cups for all. Only a small number of drivers drive through red lights or drive unregistered vehicles but all are subject to severe surveillance and penalties. This scenario is no different to any other scenario that we legislate for each and every day in this place, where a small number of individuals are responsible for actions but we choose to legislate to ensure that our laws cover all community members. When it comes to access to cash facilities in a gaming venue, the argument is exactly the same.

New clause negatived.

Clause 117.

The CHAIR: We now come to clause 117, amendment No. 33 [Bonaros-1].

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will not be moving that amendment; it is consequential.

Clause passed.

New clause 117A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 34 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 57, after line 26—After clause 117 insert:

117A—Insertion of section 51C

After section 51B insert:

51C—Coin machines not to be provided on licensed premises

(1) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not, on or after the prescribed day, provide, or allow another person to provide, a machine designed to change a monetary note into coins on the licensed premises.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

(2) In this section—

prescribed day means the day falling 1 month after the day on which the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Act 2019 is assented to by the Governor.

It is the same as the amendment I moved earlier in relation to the Casino context, except this time it applies to other venues. It requires a ban on coin machines in those other venues that are covered under the Gaming Machines Act. The reasons for the amendment are the same as those that I have just outlined in relation to easy access to cash.

The example just given by the Treasurer about the breaks in play are obviously used both ways in this debate. On the one hand we say, 'Well, it's a good idea to let someone get up from a machine and go to a coin machine and get access to cash,' and on the other hand we say, 'Well, we should give the individual the opportunity to have some face-to-face interaction with an individual and let them access cash through an EFTPOS terminal.'

EFTPOS terminals were put in our gaming rooms on the basis that they provided a harm minimisation measure because they would require someone to have face-to-face interaction with a staff member in a venue. That argument is used as the government pleases, to suit its policy agenda.

In this instance, it is being used on two fronts: it has been used to say you can give somebody the opportunity to get up and go to a machine and take coins out, but by the same token it is a good idea to have EFTPOS machines in there that so that somebody behind the counter who is trained to identify a problem gambler has the opportunity to eyeball a patron and ensure that they are not suffering from any form of problem gambling or gambling addiction, or that they do not need to be spoken to about their gambling behaviour to ensure that everything is okay.

We play this card about the need or otherwise to get up and move away from a machine and the need or otherwise to have interaction with an individual at a venue as it suits our policy agenda; that is what we do in these debates. That is what we do time and time again. That is what we do every time these debates come up. The worst example of that came when we introduced EFTPOS facilities in gaming venues in this jurisdiction, something that not only no other jurisdiction in Australia does but something that we cannot find evidence of occurring anywhere else in the world. Why? Because easy access to cash in a gambling venue drives problem gambling.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government would argue that this is sort of semi-consequential on an earlier debate that has been resolved, but the member is perfectly entitled to prosecute the case. As I understand it, we had the discussion earlier in relation to the Casino. That is a similar amendment with coin machines to be banned. That is, we had the debate and the government opposed it on the basis that you could go into the Casino, you get up from your machine, you jam a $50 note into a coin machine, you get your coins and then you go back again, as opposed to if you ban the coin machines, you go to a teller, you give them a $50 note and they give you the coins.

My understanding and my advice is that this is a similar principle, except it is going to apply to hotels and clubs. So for the same reasons as the government opposed it earlier, we will oppose it here. It would certainly be inconsistent that this sort of restriction would apply to hotels but would not apply to our very good friends at the Casino. The government's position, obviously, is that it should not apply to either. We have already voted not to allow it to apply in the Casino. It would be illogical to support it in hotels and clubs. For those reasons, we oppose the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 118.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 35 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 58, after line 8 [clause 118(1)]—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not provide any gaming machine on the licensed premises unless the gaming machine is operated in connection with a pre-commitment system in compliance with the requirements prescribed by the regulations.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that gaming is only provided in a gaming machine venue on the basis that there is a mandatory precommitment system in place. At the moment, mandatory precommitment systems only exist when we deal with cashless gaming. They do not apply in any other circumstances and are not taken advantage of in this state.

Given that we are going to give a free-for-all in terms of access to cash at venues in this state, given that we have said EFTPOS is okay, coin machines are okay, ATMs are okay and note acceptors are okay, and given that we are so concerned about ensuring that we have appropriate harm minimisation measures in place, then it is only reasonable to ensure that if you are going to have access to endless amounts of cash in a venue through the easiest means available, if you are going to allow note acceptors in this jurisdiction—an absolute retrograde step; the worst step that we could be taking as a result of these changes (I am not going to call them reforms, because they are anything but reforms; they are backward steps)—then the least you could do is give somebody who is playing one of these machines the ability to set limits on their spending.

They need to be able to set warning messages for themselves to say, 'Okay, I know I am going to go in there today and I am probably going to play more than I should, but these are the limits that I will set through a precommitment system for myself to ensure that I don't go over and above what I can afford, to ensure that tonight I can afford for my family, to ensure that tomorrow I can pay my rent, to ensure that the next day I can pay my utilities, to ensure that I can send my kids to school with some lunch in their lunchbox.'

Give people, those individuals who do not have the ability to help themselves in any other way, some protection against poker machines. A precommitment system, coupled with the other measures outlined in this bill, but more importantly coupled with the easy access to cash, the number one driver of driving addiction, would go some way towards ensuring that somebody does not spend more than they can afford. It would go some way to ensuring that they have not poured their money into a poker machine instead of being able to make the payments for their rent on Thursday.

I am not talking about the recreational gambler who can afford to go in there and put $5, $30, $50, $100, $200 into machine. I am talking about that individual whose family cannot afford for them to go into a venue and pour their money into one of these machines. I am talking about that individual who cannot control their spending on a poker machine. Let them have some control over their spending by setting themselves some limits, by allowing them to set warnings for themselves that say, 'Maybe I have been sitting here too long and I need to walk away.'

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government does not support this particular amendment. The issue of mandatory precommitment systems is one that has been well ventilated. I think the honourable member might have referred to the Productivity Commission inquiry. This is an issue that they have raised. I know our federal colleagues have flirted with this. By that I mean both Labor and Liberal. My recollection is that they have moved away from any intent to move down this particular path of mandatory precommitment.

The current system in relation to automated risk monitoring—just so I get the language right—is in a modest way the alternative to that, in terms of alerting staff to people who are exhibiting potentially risky behaviour by long periods of time at a particular gaming machine. Obviously, trained staff, through observation, should also be able to assist, in well-maintained and responsible gambling establishments, in terms of keeping an eye on potentially problem gamblers who are spending too much time, or lengthy periods of time, at particular gaming machines.

I do not profess to be an expert on precommitment systems, but my understanding in the broad was that as an individual you indicate how much you are prepared to gamble and in some way, I assume, your machine stops you once you get to the extent of your gambling limit. My understanding, again, is that you can then move to the next machine—or to the next establishment, frankly—particularly in establishments that might have 30 or 40 machines, or indeed the Casino, which has many more than that.

The other thing, in terms of making it a mandatory precommitment system, is I do not have a current cost of what that would involve for an establishment, but certainly for clubs who are struggling to survive on the smell of an oily rag at the moment, any additional significant cost such as this in relation to their existing machines would probably render them unusable or useless. Many of them have old machines that may or may not be capable of being compatible with a modern precommitment system. Even if it was, there is a significant additional cost for each machine.

There is a version of precommitment at the Casino, because they have—what is it, cash in, cash out? Whatever their system is, they have got a version of precommitment there. But of course, the Casino is big enough and ugly enough to be able to afford some of these measures; smaller clubs and certainly smaller regional hotels would struggle to be able to meet the individual costs, whatever that number currently happens to be.

For all those reasons and for many others the government continues to oppose amendments like this particular one.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, this might be an opportune time, given where we are at in the debate, to ask the Treasurer if he could provide a response in relation to the issue that I raised in the early hours of the morning about the $100 cash limit and the interplay between that and the matter that was the subject of the disallowance regulations regarding the increase in cashless spending where a precommitment system is in place—the application the Casino made to increase the amounts that you can have on cashless spending—noting that the AHA and Clubs SA may make similar applications.

The tone of my question was whether those provisions are consistent with the $100 limit that has been negotiated between the government and the opposition. The clarity we were seeking was: is there any inconsistency between those current provisions, which allow for the increase in cashless spending with precommitment, and the $100 limit that has been included in this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It might surprise the honourable member: I was absolutely riveted for all two hours of her contribution, but that must have been just the millisecond that I nodded off or lost concentration. But I have been reminded by someone who is next to me who was obviously much more attentive than I was. The answer, I am advised, is that the government is of the view that there is a regulation-making power which is available to the government and the commissioner. At the moment the only cashless system is in the Casino, and the honourable member, as I am advised, is raising the issue of what happens when and if it gets rolled out somewhere else; is there a potential problem?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If they apply—if they make an application.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that is right. At the moment it does not exist anywhere other than the Casino—that is the cashless gaming, as I understand it. But the honourable member is raising the question of what happens if and when they apply and this was to occur? My advice is there is a regulation-making power which is available to the government, obviously, and/or the commissioner to cater for the sort of circumstances the honourable member is talking about. So the honourable member has raised an issue. If it needs to be addressed, it will be addressed through a regulation-making power.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to confirm, once this bill comes in, because it is an application that is made, you apply to the commissioner and you say, 'I would like an increase in my cashless spending with precommitment attached.' In this instance, that decision had been made not by the commissioner but formerly by the IGA to approve the Casino's application. My understanding is that Clubs SA and the AHA were only disappointed that they did not know that they had access to the same ability to make a similar application. So if they were to make that application, is the Treasurer saying that the $100 limit that has been applied in this bill will be considered in that context to ensure that there is compliance across the board?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would never seek to speak on behalf of the Attorney-General. She is a formidable person in her own right, and I have not had the opportunity to speak to her, but I have spoken to people who would provide advice to her. From my viewpoint, I think the proposition that the honourable member has put would be an entirely reasonable proposition.

Without being able to speak on behalf of the Attorney-General at this particular stage of the debate, as late as it is, I think it is a reasonable proposition. Certainly, it is one that I would have some sympathy with. I can give my commitment that I would be supporting the general tenor of the argument that the member is putting but I ultimately do not have responsibility for this particular provision.

There are much more important people in the pecking order than I am in these sorts of issues and that includes not just the Attorney but probably the commissioner as well, I suspect. We would obviously take advice in relation to that, but I understand the point the honourable member is making. To the extent that I can be as reasonable as I can during the committee stage of the debate, I indicate that I have some sympathy for the member's views, and that is about all I can give an indication on for the member at this stage.

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

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We now come to amendment No. 36 [Bonaros-1]. Is that consequential?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is a consequential amendment. It is consequential insofar as it applies to the Gaming Machines Act as opposed to the Casino Act.

The CHAIR: It is a test or consequential. I will not get into a debate with you.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 37 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 58, line 24 [clause 118(2), inserted subsection (4a)]—Delete 'a game by insertion of a banknote' and substitute 'the machine'

The purpose of the amendment is to reflect the intentions of the opposition's amendment in terms of providing the strict $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine, down from $1,000, except that under this amendment it does not apply just to those machines that have note acceptors.

It applies across the board to all machines because, if we are genuine about limiting the amount that should be put into a machine at any one given time in terms of the credits, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why that should not apply across the board to all machines, irrespective of whether they have a note acceptor operating or not. To be clear, the amendment is consistent with the spirit, if you like, of the opposition's amendment in ensuring a strict $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can have access to on a machine, but it does not apply only to those machines with note acceptors: it applies to all machines across the board.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just had a rapid lesson in how the $100 credit limit is proposed to operate. I know marginally more now after that crash course. I am sure I know a lot less than the honourable member does in relation to the issue. As explained to me, under the government's bill before us, I had the erroneous understanding that you could only put two $50 notes in; that was $100. Ultimately, if you have a credit limit and you get down to having $40 in, and you have already put in two $50 notes, you can put in another $50 and another $10. You just cannot go over the $100 credit limit at any one time. You can continue to feed notes in—$10, $20, $50 or whatever it is—but you just cannot go over the $100 in relation to it.

The honourable member's novel suggestion is for those hardy souls who are currently using coins and refuse to be tempted—or seduced, from the honourable member's viewpoint, not from the government's viewpoint—and view coins as being much more conducive to their gambling option and continue to use coins, they would have to continue to jam in $100 worth of dollar coins on a continuing basis, etc., and continuously feed them into the system.

Whilst I understand the honourable member's argument, from the government's viewpoint, and certainly the industry would argue, increasingly for convenience—that is, the sheer inconvenience of having to either lug around or use 100 coins or whatever it might happen to be—there will be some attraction and usability in terms of using notes, in terms of $10, $20 or whatever it might be, no more than a maximum of $50.

It is the government's advice and view that it is more likely than not that usability and the preponderance will mean that people are more likely to use the notes. Therefore, the systems that have been envisaged will cover it. People are going to be less likely to have the $100 of coins and continue to feed those, albeit there may be some who continue to like that as their option in relation to how they will gamble.

All I can say is that, whilst I understand the member's point, the government's advice and view is we are not supporting the amendment. We think practice will mean that people will tend to use the note acceptors much more than coins, albeit there will still be some who will continue to use coins as their gambling option of choice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the Treasurer for his very helpful explanation. What we have is an arrangement that has been struck between the government and the opposition which hinges on a number of amendments being agreed to. One of those amendments included legislating the strict $100 limit on the amount that a player can add to a gaming machine.

I would like to know whether the discussions around that $100 limit were confined to note acceptors or to note acceptors and/or coins because that is particularly important in this context. If the discussion was, 'Okay we will restrict the amount that can be put into a machine to $100,' that would easily suggest in this instance that it was intended to apply across the board and there is no clarity because we do not have details of the discussions that took place and whether that is in fact the discussion that took place with the opposition when they proposed one of their amendments in relation to the strict $100 limit.

We support wholeheartedly the strict $100 limit. What we are seeking clarity about is whether those discussions envisaged that that would apply across the board or only in relation to note acceptors.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would happily accept either the acclaim or the odium, depending on your perspective, that it was supposedly I who negotiated most of the arrangements with the shadow treasurer, but I can fess up and say it was not I on behalf of the government. It is always useful to blame the Treasurer, so I am happy to accept the blame from those who want to attribute blame.

I was consulted in relation to the broader aspects of discussions that were going on. I was consulted, advised and engaged but I was not privy to the sort of detailed discussions that the honourable member is asking about. I was not part of any discussion about that sort of detail. I am therefore not in a position to indicate whether those issues were even canvassed in that sort of detail and, if they were, the nature of the discussion between the government and the opposition. As much as I would like to assist the honourable member, I am not in a position to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the opposition shed some light on this, given this is one of the harm minimisation measures which resulted in its support for this bill. It is a critical amendment proposed by the opposition and passed as a part of this package, and that is that there is now to be a legislated strict $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine. I think it is only fair that we know the parameters of that $100 limit. It is a fair and reasonable question.

If we have negotiated that as part of this package, we need to know what it is that we have agreed to. Have we agreed to limit that to note-accepting machines or have we agreed to apply that across the board? It is my understanding, from my discussions, that there would be a strict $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine. That is what the shadow treasurer's media release, that I am reading from, states, and I will quote:

Legislating a strict $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine—down from $1,000—which would be lowest in the nation, along with Queensland. The limit in Victoria is $1,000 and in NSW is $9,980.

That is the intention that has been made clear in the shadow treasurer's media release. I appreciate the response that has just been provided, but we do not have any more clarity around that. We are legislating now, so when this law comes into effect we need to know one way or another what the parameters are around that $100 limit. That is not an unreasonable question, given that this is coming into law. We want to know what that law is actually going to look like.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not saying whether it is a fair or unfair or reasonable or unreasonable question. All I am saying is that I am not in a position to provide any greater clarity on the honourable member's question other than what I placed on the public record.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given the press release I have just read from and the comments of the shadow treasurer, can the opposition give any clarity regarding their understanding of how this limit will apply in practice, and the parameters around the agreement that has been reached in relation to that $100 limit?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am tempted to ask whether the honourable member is going to be voting for the bill and, if not, whether she would even ask her question; however, I would not say such a thing because I respect this parliament and I respect all questions that are asked within it. I am looking at the same media release, I assume, and my understanding is that legislating a strict $100 limit on the amount of credit a player can add to a gaming machine would be the lowest in the nation. That is an extract from the media release I think the member has referred to.

In terms all how it will actually operate, remembering that this is a government bill, I am sure the interpretation that is provided by the advisers to the government is the correct one. I have not been privy to any discussions, agreements or arrangements between anyone. Therefore, I encourage the honourable member to refer to the answers that have been provided by the government, remembering that this is indeed a government bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am a bit lost at the moment. I am simply asking for some guidance from anyone in this place—absolutely anyone—as to the parameters around this $100 limit. Given that this is a piece of legislation that is going to come into operation, I am sure there are many people in this room now who have the exact same question I do: what are the parameters around the $100 limit? I cannot see how that is not a reasonable question that we can have answered during the context of this debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to support the amendment and echo the question, but perhaps with a little different tangent. We have read, in the Labor Party press release, that this is a strict $100 limit, a strict one. That sounds quite powerful and as if it minimises harm. Yet in the debate, while there is only $50 that can be put in at any one time up to that limit of $100, when that amount is gambled away another $50 can be put in.

My question is: what is the minimum time it would take for somebody playing a machine to have $50 expended? If they lost every time they had a spin, what is the minimum time between putting in one $50 note and then being able to insert the next? Is it the same as it is now?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to answer the question in relation to how quickly one can lose $100—I think that is probably the simple way of putting it. I suspect the answer—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It is how quickly one can lose $50 actually, because you can keep putting in the $50 each time—but this is somehow 'strict'.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have an answer to that, and I apologise to the honourable member for an inability to answer that question. I propose that once this issue is resolved we report progress so that people can have some dinner, and we return after the dinner break.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I suggest that during that dinner break we get some clarity around this particular provision, which is the key, a critical part, of this debate. This is going to come into law. This is the law we are going to have to operate under, and we would like to know what the parameters around that $100 limit are. If these are part of the deal that was struck—which, according to the media release from the shadow treasurer, it is—it is only reasonable that before this bill passes this chamber we have some clarity around the parameters to that strict $100 limit that has been put in this bill.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.