Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

The CHAIR: Honourable members, we are still on clause 118. We are now contemplating amendment No. 38 [Bonaros-1].

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, Chair. I was hoping, as indicated before the dinner break, that we would have some clarity around the parameters that apply in relation to the strict $100 limit that is to apply in respect of the credit that can be put into a gaming machine, and I am hoping that somebody will be able to enlighten us in relation to that strict $100 limit and its parameters.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would love to take the honourable Ms Bonaros on the road to enlightenment, but sadly I can offer no more enlightenment after the dinner break than I was able to offer before the dinner break. My knowledge has been fully extended. I am not in a position to provide any other information. The amendment has passed. The honourable member's questions, concerns and issues have been raised. When I get the opportunity, I will certainly have a discussion with the Attorney-General in relation to the particular issues, but I cannot offer any greater clarity to the honourable member than whatever it was that I offered her prior to the dinner break.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the Treasurer for his answer. Given the response that he has provided, I indicate that I will be dividing on this amendment. I would have thought it quite reasonable that, three minutes before we pass a bill dealing with gambling legislation, we would have known what legislating a strict $100 limit means on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine, down from $1,000, which would be the lowest in the nation along with Queensland.

Given that we do not know what that means—and to be clear, we do not know because the government and the opposition have not provided us with a response because it appears they do not know what that means—we are passing legislation that nobody actually knows how to interpret. On that basis, I indicate that I will most definitely be dividing on this amendment so that the record can reflect that we are voting on an amendment, but we do not know what it means.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: We voted on it and you lost.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Did we divide on that amendment?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes. Sorry, you missed out. You can vote on the third reading.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, I will do that at the third reading, Chair, if there is no opportunity to divide now.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No, we voted on it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Did we?

An honourable member: Yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we seek advice from the Chair on that?

The CHAIR: It depends on which amendment we are talking about. We have done amendment No. 37 [Bonaros-1] and now we are on amendment No. 38 [Bonaros-1].

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 38 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 58, lines 27 and 28 [clause 118(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

I am sure the Treasurer would like to suggest this is a consequential amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Very good point.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, but while it is in so far as it deals with the same issue, fortunately for me and not the Treasurer, it deals with a different bill. So now we are not debating the Casino Act anymore but rather the Gaming Machines Act, and for the reasons I have already outlined I indicate that it is our position, based on the evidence that has been put before members in this place—solid evidence—that there is absolutely no foundation for the implementation of note acceptors as a harm minimisation measure. As such I will be insisting on this amendment and dividing on this amendment as it relates to its implementation under the Gaming Machines Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment for the same reasons we debated before the dinner break, so I will not repeat the arguments.

Ayes 5

Noes 14

Majority 9

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, we have amendment No. 5 [Franks-1]. Is that consequential?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 5 [Franks-1] is consequential.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 39 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 58, after line 28—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Section 53A—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not, on or after the relevant day, provide any gaming machine on the licensed premises unless the maximum jackpot able to be paid out to a person playing a game on the machine is $500 or less.

(6b) In subsection (6a)—

relevant day means the day falling 6 months after the commencement of the subsection in which the expression appears.

(ib) that the licensee must, in each month, provide to the Commissioner in a manner and form determined by the Commissioner, statistical information of the total expenditure on all gaming machines operated under the licence;

This amendment is not consequential as it relates to the Gaming Machines Act. I move this amendment for the reasons I have already outlined.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Opposed for the same reasons as before.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 119.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 40 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 59, after line 6—Insert:

(a1) Section 56(1), penalty provision—delete '$10,000' and substitute '$50,000'

This amendment seeks to increase the maximum penalty applicable to minors being in gaming rooms from $10,000 to $50,000 to reflect the severity of the breach, based on the reasons I have already expressed in relation to a number of other amendments. So increasing the penalty when minors are in gaming rooms from $10,000 to $50,000.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Opposed for the same reasons as given before.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 14

Majority 9

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 41 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 59, after line 10—Insert:

(2a) Section 56(4), penalty provision—delete '$20,000' and substitute '$50,000'

If we are going to make a point of highlighting that we are not moving amendments that relate specifically to increasing penalties relating to minors being permitted in gaming rooms, then I think it is only appropriate that we also consider this amendment despite the outcome of the last few votes on this. This amendment seeks to increase the maximum penalty that applies to minors from $20,000—higher than the $10,000 previously outlined in some of the amendments—to $50,000 to reflect the gravity of the offending, noting again that they are maximum penalties.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes for the same reasons we debated earlier this afternoon I think it was.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 120 to 123 passed.

Clause 124.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 60, line 16—Delete '$4.845 million' and substitute '$6.845 million'

The intent of this amendment is to increase the amount in the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund to $6.845 million. I remind honourable members that, based on the figures that were provided to us earlier in the evening by the government, the GRF is made up of funds that, as the name describes, are supposed to go towards assisting those gamblers who have a problem with gambling as well as research, education and advocacy programs.

The funds from the GRF are used to provide grants, through tender and procurement processes, to those agencies in the social welfare sector whose main job it is to provide assistance to problem gamblers. They tender for those projects and then those organisations are responsible for helping our most vulnerable with their gambling addictions.

The level of funding that we attribute to the assistance we offer to those individuals is less than 1.5 per cent of the revenue that the government generates from poker machines. It used to be less than 1 per cent, and I know that because I quoted that many times over the years. Less than 1 per cent used to be attributed to that fund. I am sure the Treasurer is happy that it has increased to 1.5 per cent, but the fact that we cannot deem it reasonable to attribute more than 1.5 per cent to our problem gamblers through the fund that has been established by this government absolutely defies logic.

We know that in the long term the cost not only to our society but, of course, to the government coffers far outweighs the benefit that is to be gained through gambling addiction. In the long run, the government is ultimately paying for these addictions through other means. In the short term, what they should be doing is focusing more on providing services to help those individuals who for whatever reason, as a result of a gambling addiction, find it difficult to help themselves. That is what the GRF was established for and they do that on less than 1.5 per cent of the total gambling revenue reaped in by governments each and every year.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. The government has already announced a very significant increase and as Treasurer, with my Treasurer's hat on, there are many, many worthy agencies, organisations and others who, if offered a 25 per cent increase in the funding, which is what the government has included in this particular legislation—an increase of $1 million—would be extraordinarily grateful in terms of that particular increase.

The government is not in a position to increase the funding by $3 million, as proposed by the honourable member, bearing in mind it is a 25 per cent increase and the total revenue increase to the government, as I indicated in response to an earlier question this afternoon, was 3 per cent estimated to the government. For those reasons, the government will be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the sake of the record, the Greens will be supporting the amendment.

Suggested amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We remain on clause 124 and we have amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-2].

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As I understand it, that would be a consequential amendment on the basis of the scheme that we had proposed earlier.

Clause passed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the benefit of the chamber, it is my understanding that amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 [Bonaros-2] all deal with the same issue and would therefore be consequential.

Clauses 125 to 134 passed.

Clause 135.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 42 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 63, after line 5 [clause 135(1)]—Insert:

(ia) that the licensee must, no later than 30 September in each year, provide a report to the Commissioner on the conduct of its financial affairs during the financial year ending on the previous 30 June in a form that may be published on a website determined by the Commissioner; and

(ib) that the licensee must, in each month, provide to the Commissioner in a manner and form determined by the Commissioner, statistical information of the total expenditure on all gaming machines operated under the licence;

I might need to seek some clarification in relation to whether this can actually—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I think you are seeking a report from every hotelier, aren't you?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I was seeking a report, but it relates specifically to the publication on a public website of data, and I note that we have already voted in relation to some of that data and voted against it. For the sake of clarity, perhaps I can describe it as a complementary amendment to some of the others that were moved earlier in relation to information and the data that we have suggested ought to be provided to the commissioner from licensees regarding the expenditure on poker machines at their venues.

The amendment itself provides that those licensees will provide the commissioner with a report in relation to the conduct of their financial affairs during the financial year ending on the previous 30 June in a form that can then be published on a website. Obviously, the reason for that is so that we can have access to that sort of data for the reasons that I have outlined extensively throughout this debate. Secondly, it provides that a licensee will provide the commissioner with, in a manner and form determined by the commissioner, statistical information regarding the total expenditure on all gaming machines operated under the licence.

Both provisions are separate to the amendments that I moved earlier but deal in effect with some of the same issues. They ensure that the information regarding the expenditure and financial affairs of licensees is provided to the commissioner and that some of that information is published on a website so that it can be accessible by those who are undertaking research and preparing reports on the impacts of gambling—along the lines of the suggestions of Professor O'Neil, which I have read onto the record—and also obviously to inform the commissioner of the statistical information regarding the total expenditure on all gaming machines under a licence.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. I know the honourable member indicates that it is complementary to the other amendments. If this amendment was to be accepted, it would create very significant questions, I think, in relation to an overt intrusion into the affairs of individual, let's say hotel operators, for example.

The way it is drafted at the moment—and I hope it is not intended this way—is that the licensee must 'provide a report to the commissioner on the conduct of its financial affairs'. As the honourable member may or may not know, for some hoteliers clearly a key part of their financial affairs is gaming operation, but there is also food and beverage in terms of their restaurant or cafe area, a number of them do accommodation in relation to the profitability of that, and they may well have other aspects of their operations. They all come within the ambit of financial affairs. It is not the earnings from gaming machine operations; that is under subclause (2), which is just statistical information.

The first information says that every publican is going to have to produce a report annually to the commissioner on their financial affairs in the broad—everything—and then it will be published on a website. As I said, I think that is just unreasonable in terms of a requirement on every individual hotelier. Because they happen to operate gaming machines—they might be a privately owned family company; they are not listed in any way—why should their financial affairs have to be reviewed annually to the commissioner and then published annually on a website?

I do not think the amendment is going to get up so I am not overly concerned at this stage, but I think members ought to be aware that this, in my view, would have very serious implications should it be passed by the committee and the parliament.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 63, after line 21 [clause 135(3), inserted paragraph (ka)]—After subparagraph (ii) insert:

(iii) that the licensee must not use information obtained by means of operating a facial recognition system—

(A) for a purpose other than identifying a barred person within the meaning of Part 6 of the Gambling Administration Act 2019; or

(B) other than is necessary for the purposes of reducing the harm caused by gambling; and

This, again, canvasses the facial recognition technology issue but obviously in a different application in terms of pubs and clubs. It does not remove the references to facial recognition technology. What it does is it adds extra provisions that ensure that that technology is not to be used:

(A) for a purpose other than identifying a barred person within the meaning of Part 6 of the Gambling Administration Act 2019; or

(B) other than is necessary for the purposes of reducing the harm caused by gambling…

That means that it puts those two sentences into this bill, should it become an act, that ensure the use of this technology is for the purposes of harm minimisation rather than harvesting or grooming gamblers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons outlined before, the government will vote against this. In relation to the earlier amendment to clause 57, I gave an undertaking to the honourable member on behalf of the Attorney-General and the commissioner, and that same undertaking pertains to this particular amendment. So, whilst we are voting against it, that undertaking remains.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do put on the record my appreciation for that undertaking. While it is not the preferred option, I do appreciate that that has now been put on the record.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate for the record that our position remains that this would have been better dealt with in the body of the legislation as opposed to the regulatory regime. But I, too, am heartened by the Treasurer's sympathy for this issue as it has been raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I therefore still indicate our support for the amendment because that is where it should be, but I also express appreciation for the Treasurer's views in relation to ensuring that this is dealt with appropriately.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 136 and 137 passed.

New clause 137A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Franks–1]—

Page 64, after line 3—Insert:

137A—Amendment of section 50A—Annual fees

Section 50A—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) A person who, for the duration of an annual fee period, holds a general and hotel licence but does not also hold a gaming machine licence under the Gaming Machines Act 1992, is entitled to a 10% reduction of the total amount of the annual fee payable by that person in respect of the annual fee period.

I do believe that this is the last of my amendments. I have been looking forward to this, because this is a new piece of business and a new approach. The insertion of this amendment at 137A would be to give the effect that 10 per cent of the liquor licensing fees for a pub that is pokies free would be afforded as a discount to that licensee to encourage more pokies-free pubs—more pubs like the Grace Emily, the Sparkke at the Whitmore, the Kings Head, the Railway Hotel, the Inglewood Inn, the Archer and the Wheatsheaf.

The reward for them, while it would be minor, would be a sign that this parliament has a commitment to seeing more pokie-free pubs. I commend the amendment to the house, and I commend the idea of this amendment to those who seek in the future to move our pubs and clubs away from pokies, to wean this state off its gambling addiction and to create spaces where pubs are places of public enjoyment and convivial community rather than sitting at a slot machine.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing this particular amendment. The government has only recently introduced the liquor fee reforms, as begun by the former Labor government and continued by the new government. These fees reflect a risk-based model for liquor harm and reflect the venue location, often in a high-risk area. In the government's view, it is not appropriate to treat specific venues differently based on their gambling entitlements. Instead, a careful model has been developed with licence holders for their liquor fees. For those reasons, the government is opposing the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to wholeheartedly support this amendment for the reasons the Hon. Tammy Franks has mentioned. I remind honourable members who were here when the debate took place on the last occasion when the Gaming Machines Act was debated of the commitments given by the attorney-general at the time to the Hon. John Darley in relation to ensuring two things: one was that funds were made available to ensure that the commissioner's website had a dedicated section which provided a list of all pokies-free venues, as opposed to a list that provides pokies venues, so that those individuals seeking to attend a venue without the disruption of poker machines could have access to that list freely; and, in addition, that there would be funds set aside to support advertising campaigns and the like by those same venues.

It appears, from the response received at Monday's meeting, that nobody knows what happened in relation to those agreements, although I am certain, if we go back through Hansard and whatever records that are kept in government agencies, that there will be a clear recording of that understanding and undertaking at the time by the former attorney-general, because it was certainly reflected as part of the debate. So my request of the Treasurer at this point would be that we have a similar undertaking to get to the bottom of the arrangement that was struck at the time, because we were not talking about a huge financial impost, and that he at least come back with a response as to whether or not this government is prepared to meet the outcomes of the negotiations that had already been agreed to at the time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I am a very reasonable person and always prepared to listen to a reasonable argument, but I have to say, I had locked out of the first part of the honourable member's contribution. I was looking at the amendments and I thought this was the last amendment, and I thought, 'You beauty, we're about to get to a third reading.' Let me give the assurance to the honourable member that I will reread what I am sure is the honourable member's very articulate and erudite contribution on that particular issue, and I will give an undertaking to consider it and have further discussion with her.

Whether it is my responsibility or that of the Attorney-General—as I said, I did not pay close enough attention to what the member was asking of me, but I do give her the undertaking that I will read what she has said closely, and I undertake to have a further discussion with her as to what she was pursuing. With that, I remain unmoved in relation to opposition to the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Remaining clauses (138 to 144), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (20:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.