HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:41): The minister will be pleased that I am coming to the conclusion of my second reading contribution, at least. I was in the middle of reading out the impacts of the difference in national timing of precommitment systems and the state timing of precommitment systems. South Australian major venues may well be in a position of having to install state-compliant precommitment systems for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 and may be required to change the machines or equipment to commonwealth standards.

South Australian venues with 11 to 20 gaming machines will not be required to install precommitment systems until 31 December 2022, but these venues will not receive the benefits of being a major venue, including later trading hours and the retention of loyalty systems. In fact, the bill contemplates that minor venues must remove their loyalty systems by 1 January 2016 and then, by 31 December 2022, potentially have to reinstall the loyalty systems to deliver precommitment if the commonwealth system uses a loyalty platform.

Section 53 also introduces in subsection (2) an 'automatic risk monitoring system' (an ARM), which must be installed in the same timeline as precommitment. However, as the commonwealth legislation does not address ARM systems, subsection (2) does not expire and will continue to be provided. There are currently no ARM systems operating and no specification on how such systems will operate or how they are intended to be used.

The platform that is to be used to deliver the ARM system is a loyalty platform. Therefore, all major venues will need to have this system installed and operating by 1 January 2017 and will need to continue operating this system beyond the commencement of the commonwealth legislation. In effect, this means that minor venues with under 10 gaming machines will not at any time need to install precommitment. This is a position that is supported by the industry because it means that those venues will not be forced to adopt the newer machines or have additional costs associated with the automated systems.

Minor venues with 11 to 20 gaming machines will not have to install precommitment under the state legislation at all but will be required to comply with the commonwealth's legislation by 31 December 2020. Major venues with more than 20 gaming machines must have precommitment installed under the state legislation by 1 January 2017 and then comply with the commonwealth's legislation from 31 December 2018. These venues will also be required to operate ARM systems from 1 January 2017 and continue operating those systems beyond the commencement of the commonwealth legislation.

Apart from the precommitment, the commonwealth legislation will also require certain features of gaming machines which are currently not available on all approved machines in South Australia. These features include receiving and displaying messages on gaming machine screens, capable of complying with the most current gaming machine national standard in relation to the on-screen responsible gambling features, and limit to a $5 maximum bet. These features will need to be incorporated into new machines that venues purchase from 1 January 2014 to avoid the potential of having to replace these machines by 31 December 2018 when the commonwealth legislation commences.

That outlines the problems that the industry is going to have when you have two sets of regulations trying to control the same industry. Prior to explaining that I was going through Clubs SA's issues in relation to the legislation and the industry generally, and I was up to the difference in taxing regimes. In New South Wales, a club with 40 machines and a million dollars of revenue per annum pays no state gaming tax. In Victoria, it is no state gaming tax. In Queensland, it is $161,676 or about 16 per cent. In South Australia, it is $240,650 or 24 per cent. South Australian clubs pay the highest rate of gaming tax in the country.

In New South Wales, 67.5 per cent of the gaming revenue goes to community and sporting clubs. That is around $3.5 billion a year. In Queensland, it is 46 per cent, which is about $900 million a year. In Victoria, it is around 34 per cent, which is $920 million a year in round numbers. In South Australia, it is about $60 million gross, which is about 9.8 per cent of gaming revenue that goes to clubs. The reason Clubs SA raise this is that, as I said in my earlier contribution, their belief is that this legislation will simply transfer machines from clubs and small hotels into the Casino and the larger hotels, and what that will mean is less money for clubs, more money for pubs, and the revenue stream will get even more skewed.

For every dollar of gaming revenue in South Australia, hotels get 54¢, the government gets 39¢ and the clubs get 7¢. That is their advice to me. The clubs industry feels that the system is skewed against them and therefore they are opposed to this particular legislation. They believe it will 'only make matters worse, the 60 machines will essentially be for the hotels, and there will be more gaming and revenue shifts to the private sector from the clubs'.

The bill splits the venues—this is outside the Casino—into major venues and minor venues. Major venues have to have precommitment established by 2017, automatic risk monitoring established by 2017, $5 maximum bets by 2017, on-screen messaging by 2017 and $250 withdrawal limits at ATMs by 2014. Minor venues—and this is where I think the clubs' concern really kicks in. A major venue is for those venues with more than 20 machines and a minor venue is for those with a maximum of 20 machines. The clubs and pubs get a choice—they declare themselves either a major venue or a minor venue by 2017 and if they have over 20 machines they have to offload or cease trading with a certain number of entitlements.

If you are a 25-entitlement venue and you want to become a minor venue by the set date, then you simply switch off five or six machines to bring you under the 20-machine limit. You might try to sell them, but of course there is no guarantee that anyone is going to buy them, so you may just be turning off a revenue stream courtesy of the legislation. There has been no modelling on this by anyone; the government has just decided to do this on a whim, and thinks it is going to work.

Minor venues will have a maximum of 20 machines and $5 maximum bets by 2017. I think I am right in saying that, in Victoria, when they went from $10 bets to $5 bets, there was a 14 per cent reduction in revenue. So, take 14 per cent of the revenue to SANFL clubs or some of the little pubs—or, indeed, any business—and see where that leaves you.

Small venues get different hours; their hours are restricted, so they have to be closed from 2am to 10am every day of the week because they are a minor venue. But, if you are a major venue, you can be open 24/7, apart from the six-hour break that is already legislated. So, the government's theory is this: if you have 8 machines sitting in some country pub or club, the risk to problem gamblers is so great that you have to close them between 2am and 10am.

But, you can have 60 poker machines in a big city hotel or club, which more people can access, and you can access them 18 hours a day every day without a problem. Because the six-hour break is not uniform, you can walk across the road to another venue when one venue closes for its six-hour break.

In the country, of course, where all the small venues are going to be, that will be shut. The city people get to gamble themselves merry—the problem gamblers in the city have better access—and the regional pubs and clubs have a different set of rules. Again, that has not been modelled.

The minor venues cannot have small change machines by 2020, so they will have to change over their technology. That will be an expense to those venues; it will be compulsory to change their machines because they will not be coin machines, I assume they will be card machines. They will not be able to have loyalty systems, and they will be restricted to the $250 withdrawal limit.

The club industry would argue, with some justification, that there needs to be a better balance within the system. They argue that more entitlements and gaming revenue should go into clubs to fund community recreation and sporting activities. The reality is that they want the legislation defeated. They believe that there is a whole range of issues that are mounting up against small clubs.

While I am on that topic, I just want to mention three clubs that currently have issues that could be addressed by this legislation if the government so desired: the SAJC, the West Adelaide Football Club and the Munno Para Bowling Club. The SAJC have sold the Cheltenham racecourse and have a special circumstances licence.

The minister is aware of issues surrounding that licence and that activity, and the opposition is aware, because we have been briefed. I give the minister a commitment that if he wants to work with the opposition to solve that matter quickly, then he will have my commitment on that. I am aware of what the problem is. I have seen the SAJC's legal advice. I am aware of recent articles in the Messenger, of which I am sure the minister is also aware, in regard to this issue. It could potentially cost the SAJC a considerable annual sum.

It is up to the government to decide whether or not it wants to fix that quickly, but I give an undertaking to the minister that my door is open if he wants to address that particular issue. Because of the change in that site, it has created special issues for the SAJC.

In relation to the West Adelaide Football Club, I think there might be one provision in the bill that might go a small step towards helping them, but I alert the minister that in the committee stage I will specifically ask what the intention is to deal with the issue of the West Adelaide Football Club, which seeks to change its venue in its own catchment.

This is part of the problem that clubs face, and if you think about it there is some logic to it, Mr Speaker. I know you are a sporting hero on Yorke Peninsula, winning many medals, so you will understand this. A lot of the sporting clubs—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: A last quarter specialist, I am told. A lot of the clubs have established their licensed venues, naturally, at their sporting venue—at their oval or their bowling green or their yacht club. By definition, those venues tend not to be in the main street; by definition, they tend to be off the main street and away from the main drag. There are not too many sporting club venues that are slap bang in the middle of any city or country town; they tend to be to the side.

West Adelaide footy club is no different. Its oval is in the back streets off the main drag, and that means they do not really have a main street frontage. That impacts their revenue, and they wish to deal with that. Compare that to pubs. Pubs, by their very nature, tend to be on the corner of the most prominent area in town. You usually have a church one side and a pub the other, so you can go and have a great time on Saturday night and on Sunday go and seek forgiveness. The pubs tend to have a commercial advantage in that sense, so the West Adelaide footy club does want to move its venue.

I think that is an issue that can be addressed relatively quickly and, again, I say to the minister that if the government wants to fix that my door is open to fix that quickly. In Munno Para, my understanding is that the Munno Para Bowling Club wants to move down the road, on exactly the same road, into Playford Alive, into a suburb that is still being built. So even though it is the same club on the same road, moving to a suburb where there are few houses, if any, at the moment, there is a whole range of hurdles that the club has to get over to do that.

If you want to know how hard it is to go through the process that the parliament has established, go and ask Club One. I think Club One has something like 200 entitlements, from memory, and since 2004 it has twice sought to get a venue. Since this whole scheme was set up it has twice tried to go down the process of getting a stand-alone venue. It has spent well north of $600,000 of club money trying to find a venue, and it cannot find a stand-alone venue. That means it has simply parked their poker machines back into the hotels that had to reduce their number under the 2004 arrangements.

So, having forced the hotels and others to reduce their numbers from 40 to 32, they have set up Club One so that, when the club industry trade their four machines, one in four goes to Club One. Club One has spent over $600,000 trying to find a venue; it cannot find a venue so it has put them back into the very hotels we have taken them out of. That is a problem, and this legislation does not fix it.

It does not deal with that issue. In fact, it will make it worse, because there will be more trades and more machines going to Club One and more machines going back into the hotels. Indeed, under this legislation—as I assume the minister is aware—the clubs can go and put their machines in the Casino. There is a specific clause that allows that. So I think there are plenty of issues around this particular matter.

I have probably finished my remarks because I know that some of my other colleagues have some contributions to make, but I just want to go back to where I started on the consultation. The government is aware I have this letter. It was written to the government only in February this year from Clubs SA and the hotel industry about the consultation and the process about this. It is written to the minister on 12 February and states:

We write to you in relation to the 'consultation' with industry on the explanatory paper relating to gaming regulations.

Having recently endured a protracted and divisive national debate which nevertheless led to a resolution with the Federal Government legislation, and having been members of the Minister's Responsible Gambling Working Party since its inception in November 2006, we are somewhat stunned at what is proposed in this document.

This is clearly not a discussion paper, it is an explanation to accompany a Bill. The fundamentals of what is included has not been subject to any discussion or consultation or reflects in any way the recommendations of the Responsible Gambling Working Party. The proposal seems to have ignored anything that is included in Federal Legislation. The ramifications and consequences of this document as it stands strikes at the very viability of the 550+ clubs and hotels with gaming and bears no resemblance to any formal discussions or consultation to date.

What is most staggering is that the industry bodies are given less than four weeks to respond.

Despite a break from the quote, the opposition would have loved four weeks to respond, not eight days.

Such a request is simply impossible to comply with. The contents of the document given to us on Monday, 4 February is of such complexity that it is beyond the capacity of either Association to provide a useful response in this time frame. Further, it would appear that the Independent Gambling Corporation Ltd has not received this document or been asked to comment. We understand that other than a recent broad discussion, they have not been consulted.

That said, it must be assumed that the Adelaide Casino has been consulted in great depth based on the content of the Bill and the explanatory paper. That is disappointing at the very least.

In light of this we therefore insist on a proper and general consultation period with meaningful dialogue that allows our members to be informed and engaged.

Anything less can only be viewed by any fair minded person as an attempt to do great harm to the business of predominantly small to medium South Australian operators (who provide a diverse and decentralised employment and social infrastructure) so as to facilitate an exclusive agreement with Skycity Casino at the expense of their competitors.

We await your urgent consideration.

The letter is signed Peter Hurley, President of the AHA and Cameron Taylor, President of Clubs SA. The AHA then wrote a further letter back on 2 April indicating some support for the bill, but I am reliably informed that they feel like they have had a gun held to their head.

The opposition is going to continue to consult on this particular bill. Apart from the Casino elements of the bill, we are inclined to seek to defeat the bill in the other place. As I say, we are still consulting on the bill because we have had, as I have explained at length, eight days to establish a position in which the industry players themselves, who live and breathe it every day of the week, claim they could not reach a position in four weeks. The government wants the parliament to reach a position in less time than that.

There are whole range of reforms with regard to training courses, barring orders, whether you are a major venue where you get different training from the minor venues, staff approvals and processes change. There are simply a whole range of what I call technical amendments that I will not go into as part of my second reading but we might go into as part of the committee.

I will finish with simply an explanation of how I understand the cap will now work as a result of the government's bill if the government gets its way. The current cap on entitlements does not include the Casino, therefore the target for reductions will be 13,081, which is adding the 995 currently in the Casino to the existing target of 12,086. So they will lift the target by 995 as far as the entitlement cap goes, so the cap will be lifted. I still cannot get around why a government sets a cap and then gifts 995 to increase the cap.

The government announced its intention to allow the Casino to increase its gaming machine numbers by an additional 505 to enable the Casino to have up to 1,500 entitlements. The Casino will have to access the approved trading system established for the hotels and clubs. This will allow the Casino the right to buy and sell entitlements. This will also mean that if the Casino sells an entitlement through that system, they will forfeit one-in-four entitlements.

The Casino will be required to purchase the additional 505 gaming machine entitlements but the additional entitlement must come from the new state cap of 13,081. If the Casino is unable to purchase enough entitlements through the approved trading system as part of the expansion, the government will sell them up to 300 entitlements.

The implementation date of that is 1 July this year, so it is only a matter of weeks away. Given that it is going to take two or three years to build the Casino extension, I am not sure why they suddenly need all these extra entitlements on 1 July this year, unless of course the government has got a deal about putting them into extra space in the existing Casino, which the minister might want to address in his comments when he responds.

I have probably spoken long enough. I am disappointed about the consultation process and the fact that we have been forced into this debate this week. As I say, the opposition is going to further consult. We are against 995 entitlements being gifted to the Casino and we intend to move amendments in the other place to get rid of that.

We are against venues going to 60 and we have amendments in this chamber to deal with that, and we think that the commencement dates of the precommitment schemes should be uniform with the feds. We should not have two systems and we have amendments in this chamber to do with those issues. With those comments, I look forward to other contributions and the committee stage.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:07): I might just start off by congratulating the member for Davenport on his 2½ hours or thereabouts that he has spoken for. It is obvious to me that he has a great knowledge of this bill and indeed gambling in total, which has no doubt involved a lot of reading in the last few weeks in particular, but the fact that he has been in this chamber for 20 years and indeed was part of the 2004 debate and has had a chance to review some of the Hansard contributions there really does show the depth of knowledge that he has.

I am one of those members who has suffered from difficulty in attending all the briefings. For me it was a matter of being aware when parliament last sat of a briefing being held on the Thursday evening after the chamber rose and representatives of the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs SA were good enough to come and speak to us. We were light on in number; there was a relatively small number of MPs but a good number of staff. It was an opportunity for me to be briefed about the concerns that are being raised by the member for Davenport in his contribution.

The meeting with the AHA went along the lines that I expected and I understand there are issues. Certainly the member for Davenport has put that, but the briefing that I had with Clubs SA that late afternoon has really opened my eyes to a lot of issues and indeed the need for this bill to be considered extremely seriously. I do not remove myself from that.

I put to the three people who spoke to us that, while I had an understanding of Club One, Clubs SA and what it does across the state was not known to me as well as it should have been. It has opened my eyes to the way in which the profitability that comes from these clubs is returned to the community at grassroots levels. Not only does it help provide a social activity and a meal and that sort of thing for those people who live in those areas, but importantly it provides a lot of really important financial support that goes towards junior sports and sports that exist in those areas which make an enormous difference to the community.

So, when Clubs SA raised the issue with me and they have given me a copy of the presentation they made that night and I have a copy of a letter that was dated 13 May which raises some very valid points, it is worthwhile listening to what they have said and it is worthwhile indeed that the parliament is made aware of this, so the member for Davenport has done that extremely well.

I know that briefings were also convened last week. Sadly, for me, as a regional member, even though I had to be in Adelaide for two of the days last week, they were day trips, they were fully booked out and they were not actually on the days on which the briefing was held so it was just impossible for me to be at that. Other members in this chamber suffer from the same frustration about that because it is only when we have a collective knowledge about things and a chance to ask detailed questions that we appreciate what the implications will be, the seriousness of it and the fact that this impacts on a lot of people.

I have previously had the shadow portfolio for gambling and very early on, when the member for Davenport was leader, he appointed me to that role. For me, as somewhat of an old-fashioned person who is a bit prudish in many areas, gambling was very different to what I had experienced. I respect enormously the fact that it is a legal ability for people to gamble and it has been part of the human psyche forever to take that opportunity to express an opinion on things, wage a bet on it and have the opportunity for a win on that.

I am also very aware that for some in society it presents a challenge that impacts on their families and their future. The member for Davenport has confirmed that 0.4 per cent of the adults in South Australia who gamble have some level of gambling issue with their life. I saw, in the time that I was the shadow minister and since then, that there is a level of responsibility at club, hotel and casino level to help those people. Funding is available for that through the rehabilitation fund that goes in to assist those things.

But it is the efforts made by all levels to identify people who have had issues and to help them with their concerns, to talk them through it, and to give them advice on what to do that I think is a credit to them. It shows the level of responsibility and maturity that exists within the industry to respect that it is there to provide a service to people but also assist those who have issue, and that is where it is important that we get it right because it is a legally allowable activity. We, as decision-makers and policy setters, have the legislative opportunity to get it right.

I visited a Gamblers Anonymous meeting that was held in an old church in North Adelaide on a Saturday morning probably about six years ago. I walked away from there having been moved in some way because one person in particular had not gambled for 14 years but stood up and talked about the fact that every day they still have to fight that urge. I respect that they are an absolute minority but they are an issue in the industry and an issue that I think the industry is working exceptionally hard to try to fix.

When I got the information from Clubs SA, I was surprised that I did not know more about it. I was advised that of the 12,688 machines (even though the member for Davenport has been talking about 12,086) 88 per cent are in hotels and 12 per cent are in clubs. When you look at the revenue opportunity those clubs gain for every $1 of gaming revenue in South Australia, it is 7¢.

I am here to support hotels, the Casino and the clubs but importantly I am here to give support to get the legislation right. I, like the member for Davenport, support the redevelopment of the Casino. I know that there were many questions raised and, for me, when I found they had one licence that covered 995 machines, suddenly that has been split up into several entitlements with it eventually to go to 1,500. That surprised me. I couldn't understand the reasoning for that, especially when the industry hadn't actually requested it, so it shocked me as to why that happened. No doubt, during committee, we will find out a lot more about that.

I am also concerned about the numbers. When we talk about the 40 in place, the major and minor, and going up to 60—and I have reflected very often about this being potentially a club killer by an increase in those numbers. Everything I have from Clubs SA—and this is reflected when I speak to hotels in my area—is about the fact that this legislation, if allowed to proceed the way it is, will allow the bigger partners and the bigger players in this industry to get larger.

As a person who lives in the regions, I see the difficulties presented to individual operators who are in hotels who, in many cases, are struggling to make a profit. I know of a lot of the country hotels are on the market and some have been for a long time. A person who operates a hotel in Peterborough contacts me quite often about the fact that he doesn't see that a trading scheme works for him because he has 16 machines and wants to get out. He has put what he believes is a fair price out there but has not been able to sell those machines.

The member for Davenport in his contribution reflected upon the trading rounds that have occurred since 2005. The small number of machines that have been taken up, even when the offer has been there for three or four fold, shows that this industry needs a lot of support. I am told by the clubs organisation that they are fearful of the impact upon what they do. I note that in some information the clubs provided they write that since the peak of 2003 the number of clubs with gaming machines that are now out of gaming is 28 percent, but for hotels it is 2.7 percent; and it shows the challenges that have been there.

There will be quite a few people who get up and express concerns about this because they want to get it right. I understand the member for Davenport has indicated desire to split the legislation, to have the Casino treated in one way and for a subsequent debate to occur about clubs and hotels. I personally support that. I think it is a good idea, so that we can talk about specifics. That way we do not confuse things, and we do allow the Casino to have its development plans, but we allow real detailed debate about clubs and hotels to exist and get the balance right. There are some that are doing well, but there are a lot that are challenged by this.

The implications of what is intended will make it harder for them to be profitable and, by association with that, profits benefit the community in which they serve. I have been around a bit, and a long time ago the AHA took me for a drive around and showed me some of the redevelopment work that has taken place on hotels that have done well from poker machines and the benefits that have come to other users of those facilities. Exactly the same case exists for clubs but, for the clubs that are basically non-profit organisations and return their money back to the community, it has been hard. I just want to get it right.

I am concerned about the impact on the South Australian National Football League. I have never played it, but I am a supporter of one club, Woodville West Torrens, but I have not been a member of that club. Gambling provides their largest revenue stream, and this allows a very strong state league to be enforced. I recognise their win last Saturday against the north-eastern AFL association. A young man from my electorate made his state debut last Saturday, and he got 11 kicks, eight marks and seven handpasses. I did congratulate his father the day before his selection.

Considering those nine clubs and what the SANFL does in a wider sphere in football across all of South Australia, to hear that there has been no negotiation with them, it concerns me. It is such an important bill that will impact in so many different areas, influence the viability of private enterprise and community not-for-profit organisations, football and a lot of other sports that will also benefit from it. To not have that level of contact, discussion, draft papers, feedback, and an opportunity for a review does alarm me. Legislation can only work when it is talked about.

I know there is a desire to get legislation through quickly. I understand the Casino wants to do its redevelopment as quickly as possible, but when you put in legislation hastily it creates problems for you that will subsequently have to be fixed, and that might impact on the viability of hotels and clubs—that is where it is wrong. The member for Davenport has put it very well. He has done the work on this; he understands what the issues are. It will be an interesting debate when it goes to the other place, because that is where the house of review will undertake its primary role, to ensure that it gets it right.

I know other people want to talk about it. Other people have had the opportunity to have different briefings and others have different perspectives to put to it, but I think that across all of the opposition we speak with a level of concern about the way this has been introduced, the haste that has been attached to it, and the fact that if it is not right it might have significant impacts. I look forward to a very detailed questioning occurring during the committee stage.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:19): I rise to make a contribution to the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2013. I would like to thank all the clubs, the Australian Hotels Association and others that gave our party briefings, and I would like to thank my staffer Liam O'Neill, who attended these briefings on my behalf. I would like to say that the member for Davenport has given a very good representation of what is going on here, and I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Goyder.

What we are seeing here is that the state government has recently announced the arrangement with the Casino, which includes increasing the number of poker machines in the Casino by 505 to 1,500, but we understand that that deal is not yet signed. Obviously, the Casino and the government want construction to start in early 2014. I certainly think that is what is driving this issue and the speed and haste to get this bill through so that the government can get a photo before the election in 2014—pardon my cynicism.

There has obviously been some federal legislation recently regarding gaming machines, and this legislation overrides state laws if there is any conflict between the two lots of legislation. Back in 2006, the government established the Responsible Gambling Working Party to look at how precommitment could be implemented in South Australia, and this report has been sent out to members. What I understand about precommitment is you can go into a gambling venue and commit to a couple of hundred dollars. You can essentially lose up to that amount and then the staff will talk to you and see if you are comfortable, and then you are quite happy to commit to a bit more, so I do not know exactly what you are committing to. I think there are some issues there for a start.

On 19 December 2012, the Casino announced an up to $350 million expansion based on the agreement that was being reached with the government. As has been stated by other speakers, the Casino currently has 995 gaming machines under one entitlement and therefore they cannot be traded. What this bill seeks to do is gift the Casino an entitlement for each of its existing 995 machines, and that will increase the entitlements up to 1,500. These 505 extra entitlements have to be purchased through the market, purchased from clubs and pubs. However, as part of the agreement with the government, if the 505 entitlements are not purchased by a certain date, which is commercially in confidence, then the government has agreed to sell the Casino 300 entitlements for their VIP room at a set price, which has not been disclosed either.

This could increase the number of gaming machines in South Australia, and if they are sold by the government, my understanding is that for the VIP area these machines are not tradeable. There is a one-off $20 million upfront payment to the government in the agreement, not the legislation, and the deal is forecast to net an extra $60 million, including the $20 million to the state budget over the forward estimates compared to the 2012-13 budget. It is noted that, alongside of this, gambling tables will increase from 90 to 200. I also note that taxes on poker machines will be lifted from 34.4 per cent to 41 per cent in the non-VIP area and will be 10.91 per cent in the VIP area. The charge on table games will rise from 0.9 per cent to 3.4 per cent.

With regard to the Australian Hotels Association submission to members, the Australian Hotels Association did not request an increase to 60 machines per venue. This was proposed by the government via the welfare sector. Given current economic conditions, the Australian Hotels Association believes few hoteliers will be able to increase entitlement numbers to 60. I note that we will be moving amendments that there will not be any movement above 40 machines.

Clubs SA also briefed us, and that was held following the Australian Hotels Association briefing. Clubs SA were quite frank. They said that this will be a club killer and they want the bill defeated. They certainly put up a good argument that venues should not be able to go to 60 machines, and they also indicated that only Coles, Woolworths and big-end hoteliers will be able to increase entitlements to 60. This will concentrate machines in pubs and the Casino and away from clubs.

I note, while I am talking about clubs, that I am a country member of Port Power and they had a pretty good start. Things are not going too well at the moment but they will keep going. As has been advised by other members on this side of the house, the South Australian National Football League has indicated that at no time has the government engaged with the SANFL, or its clubs, to discuss the legislation.

The issue here is that there is much at stake right across the state, whether it is footy clubs or other clubs that are able to hold gaming licences, or small hotels in the regions. We also know there has not been a regional impact statement done because, in the government's haste to get this deal up as a pre-election sweetener before next year's election in March, everyone bar the Casino has been left out of the picture. I find this appalling. As the member for Goyder indicated, there is a lot of—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It would be appalling if it was true.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, well, you will have your right. There are a lot of clubs and a lot of hotels, especially in regional areas, that will just look at the option and say, 'Perhaps it's easier just to quit our machines if legislation goes through that the super clubs could have 60 machines.' You will get clubs in regional areas, like Hammond and others right around the state, and hoteliers, who will say, 'We will sell our 10 entitlements, get our of $600,000-odd,' and that is the end of the pub, and small communities become smaller and people do not have a meeting place.

The welfare lobby argument in this debate is that they want fewer venues but bigger venues as they achieve, in their belief, better problem gambling supervision at bigger venues. They also want the proposed $5 maximum bet limit dropped to $1 maximum bet limit. SACOSS wants mandatory pre-commitment at those venues offering cashless gambling.

According to the level of problem gambling that was presented as a case, in regard to rates per state over 10 years, South Australia has a problem gambling rate of 0.4 per cent of all adults in the state. I note that is not 0.4 per cent of all gamblers, but it is indicated that this is the second-lowest problem gambling rate in Australia.

The Responsible Gambling Working Party produced its fifth and last report in June 2012. The Responsible Gambling Working Party recommended consistency with federal proposals and then it stopped its work and reported. It is noted, when the discussion has been about federal and state time lines, that the federal time lines will always override the states. There needs to be streamlining of these time lines so there is no confusion because, at the end of the day, the federal legislation will win out. It is obvious that the responsible gambling working group wants consistency with the federal legislation. It is to be noted that in the federal legislation there is a requirement that the ATM restrictions come in from 1 February 2014.

As we have talked about, there is talk about super clubs and what this bill is talking about doing is major gaming venues and casino regulatory changes and the government is proposing to develop a two-tier system of major and minor venues with substantial responsible gambling requirements for major venues. Major venues are described as those that have a greater focus on gaming and that can install automated systems to support pre-commitment and staff identification of problematic gambling behaviours. Venues must decide by 1 January 2016 if intending to be a major venue but can choose from 1 January 2014.

Any provision of a lease that purports to require the lessee to operate as a major venue or a minor venue for the purposes of this act is void and of no effect under section 77(4), and this will apply from 1 July 2013. Those venues that cannot comply with the responsible gambling requirements or the regulatory framework around that must become a minor venue.

The default position in this legislation that is proposed is that all hotels and clubs will be minor venues unless they notify the commissioner of their intention to be a major venue. This means that a small venue with less than 20 machines may elect to notify its intention to be a major venue and will need to comply with the requirements of a major venue. If we look at major venues and the minimum requirements, they need to be party to a responsible gambling agreement and have elected to install an approved precommitment system, recognised automated risk monitoring and better gaming machines.

If venues offer these improved responsible gambling measures, the trade-off is an ability to provide optional features, which include up to 60 entitlements as the legislation is drafted now, longer trading hours compared to a minor venue, coin machines, loyalty systems and cashless gaming. With the precommitment overview, this will be mandatory for these major venues and voluntary for the customer. It is part of a package linked to royalty programs, patron tracking, a monitoring system for risk and possibly cashless gaming. In the precommitment system only recognised systems can be operated with specific system requirements and regulations.

Precommitment systems will need to be in place for venues. This is what has been said about the government's wish to increase those venues beyond 40 machines, but we do not want to see that, and others will need precommitment systems by 1 January 2016 but will have until 1 January 2017 to install them. This is where it gets confusing, because the federal precommitment system is to be installed from 31 December 2018, so there is still a lot of debate about how many machines will be allowed in the super clubs and the regulatory requirements around those numbers.

In regard to the precommitment, there will be features for registration requirements, budget types and other limits, variation of budget and other limits, customised reminder messages, standard messaging to those not registered, communication methods to customers, player activity statements and periodic confirmation of budget and other limits. I note the requirements around the recognised automated risk monitoring system. This is essentially a player tracking system using player data to gauge risky or potentially problematic patterns of play.

An explanation paper around this acknowledges that these systems are in their infancy and notes they would be used to inform staff as an indicator that additional human observation is required. The IGA will determine the identifying indicators of potential problem gambling behaviours, taking into account any matters prescribed by regulations before recognition of a system. The IGA will also specify the training requirements for automated risk monitoring systems.

Another feature in regard to major venues is the retention of ATMs. I also note that the Casino is exempt from the commonwealth legislation, and the bill proposes to prohibit ATMs in the gaming area of the Casino and will not impose any daily limit, but EFTPOS facilities will be capable of being provided in the gaming area of the Casino. There will also be retention of automatic coin machines, retention of loyalty systems and the ability to provide cashless gaming.

In regard to minor venues, minor venues are described as those who choose to have gaming as incidental to their food and beverage operations. Key changes for these venues include: the prohibition of any automated systems (coin machines from 1 January 2020 and loyalty programs from 1 January 2016), reduced operating hours from 1 January 2016, and these venues will have to close between the hours of 2am and 10am.

Obviously, there will be a reduction of gaming numbers from 1 July, and regulations will allow up to 40. This is how the legislation has been drafted. We do not want that to go above that with regard to the super clubs, so there is going to have to be some debate about that during the committee stage of the bill. They can have up to 40 gaming machines that can be operated until 31 December 2016, but no more than 20 from 1 January 2017, with the ability to operate 11 to 20 gaming machines to install precommitment systems by 31 December 2022.

With regard to the maximum betting limits in minor venues, a maximum bet limit of $5 will apply to minor venues from 1 January 2017, but this will not apply when a machine is lawfully being provided by a minor venue when this bill becomes law. Venues with more than 20 gaming machines that wish to continue operating those machines will need to become major venues and comply with the requirements of a major venue, or sell excess entitlements through the approved trading cap.

With regard to the state-wide gaming machine entitlement cap, the current cap or entitlement does not include the Casino; therefore, the target for reductions will be 13,081 machines, adding the 995 that are currently in the Casino that will get their single entitlement under this bill. This compares to the existing target of 12,086 machines.

I have already talked about the proposal for the government allowing the Casino to increase their machines by 505 entitlements. The Casino will have access to the approved trading system established for hotels and clubs, and this will allow the Casino the right to buy and sell entitlements. It is to be noted that, essentially, under this legislation without amendment, those 995 entitlements would have been gifted to the Casino. But, we know that if they are not gifted, according to amendments that we want to move on this side of the house, it is not a deal-breaker.

If the Casino is unable to purchase enough entitlements, as I mentioned before, through the approved trading system, the government proposes to sell up to 300 entitlements to the Casino for the VIP areas. As part of this legislation, cashless gaming will be part of the deal, and there will have to be criteria presented by 1 January 2016 for account-based system.

There is also talk of different upgraded machines that can be automated. Certainly, with regard to major gaming venues, machines have to be capable of receiving and displaying messages, capable of complying with the most current gaming machine standards, and then have bet limiting notifications. There also has to be basic problem gambling identification, it has to be precommitment, and there are also issues around barring that need to be linked to these machines.

I also note that all the requirements with regard to training for all these systems has come into place, and there is certainly more advanced training that has to come into place for major venues. With the limited time I have left, I would like to acknowledge that we have welcomed the Casino proposal, but we do not support the gifting of the single entitlements; we know that is not a deal-breaker with the Casino.

On this side of the house, we do not support the 'super venues' getting up to 60 units, because I believe that would tear the heart out of clubs, smaller venues and smaller hotels across South Australia. Like it or lump it, many people have spent a lot of money using gaming to increase their revenue so that they can be viable where otherwise they may not be.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:39): I will not traverse over the ground that has already been covered, particularly by the member for Davenport, who has put in a huge effort in a very short space of time into getting his head around this particular piece of legislation by talking to the major stakeholders and trying to come to a position on all the clauses in this bill, and then briefing his colleagues in our party room. The member for Goyder and the member for Hammond have also made very worthwhile contributions. I do not want to go over that ground, particularly the ground that relates to the technical aspects of the bill, but there are a few matters I do want to raise with regards to this issue.

As a piece of public policy, poker machines legislation in South Australia has been a dog's breakfast from day one. It was introduced controversially back in the early 1990s, and there have been a number of attempts to change, modify, reform—however you want to put it—poker machines law in South Australia. One of the things we do know is that the introduction of poker machines in South Australia had a significant impact on the hotels industry, a much less impact in the clubs industry, and a significant impact on the Casino.

The other thing we know is that the industry has matured. Between 1994, when the first machines were introduced, and the year 2000 something like 15,000 machine licences were granted in South Australia. It was a new industry through that period, and the growth in the number of machines and the growth in activity startled South Australians and this parliament, and a freeze was put on the issuing of new licences at that time in 2000. In 2003 the parliament, in a move I never really understood, took the decision that it would try to reduce the number of machines by some 3,000 from, I think, just over 15,000 back to a bit over 12,000 machines.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: An arbitrary move and, as the member for Davenport reminds me, the revenues to government—therefore the gambling effort—stayed the same. It had no impact on the gambling effort. That is why I say—and I said at the time, I believe—that I never accepted the premise that reducing the number of machines would have any significant effect on problem gambling here in South Australia.

At the time of the 2004 amendments the argument was put that we had to reduce the number of machines. The argument was also put that we would reduce the number of machines by, I think, eight machines per venue that had more than 20 machines, so we saw venues that had 40 machines being reduced to 32 machines. Again, I never really understood the science behind that. In my experience, when I go into a venue that has poker machines, it is rare, if ever, that I witness every machine in the venue being used. It seems to me that there are many, many more machines than there are players at any one time.

I suspect that has always been the case, and I suspect it is even more the case today than what it has been historically because, as we know, the industry has matured. In fact, information given to me and my colleagues during some of the briefings we have had from the various stakeholders is that gambling revenue has remained pretty well static for the last five years. So the industry has matured to that extent.

We were also given the information that the real growth in gambling in Australia is via the internet. There is been an exponential growth in gambling via the internet, and this legislation has no impact on that whatsoever. So yet again we come back, in this instance, proposing to make quite significant changes to the legislation, which will have a significant impact on the way venues that have poker machine licences will operate and a quite significant impact on their costs, and I doubt very much that we shall have any impact at all—or, if any, I suspect a very minimal impact—on the issue of problem gambling.

I am far from being convinced that this matter before the house today improves the dog's breakfast that has surrounded this piece of public policy in South Australia for some 20 years now. The cold, hard reality is this. I have sat in numerous briefings from the Hotels Associations, from Clubs SA, from the government agency, and my office went to other briefings given to the opposition.

As the member for Davenport pointed out, being a country member it was difficult at short notice to get along to these things. I had to rely on my staff to go to some of the briefings, and it became blatantly obvious to me very quickly that the vast majority of this bill is a charade. What we are, in fact, doing today is providing some changed circumstance to accommodate the Casino. It goes to base politics.

We have a government which is trying to make an argument that it is doing things to invigorate the South Australian economy, when we can all see that the South Australian economy is, at the very best, stagnating; a government that continues to make the argument that there are lots of cranes on the skyline, and the reality is that all of those cranes are being funded by public debt.

We have the reality that government is desperate to get a crane on the skyline paid for by the private sector. The only chance that it has is to get the Casino redevelopment over the line, and that is what this piece of legislation is about. This is about fulfilling a deal between the government and the Casino for the Casino to go ahead with its long-awaited redevelopment of the site just next door here, and particularly to have it happening at about the time of the next election, in just under 12 months, and particularly to be able to say, 'This is part of the Riverbank project and is part of the reason why we are spending $40 million of taxpayers' money building a footbridge.'

These things all tie together. It is base politics. That is what this is about. I put to the minister that I think we would be a lot better off if the minister came straight out and said, 'Look, we have made a deal with the Casino. It is going to mean that we are going to get a significant investment, it is going to be good to liven up this part of the city, it is going to match in with a number of other projects which have been funded by public debt, and it is all good.' The opposition would not object to that whatsoever.

The opposition has, I think, indicated through the shadow minister that we accept the proposition that the Casino wants another 500 licences in return for investing some $350 million redeveloping the site and that becoming part of this Riverbank Precinct and trying to enliven this part of the city. The opposition, by and large, is in agreement with that part of what is being proposed but, in doing so, we recognise the imperative for the government. It needs to have the front page story; it needs this project to be up and running; it needs to be able to at last point to the fact that there is a crane on the skyline which has not been funded by public debt, like all of the others.

That is what it is about. We accept that and we say, 'Yes, you can have that', but I seriously question this notion that we have been through a series of processes over the years where we said we had to reduce the number of poker machines. We went through the process where we said to venues, 'If you've got 40 machines'—and there were a number that had 40 machines—'we're going to force you to drop back to 32 machines.'

Lo and behold, now we are turning around and saying, 'Now if you want to be a serious poker machine venue, you can have 60 machines.' Where is the rationale? Where is the consistency of thought of this government? It is ad hoc. There is no consistency of thought. Just as an aside, that is why industry struggles in this state because the government is inconsistent in the way it approaches public policy, not just in this area but right across the board. That is why industry in South Australia struggles: it fails to understand what the hell the government's intent is because it changes its mind all the time.

One of the really telling pieces of advice that I received through the briefings that I had was from Clubs SA who made a very pertinent point that one of the keys to an expanded Casino, one of the keys to filling hotel rooms in this part of the city, one of the keys to having a vibrant tourism industry in South Australia is the clubs industry, particularly through their sport and recreation.

AFL football, we know, is important to South Australia and will hopefully become even more important to the economy, particularly of the city. That is why all those years back we as an opposition proposed that we should bring football back to the city. The government has come on board with that and we all recognise that, but let us not forget that the Australian football code and other codes as well rely significantly on poker machine revenues to keep their grassroots clubs going. That is a fact of life in this state today and will be for some time.

Why would we make these ad hoc changes to make life incredibly difficult? The member for Davenport very clearly made the case that the federal parliament has passed certain legislation imposing a series of obligations on the gambling industry throughout the nation and along comes the South Australian government and says, 'Let's accept those new obligations, but let's have a different time frame.' Where is the consistency of approach in that? What is that going to do to the industry in South Australia per se?

I do not accept this notion that you have minor and major venues. I cannot see the rationale for it. I do not believe the government has made the case. I do not accept that we should be seeking, in accepting the obligations imposed by the federal parliament, to have a different time frame than that proposed by the federal parliament. It will oblige operators in South Australia to seek changes at a different rate, in a different time frame, than those in other states. I am sure that that will have cost implications.

I certainly do not accept the reality of the impact that this will have on the clubs sector in South Australia. There are some of us who believe that, when we first introduced poker machines in South Australia, we should at least have done what they did in Victoria and written into the law that half the machines would be in clubs and only half in hotels. Some of us believe it should have been even stronger than that, that all of the poker machines should have been in clubs—not-for-profit organisations—not in hotels, but that is history. We cannot change that now.

For goodness sake, if we are going to make significant changes to poker machine law, why don't we get serious about it and work out the long-term outcomes for the whole of the industry in South Australia? Let's not just get one or two cranes on the skyline before the next election funded by the private sector. That is what this piece of legislation is about. It is a great pity that the government does not have the good sense to have a look at the industry as a whole to look at the benefits that the club sector brings to South Australia and how we could actually use changes to the gambling poker machine legislation to support grassroots sport and recreation in this state, because they need every bit of help that they can get.

As the shadow minister has pointed out, because of the time frame that we have been forced to work within, we are still consulting on a number of matters. I think he has probably indicated that we will reserve our right to make further and possibly some different comments in the other place. I look forward to the opposition having a little more time to speak and continue its consultation because it appears the government has had, for many years, a funny understanding of the word consultation. I look forward to seeing a very different outcome to what the government has proposed for us here today. I, along with the rest of the opposition, support the notion that the Casino be allowed to expand its operations and invest here in South Australia.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:57): I rise to support what the government wants to do regarding the Casino redevelopment. I think it is going to be extremely exciting for Adelaide and South Australia. With those extra 505 machines and the allied development around the Casino, it will certainly be a great thing for Adelaide.

However, with this bill I certainly do not support the fact that we will go from 40 to 60 machines maximum in various hotels and clubs. All that is going to do is support the big end of town. For example, in Mount Gambier, I think we have some 368 machines in 14 different venues. The money that is lost through those machines each year is a bit over $17 million which is more than the entire rate income of those councils within that area, so that just gives you an idea of the impact of poker machines.

Of course, if we go from the 40 to 60, many of those venues will close because both Coles and Woolworths with the hotels they own will have the money to expand those facilities to 60 machines and it will put all the other hotels and clubs in Mount Gambier very much at risk, so I cannot support that part of the bill whatsoever.

With the voluntary pre-commitment and the automated risk monitoring, I think it is a great step forward. It is a great initiative of both the state and federal governments, and I think it is a great way for the industry to go, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we will try to bring in one form here and then it may have to be changed two years later. As far as I am concerned, both the voluntary pre-commitments and automated risk monitoring, and all the other issues that surround them, should all come in at one time so that people do not have to spend a heap of money one year and then two years later have to do it all over again.

I support the Clubs SA call that the bill should be split, allowing the amendments relating to the expansion of the Casino to be expedited but also allowing a proper consultation with the industry and consideration of the significant changes proposed for club and hotel gaming venues. In talking to some of the publicans I know, they are very unsure of what the impact will be on a town like Mount Gambier, so I think while the government may have consulted with AHA, etc., I do not know that there has been the opportunity for many of those smaller hotels and clubs to have any input and to know exactly what is going to happen. At this stage, I certainly will not be supporting the bill in its present form.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (17:00): I also rise to talk on this proposed bill. First up, let me say that I am also not against the redevelopment or the growth of the Adelaide Casino. That is a separate issue and it should be treated as separate. Secondly, I do support responsible gambling. I have seen many instances where people have been addicted to gambling, and we certainly need to do something regarding that. Going through the proposal that has been put to us here, one of the concerns I have is that, if they are going to allow the Casino to have another 500 machines, it will be to the detriment of country locations. I have numerous locations in my electorate, and I have one sporting and community club in particular in Port Pirie. All the hotels take responsibility for the people who are utilising their venues. They keep a close watch on people who come in, and they are very, very aware of people who may be, or may have been, compulsive gamblers and waste their money.

In the city it may be different, but in country communities everybody knows each other and we understand who can become addicted to not only poker machines but also to internet gambling, and I will go on to that later on. From January 2016 the government intends that all hotels and venues will be required to make a decision to notify the Liquor License and Gaming Commission whether they tend to operate as either a major or a minor venue.

I also understand from the briefings that I have got here that the federal parliament passed the National Gaming Reform Act 2012 to implement a nationally regulated pre-commitment scheme from 31 December 2018. The member for Davenport might have brought this up—I stand corrected. The federal side overtakes any legislation from the state, so why do we have two different starting points, one from a South Australian point of view and another one being implemented in 2018, two and a bit years afterwards? If we are going to be serious about this, let's do it properly.

The government also states that these systems will be implemented by major venues by 1 January 2017, which is well ahead of the national pre-commitment. That is fine, but I still question why. The bill also proposes that major venues will be allowed to increase the number of gaming machines they can operate from 40 to 60. As the member for Mount Gambier has indicated, there is nobody in country communities that will be able to go up from 40 to 60. The only ones who will be able to afford that, if they want to do so, would be the barons—and I am talking about the very, very large consortiums that have five or six different hotels. We have a couple in the region that own more than one. In Port Augusta, one organisation bought two hotels and amalgamated them into one. This is only going to create more opportunities for Woolworths and Coles to get into this field.

Related to that, the Australian Hotels Association's Ian Horne made a comment that the average number of machines per venue in South Australia at the moment is about 21, and about 250 of the 500 or so venues have 20 machines or less. The hotel and club industry has never advocated that they want any more than 40, and yet, here we are, saying we will allow them to go from 40 to 60. We should be looking at reducing all the machines across everything like that, which was supposed to happen some years ago. There was a proposal to bring machines right down from the 40 at each location and for them to be able to sell these surplus machines.

In the briefing I also read that the government acknowledges that the club sector may have less capacity to take advantage of the possibility to increase the maximum number of gaming machines a major venue may operate. They will allow gaming machine entitlements and gaming machine packages to club venues on a revenue sharing basis. I question who is going to pay for them and what returns the hotel will get if that is the case.

Also, I should have said from the start, with the introduction of gaming machines in South Australia, I think this state made a very vast mistake. We should have only allowed poker machines into community clubs. We should never have allowed them into the hotels because the money does not stay in the communities. If it had been community clubs and such like, similar to what New South Wales had, that money would go back into the communities. However, we cannot go backwards.

The other issue is that we are also looking at trying to implement the redevelopment there, so why aren't we just improving or introducing legislation to allow that, to separate that and allow the other clubs in the country and the regions to be able to manage what they are doing at the moment? I am not against gambling, but, as I said earlier, I am certainly in favour of responsible gambling. I have visited hotels and I have gone in and played the pokies, but I put $10 in there and either I am in and out in five minutes, or if I win, I just put it back, but I am out of there in about 20 minutes.

However, I have seen many patrons out there—and this is what we should be concentrating on—that actually feed those machines. When they have used the money they have in their pocket, they will go to the ATMs, which are very, very close. They may not be in the same location as the machines themselves, but they are in the foyer. Taking those ATMs away is something we should have been looking at, so that if they have used their $50, or whatever the figure is they have gone with, they cannot go around to the ATMs. We all hear of people who have actually spent all their pension and things like that on those things there.

The other issue is that this is not going to really decrease any amount of gambling. The member for MacKillop indicated that you can do a lot of gambling, whether it is poker or anything else, on the internet. You have seen a lot of these big footballers do the same thing. They have been caught and they continue to do it. The other issue is that at Globe Derby, as you are coming into Adelaide, there is a large EasyBet sign encouraging you and hitting you as you are coming along. That encourages people to actually go into there. This is encouraging them. You see it on the TV when the games are on: there is an advert telling you to start betting on the horses, start betting on the football and things like that. They are the things we should take away, because it is very easy to make a phone call from your own home and then get into this.

But, in its format at the moment, I think this bill is going to decimate lots of country communities out there. I have one club in Port Pirie and, as I said, it is the Port Football and Community Club. It is a very good club, but it also sponsors, in the vicinity, quite a few thousand dollars to sporting groups. And they also have their own oval. They have just got two water bills in the last quarter, one for $22,000 and another one for $28,000 for the quarter.

These people—and I will just talk about this one in particular—have 22 machines, I think it is, and they have people that are monitoring the people playing the machines. If they have to do all these things here and they have responsible gambling, I can see them letting their oval go and they won't be sponsoring any sporting groups, and that will be to the detriment of small groups out there in Port Pirie.

Venues are very confused, as the member for Mount Gambier said. The communication may have been with the major bodies—the AHA, Clubs SA and things like that—but I think the member for Mount Gambier is correct. I hear so much confusion from hotels and so on out in the community. They do not know what is going to happen and how it is going eventuate. We certainly need to look at this very clearly.

We do a lot of work with SACOSS, because I am very aware, as other members here are, of the social challenges our communities have out there with the less fortunate. Their spokesperson, Ross Womersley, thinks that in practice it may have been more helpful to introduce legislation that says ATMs are banned, rather than just limiting the withdrawal limits on a per-day basis. He also makes the comment that the Productivity Commission was absolutely clear when it came to the conclusion that machines should be limited to $1 a spin if we are really interested in protecting people with major gambling issues.

The other thing is it says here that the government is planning to introduce the changes to try to remove 800 machines from operation and reduce problem gambling. We will do that in this way here but it is going to be to the detriment of some of the smaller clubs in the country communities. I cannot support the bill in its current format and I will be looking very closely at the amendments going through. I will not support the bill in its current form.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:10): I thank all of the people who have made a contribution to the debate today. One of the things that is very clear from the remarks everyone has made here today is, first, that there is a lot of strong feeling in various sections of the community about this issue—there always has been, and it is not an easy issue for anybody. Whilst probably some of us think we have the right answer, it might be fair to say that perhaps, objectively, there is no right answer in this particular area.

Can I also just say that we are at a point presently where this legislation has been around the place for about 20 years. A number of people would like to go back in the time tunnel and reset everything so that the last 20 years would have rolled out differently, and I am certainly one of them. If I was a voting member of this place 20 years ago when this thing was introduced, I would have voted against it. I was here in 2004 and the model that got up here in 2004 was one that I opposed. I opposed it for a number of reasons, largely because of the inherent inconsistencies contained in the model. But I cannot do anything about that. It is like playing a game of golf and you are in the rough and have had a couple of swings and you cannot pick up the ball and go back to the tee. You just have to play the game from where you are.

I wanted to explain something, very briefly, about the inherent tensions in the current legislation. Leave aside the complexity about whether gaming machines are a good or bad thing and leave aside the question about management of problem gambling in our community, and gaming machines. We have a system which is attempting to regulate three completely different types of venue which have gaming machines. One venue is unique: it is the Casino. A second kind of venue is hotels, and it might be fair to say that even within the hotel sector there are big ones and little ones. The last kind of venue is the club.

It is necessarily going to be the case that, if you have a regulatory scheme designed to manage poker machines and protect people from the ill effects of poker machines, the impact of that will be different according to what venue you are imposing those regulations on. We do not come at this from the perspective that this is a piece of legislation about the Casino, this is about clubs and this is about something else, because the common theme in all of this is poker machines.

To say in any debate here that this particular regulation about poker machines affects one group more than another is really stating the obvious. Of course it does, because the only common factor is the poker machine. Everything else is different. The business model of a small bowling club and the business model of the Adelaide Casino are so vastly different that the idea that you would have the two being regulated in the same space on the surface seems bizarre. But, the fact is that both of them potentially have a gaming machine and that gaming machine has the same potential to do harm in the bowling club as it does in the Casino, because it is not the venue that does the harm, if there is harm to be done: it is the machine. It is a complex problem.

The second thing I want to say, briefly, relates to consultation. There has been extensive consultation about this bill. It might be that a particular hotelier in the country or a particular small sporting club has not actively participated in that conversation up until now, but I can assure you that their peak bodies have been involved and there have been extensive discussions with peak bodies. This is another tension that I forgot: there is also the licensed premises difference here too, because these things are in licensed premises and, guess what, we have three different kinds of licensed premises. We have a casino, we have hotels and we have clubs.

The hotel industry is very sensitive to what happens in the Casino, because what happens in the Casino, to the extent that it is different to the set of rules that apply to them, from their perspective is potentially a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, just as the clubs are saying, 'These rules are a competitive disadvantage for us.' The package that we have put together was a negotiated whole package which I am sure, if you asked each individual participant, 'Is this your perfect dream world?', their answer would be no, but it was a compromise between a whole bunch of competing interests with a very clear objective, and I do take issue with those that have said this is a muddled package. It is not a muddled package at all in terms of the clear objectives.

The clear objectives are these: first, improve the security for people with problem gambling issues in gambling venues in South Australia as quickly as is reasonably practicable, and if that is ahead of the commonwealth guidelines then good. Secondly, make sure that the objective that has been policy since 2004 of getting the number of machines in the marketplace down is advanced, and of course the only way that is going to occur is for there to be trades.

As the member for Davenport said a number of times, the figures demonstrate that in the trading rounds up until now there have been vastly more people offering to sell than there have been offering to buy. Therefore, as there are not as many completed sales there are not as many machines coming out of the pool, because the way it works is for every four machines that are traded one goes. If there is no trading there is no disappearing of machines.

The second element here is that we are in effect creating a market for machines. There is already a group of sellers, but up until now there have not been a broad group of buyers. Under these proposals there will be two classes of buyers which up until now have not been in the arena: they are the Casino looking to up their numbers and those venues, wherever they might be, who wish to go from 40 to 60 machines. That will mean the trading rounds work and that the number of machines in circulation start to go down by reference to the number of trades.

The other point is that all of the evidence—and the Productivity Commission I think did some work on this a while ago, and I know I have heard Senator Xenophon talk about this many, many times, and I know the welfare people believe this to be the case, based on the data—is that the risk to the community is in many respects proportionate to the number of venues more than it is to the number of machines in particular venues.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Why continue reducing the number of machines then?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'More' I said; I didn't say it was irrelevant. Obviously if you had no machines there would be no risk at all, but the number of venues is a significant element. That is the other thing that this package seeks to do: it seeks to reduce the number of venues. Those venues that go up in their number under these proposals to 60 have, as a trade-off for that, the immediate requirement of enhanced protection for problem gamblers and so forth.

If you want to step up to 60, all of that regulatory requirement to make your venue a safer place hits you much, much earlier than it would, certainly under the commonwealth scheme. So, there is enhanced safety for problem gamblers, there are fewer venues, there are more trades, and that is balanced up against all the competing interests.

If people want to start pulling bits of this out, other bits which are connected to those bits will start to become either detached from the whole package or it will start to become unbalanced. So, I think those who are under the impression that performing radical surgery on this legislation can be done with impunity are wrong. Bear in mind that the hotels, for example, which have signed off on this package in writing have done so on the basis that their objections to what the Casino is going to get out of this are to some extent balanced by other elements in this package.

Let us say we remove the Casino bit from the other bits. I do not know, in practical terms, how easily that can be done, in terms of drafting and other things, because everything is presently knitted together, but leave that to one side. It is certainly not as simple as getting a pair of scissors and cutting it up the middle; I can assure you of that.

But, assume you could do it: what you are going to do is have the Casino, with all of the things that it had negotiated as part of this package, and the hotels, for example, having none of the counterbalancing things that they wanted to enable them to live with the Casino deal. I can assure you, from the AHA perspective, if we were just advancing this Casino proposition by itself, they would have quite a view about that and will have quite a view about that. So, it is not simply a matter of grabbing a pair of scissors and cutting things up the middle.

By the way, member for Frome, I do want to compliment you on two points you made: the first one was about the internet. That is an issue that is sitting on top of all of this, and it does, to some extent, put all of this debate in some perspective about the completely uncontrollable element that sits out there, which is new communications and new technology.

I would say to those in the club sphere: fighting this fight might be fighting for something that is a smaller and smaller proportion of a smaller and smaller thing, and a bit more lateral thinking might assist their cause. The second point I was going to make to the member for Frome is: if you can get $10 to last you 20 minutes, I want to come to wherever you go, because that is pretty good.

I can indicate that I have seen the two amendments that have been put up by the member for Davenport and I will not be supporting them, but I do recognise that there is an opportunity for some conversation to occur between here and elsewhere. I note a number of comments he made, and, look; everybody who has made a comment in this debate has made a comment that is not frivolous or silly. They are all interesting comments, and many of them are really a product of what a complex issue we are trying to balance here.

This brings me back to the point that this is a position which has been put together after extensive discussion with a number of elements, including the welfare element, by the way, who were the people who initially suggested and have proposed the 60 machines. That is not my idea; that came into the conversation because the welfare lobby thought that would be a way of enhancing safety for problem gamblers. Members might be interested to know that. It is not a matter of hoteliers or Woolworths or someone having lobbied us for that. That is not the case. That idea did not come from that quarter; it came from the welfare lobby.

There were a couple of comments that the member for Davenport made about the fact that if it were all just about the light coming on and someone coming up saying 'Excuse me, Mr Evans, do you realise you have spent your money?', could that not happen in a smaller venue that does not have lights? Well, maybe it could and maybe it could not, but whether or not it does would be completely untraceable and unrecordable, and there would be no in-time monitoring of that oversight. Therefore, there would be no way of knowing whether that was or was not happening. It is true that in a really well-run small venue, where people took a very positive view about that, they might actually make all their staff do that; however, none of us would have any idea whether or not they were doing it. We would have no idea, and there would be no way of enforcing it.

The other important statistic that the member for Davenport mentioned is the 88/12 mix between pubs and clubs. Whatever any of us think about that, to go back to my golfing analogy it is all very well when you are in the sand bunker to say that you wish you had hit the ball a bit differently the last couple of strokes. The fact is that we are where we are. It is no good imagining that we are going to change things.

Imagine, for instance, that we decided we would go for the proposition that, I think, the member for Davenport talked about in Victoria, where it is fifty-fifty. If we were to take that track, who would be responsible for compensating the group from the 88 who would be dropped down to 50 to make up the other bit to get on to the 12? Who would be compensating them? Which ones would be going out? By what method would they be selected, etc.? The point is that we have to be realistic and try to have a rational way of progressing from where we are, going forward.

I have listened to a number of members who have made contributions inspired by their no doubt genuine concern about clubs, and can I say that I acknowledge the great work that clubs do in the community, no question. I acknowledge that clubs provide an important social fabric for communities, that they provide activities for young people, and that they are part of the glue that holds communities together. They are important, very important, and I acknowledge all that. However, I also say that for a problem gambler a poker machine in a club is just as much a problem as a poker machine in the Casino or in a pub. So to say that the purpose for which the money is being collected somehow sanitises the method by which it is collected is, I think, a false argument.

I wonder why those people who are really advocates for clubs—given where we are now with that 88/12 split—have focused so much on artificially maintaining clubs in a market (the clubs say) that the environment makes very difficult for them. Having gone back to basics and asked what it is that the clubs are really on about, what are they really complaining about, the answer is that they are complaining about not having money. They are complaining about not having sufficient funds to be able to do what it is they do. That is their problem.

They have then moved to the next step, which is, 'Poker machines are our solution.' Well, they may or may not be, but what nobody has explored—and I have heard no contribution today—is whether it is actually ultimately sustainable for clubs, given their relative size and relative capital backing, etc., to be long-term occupants of the gaming machine space, whatever we do. Maybe that debate is quite a different debate and it is about the extent to which clubs receive support from some source without getting so hung up on whether that source must be gaming revenues.

If you say it must be gaming revenues all you are then doing, in effect, is dropping the inequality level down and saying well then, there are the big clubs and there are the little clubs. There are the A grade clubs like maybe SANFL clubs or whatever, and then there are the B grade clubs like the bowling clubs, or whatever they might be, and all you do is you push the lack of resources down from a first tier club to a second tier club. So I do not think anybody has actually turned their mind properly to that problem.

With those few words, I will be indicating that we will be seeking to go into committee. I have spoken to the member for Davenport and I believe it is our intention to proceed until 7 o'clock this evening and resume and complete the debate tomorrow. As is normally the case, I am not going to trouble the member for Davenport with taking him through some tedious following of clause 1 through to whatever and giving him only three questions and all of that sort of stuff. I am happy for him to ask questions as he wishes to ask them.

The other thing is that I would like to say that, because some of the questions the honourable member might ask me may be ones that I am not able off the top of my head to answer, I will probably, in respect to many of those, simply say can I please take that on notice, and I indicate that I will be doing that in advance so that I do not waste members' time by attempting to answer questions I do not know the answer to.

Bill read a second time.

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, you have a point of order?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just rise to seek clarification from the chair in relation to whether this bill is a hybrid bill under joint standing orders of the house of parliament relating to private bills. The reason I raise this question is that in 2004 when the Gaming Machines Act was debated, the government came in and moved a suspension of standing orders in relation to hybrid bills because they believed at that stage that that bill, which allowed the trading system to be established and a reduction of entitlements, impacted on private rights and was a hybrid bill. That happened at this point in the debate immediately on the conclusion of the second reading, which is the requirement of the joint standing orders of the house of parliament relating to private bills.

Further, the substantial purpose of this bill is to enact the new arrangements for the Casino which, of course, has access to crown land and if the act is not passed, the Casino will ultimately lose access to the crown land because their licence agreement will expire unless this act is passed. So the effect of this act is in the major part to enable the Casino to obtain the conditions it needs for its new licence so it can therefore occupy crown land. On that basis, I seek your ruling as to whether it is a hybrid bill and therefore needs to go to a select committee.

The SPEAKER: My advice is that a bill is a hybrid bill if it is introduced by the government, but it is a private bill in nature, namely, promoting the interests of an individual person, a company, a corporation or a local community and not the public. I take it that the member for Davenport's submission is that this is promoting the interests of the Adelaide Casino. Joint standing order 2 provides:

The following shall not be private bills but every such bill shall be referred after the second reading to a select committee of the house in which it originates.

The sidenote provides for the exception of certain bills—hybrid bills: (a) bills introduced by the government whose primary and chief object is to promote the interests of one or more municipal corporations or local bodies and not those of municipal corporations or local bodies generally. I take it that the member for Davenport's submission is not that the Adelaide Casino is a municipal body but that it is somehow a local body.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is certainly one argument. What is a local body? It is not defined, but the next part, (2)(b) concerns bills introduced by the government authorising the granting of crown or waste lands to individual persons, a company or corporation or a local body. Firstly, a local body is not defined. Secondly, in relation to the granting of crown lands, I contend that the only way the Casino can continue to occupy the crown land is if the matters relating to them in this bill are passed. If the matters relating to the Casino in this bill fall over, then the Casino's licence will ultimately cease at its expiry date, because the only way the Casino is going to continue to operate as an exclusive licensee under this bill is if these conditions are passed.

The SPEAKER: But, member for Davenport, the bill is not in its terms authorising or granting lands, is it? You are saying the effect would be—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It is extending the grant.

The SPEAKER: You are saying that the effect of the bill would be—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The effect is to grant.

The SPEAKER: The effect of the bill would be in the fullness of time that a grant of land would cease.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Mr Speaker, I think if we go back to when the original Casino Act was passed, that was a hybrid bill.

The SPEAKER: Yes, plainly.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, and the parliament on behalf of the public granted the Casino certain rights to that crown land based on the licence at that time. So, there was a select committee to look into that on behalf of the public to protect the public's interest; that is why we have select committees for hybrid bills. What this bill is doing is again granting access to crown land under a new set of conditions to which the public have not had the opportunity to make submissions to a select committee on, so I argue, just as the government did in 2004. The government took measures about a hybrid bill. If the original Casino—

The SPEAKER: Well, no, the government suspended standing orders to overcome the Speaker's ruling.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, the government took measures to deal with the hybrid bill. They suspended standing orders. Just as the original Casino Bill was put to a select committee because it was hybrid, just as the Speaker ruled and the government dealt with in 2004 the matter in relation to hybrid bills. I cannot see how this bill, which deals with the same matters and in fact deals with more matters granting the Casino access to crown land, is then not covered by the hybrid bill provision. But I have made my case, sir.

The SPEAKER: What does the minister say?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, as always the member for Davenport is lost in the political arena. He would have been a great silk, I think, but on this occasion I disagree with him. First of all, there is no reasonable reading of the bill as can be seen from the debate today where it is quite clear the bill has an overall regulatory purpose, not a specific purpose directed towards the Casino. Indeed, many who have spoken on the other side would have that general regulatory purpose stripped from it to make it look more like a specifically Casino-orientated piece of legislation, which it is not.

Secondly, there is a material difference between the initial granting of an entitlement to access to crown land and the extension of an already existent right, and I think the nuance about whether or not the actual details of the terms of the extension have varied at all is really getting down to the minutiae. The threshold question is: should public land be turned over to a body? That question has been determined some years ago and it has been determined in the affirmative, so this is not attempting to disturb that position in any way.

The SPEAKER: Could the member for Davenport direct me to the clause in the bill that grants crown land in its terms? Is there a clause in the bill?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, there is not sir; hear me out, amateur QC as the member for Enfield might have me be. The minister in his second reading response said you could not split the bill away from the Casino because that was a central part of it; so the majority of this is about the Casino. I think the government concedes that point by that admission of the minister in his second reading contribution. When BHP wanted to extend their lease of Roxby Downs expansion—they have had a lease of the land for decades, just as the Casino has for decades—and when BHP wanted to extend its tenure on that land under different conditions, it was a hybrid bill, and we had a select committee.

I argue that the Casino is on crown land, it has been for decades, and it wished to extend its presence there under different terms and conditions. I think in principle it is the same as BHP, and on that basis I believe it is a hybrid bill in principle. I think the government, through moving a motion in 2004, has already accepted the principle that it be a hybrid bill. The government may well take the same action as 2004. That is a matter for it, but I am just seeking clarification.

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, your argument appears to be that the bill is a hybrid bill because, to refer to the terms of joint standing order (2), bills introduced by the government whose primary and chief object is to promote the interests of one or more municipal corporations or local bodies and not those of municipal corporations or local bodies generally, and your submission to me is—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, I will come to (b). Your submission to me is that I should interpret local bodies not adduced and generous with municipal corporations. So, I should not interpret local bodies as meaning local government; I should interpret it as including SkyCity Casino Ltd.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think that is right. Here me out. I think that is an interpretation to be made because a municipal corporation by definition is local government.

The SPEAKER: Well, no, because at the time—1912—that this joint standing order was formulated municipal corporations would have been in cities and local bodies would have been contemplated as district councils in the countryside, wouldn't they?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, I am not sure that we go back to 1912 and what was local government then. We need, surely, to interpret what is in place now, and what is in place now is that anything that is a municipal corporation is a local government. So the question is: what is a local body? But I think it is actually (2)(b) in this clause.

The SPEAKER: Okay; we will come to 2(b), but I just want to deal with (2)(a) first. Are you telling me that in the 20th century municipal corporation included the District Council of Brown's Well?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sir, all I am arguing is that the definition of local body is undefined.

The SPEAKER: Are you saying it is not cognate with municipal corporations, it is something completely different from municipal corporations?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; it may be a municipal corporation, but the wording has municipal corporation and local body. So, clearly, whoever drafted it thinks there is 'and something else'. A local body could be what? I am asking: is the Casino a local body? I think (2)(b) is before–

The SPEAKER: Before we come to (2)(b), I am ruling against you on (2)(a) because I think local bodies is to be interpreted adduced and generous with municipal corporations, that part (a) is directed at local government. On (b), you say that (b) covers this because it is granting crown lands to a company or corporation. Well, I cannot accept that either because you cannot point me to any clause in the bill that grants crown or waste land to a company.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sir, I understand where you are going, but the reality is this: if the government do not pass this, the only way the Casino extends its grant of non-crown land is if this bill is passed, because that is the commercial deal done between the government and SkyCity. If this bill is not passed, SkyCity does not extend its lease on that site when it expires.

The SPEAKER: Well, what do you say, Deputy Premier?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Simply that there is a distinction between this bill and any contract that might be entered into between the government and the Casino company. The discussion about hybrid bills is in relation to bills, not contracts that might be sitting off somewhere else between the government and another party. That cannot be imported into this bill if it does not exist in the bill. Mr Speaker, you make the point: where does it talk in here about a grant of land? It has not been pointed to.

The SPEAKER: I've heard enough, Deputy Premier. I rule against you, member for Davenport. I'm sorry, but there it is.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]


In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 2 says that section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply to this particular act or a provision of this act. Can the minister explain why the government wants that to occur? Section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act says:

An Act or a provision of an Act passed after the commencement of this subsection that is to be brought into operation by proclamation will be taken to come into operation on the second anniversary of the date on which the Act was assented to by, or on behalf of, the Crown unless brought into operation before that second anniversary.

So the government is saying there is some provision in this bill they do not want to start after the two-year anniversary. I am wondering why, and what provision it is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer, I am advised, is that there are some bits of this legislation which it is contemplated would not be required to commence until beyond that second anniversary. Exactly what they are I cannot tell you off the top of my head, and I will ask for advice and come back.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the minister's advisers do not know what clauses they are?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can add to this. I am advised that there is only an indicative timetable of implementation because the Gambling Regulation Reference Group has to do some work in this space and the final time lines will be sorted out through that process.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the first I have heard of this. What time lines are preliminary in the bill and what time lines are subject to the Gambling Regulation Reference Group? What are they looking at and what time frames are provisional—based on their recommendation, I assume?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Here is a summary. Hopefully, this is of some use. If it is not, I will just have to take the rest of it on notice. The commencement dates are indicative only at this stage and the detail will be established in consultation with the Gambling Regulation Reference Group. Each clause has specific commencement dates, but a general summary is:

1 July 2013—improvements to existing gaming regulation and statewide gaming machine entitlements capped;

20 January 2014—venues can notify the commissioner of their status;

July 2014—venues can operate up to 60 machines;

July 2014—streamline training requirements;

July 2014—reduction in costs and red tape associated with development and testing of games; and

1 January 2016—games venues must have notified the commissioner of their status as a major or minor venue.

As I understand it, the advice I have is that those time lines I have just given them are presently indicative and not fully settled and, therefore, it was thought prudent to not have parts of the act come into operation by reason of section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Who is on the regulation working group and when is it due to report?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand it was in a briefing document provided, but do you want the names of the people?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is in one of the documents that you have received. They are: Rosemary Hambledon, Robyn Buckler, Wally Woehlert, Tony Morgan, Phil Harrison, Harry Bourlotos, Leanne Singh, Lindy McAdam, Robert Chappell, Jeanette Barnes, Julie Hall and Nerissa Kilvert.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When are they due to report?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it is the Department of Treasury and this is a group set up out of there. These are not Treasury officers but I can explain where they come from. Would that help?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Relationships Australia, United Voice, Gaming Care, Adelaide Casino, Club Safe, Independent Gaming Corporation, Office for Problem Gambling, Community Connect, Independent Gambling Authority, Independent Gambling Authority and then two from Consumer and Business Services.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Are the AHA and Clubs SA on there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Club Safe is there.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On clause 4 we move into the amendment to the Authorised Betting Operations Act and the government is introducing a definition of criminal intelligence into the Authorised Betting Operations Act. Why does the government need to introduce a definition into that act and what is the purpose of the changes to that act that requires criminal intelligence?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My advice is that this amendment brings consistent criminal intelligence provisions to the Authorised Betting Operations Act. It provides for the protection of SA Police criminal intelligence provided to the Independent Gambling Authority and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, and that similar provisions are included in the Gaming Machines Act and the Casino Act. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was some debate between the chambers here last year about the exact formulation of these things.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 5 talks about codes of practice under the Authorised Betting Operations Act and clause 5(2) introduces changes that require the holder of a licence to provide certain information to 'patrons' as distinct from 'gamblers'. I am interested as to whether it is the intention under this provision for the government to force venues to have signs and warning notices, or audio, visual or electronic messaging outside of the gambling area at venues for non-gambling patrons, or is it only a requirement that these signs and warning notices, or audio, visual or electronic means are going to be restricted to the gaming area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That would be a matter for the code and I cannot see anywhere where the potential scope of the code is limited to say that you may only have something on the inside door of a place or inside the actual gaming area. Whether or not the code would actually prescribe such a thing is a matter for the formulation of the code.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the government's intention?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: At this stage I think that is something we would have to formulate after we talk to people about it. I do not presently have an intention about it. It would be a matter that I think we would need to talk to the affected people about and understand the nature of those premises.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I draw that to the attention of those who are listening, that this particular clause talks about the information to patrons, not information to gamblers. So, during this consultation process that is apparently happening through this regulatory group, they might want to look at that particular issue. I will move on to clause 5(6), which inserts the famous numbers 10AA. I have read this a number of times and I want the minister to explain to me what the impact is of bringing in provision 10AA with regard to this matter.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can we get back to you on that one? It seems like a very good question.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, it is such a good question that I am happy to wait while you seek the appropriate advice. Being the poor old humble member for Davenport it just appears to me that by the insertion of 10AA into section 6A(6) of the Authorised Betting Act, it means that section 10AA of the Subordinate Legislation Act does not apply to any notice published in the Gazette.

What that means, as far as I could work out, is that the government is changing its position and that codes of practice are going from being a disallowable instrument to a non-disallowable instrument. I am wondering if that is the government's intention or whether I have interpreted it incorrectly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Unless somebody can tell me the answer to that right now, I think we will take it on notice—and it is either yes or no. It is about commencement, not disallowance, I am advised.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What does that mean—it is about commencement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is about making the codes consistent, and the other pieces of legislation that we might be referring to have similar requirements.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If your amendment is successful, as per drafted in the bill, will the codes of practice be a disallowable instrument?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the answer to that is yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is all for clause 5, thank you.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 6 inserts a new provision that deals with criminal intelligence. I note that in the new clause 6B, which is going to be inserted, it allows the minister to obtain copies of the criminal intelligence. I assume there are confidentiality provisions on the minister, but is the minister able to use the criminal intelligence in the house?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let us just take that one at face value. Criminal intelligence is protected information, so the idea is that people do not go around talking about criminal intelligence. If you are asking a question as to whether a member of parliament—or a minister, for that matter—having had access to such a thing could come in here and say something about it, I think the question would turn down to what remedy anybody might have for doing that.

That problem—I have never heard of it being a problem, but if indeed it is—has been a problem ever since there has been criminal intelligence. I do not know of an issue where a member of parliament—and certainly not a minister—has come in here and told everybody about criminal intelligence, and there has been the question as to whether they have broken any law, and then the complexity about whether the evidence of what was said in here could be led in court to prove that they did or did not say anything, and so forth.

I would be flabbergasted if it were to ever arise, and it certainly would not be arising for the first time because of these provisions. There are criminal intelligence provisions in the Liquor Licensing Act; they are in the Firearms Act; they are all over the place, and it has never been a problem.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister says, 'It has never been a problem'. I will speak to the minister privately about my experience holding certain positions within the system. I understand what the minister is saying in relation to remedy but, by allowing a minister access under no criteria, you are really coming down to the goodwill of the minister as to whether that matter is then used for political purposes at some point in the future. I just raise that point for the minister to contemplate. Once the minister has it, the minister is at liberty to use that information in the house however he or she may wish. There may be ramifications for the minister, of course, but the political advantage may be such that a minister chooses to do so. That is all I have on clause 6.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can you explain the purpose this? The way I understand clause 7 is that now the authority must give the Commissioner of Police a copy of all applications made under the provision which allows for the approval of designated persons. The way I read that is: for every person who is seeking to be employed in certain positions, their application is now going to be sent over to the police on every single occasion; it must happen. I just want to check that that is the way that is going to work; that is the way I understand it. The authority must give the Commissioner of Police a copy.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this is to make the provision regarding the approval of designated persons uniform with that under the Casino Act in requiring the authority to forward to the Commissioner of Police a copy of any application for approval, and for the Commissioner of Police to make available to the authority information about criminal convictions and other information to which the Commissioner of Police has access relevant to whether the application should be granted.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, one assumes then that the authority is under a confidentiality requirement somewhere in their legislation. I ask for that to be confirmed. One also assumes that, under subclause (1b), 'and other information to which the Commissioner of Police has access relevant to whether the application should be granted' goes beyond criminal matters. The first part of that subclause provides:

(1b) The Commissioner of Police must make available to the Authority information about criminal convictions and other information to which the Commissioner of Police has access...

So, one assumes that there is something outside of criminal convictions that the commissioner may well have.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I give a possible example, and I know this applies, for instance, in relation to liquor licensing or firearms? The commissioner may discover that the member for Kavel has applied for a licence and, as we all know, he is a man who has no convictions, and he is an apparently upstanding citizen but—and I have to depart from using him as my example now—let us say the person is also known to be an associate of an outlaw motorcycle gang and has lots of mates in that gang, and has been identified as being a suspect in a whole bunch of unsavoury activity.

The second lot of information is not a conviction. It might be criminal intelligence, it might be reports that the police commissioner has obtained, it might be stuff that they have from a whole bunch of sensitive places but, whatever you call it, it is not a criminal record or a conviction. I would read that as making a distinction between a person's record in the formal sense, that is, record of convictions, and other information the police commissioner might have. For example, this fellow may not have ever been convicted of anything serious but he is a known associate of various other people, which might reflect importantly on whether you want this person involved in this industry.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does the authority have a confidentiality requirement on it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Under section 17 of the IGA Act there is a duty of confidentiality. It says that:

A member or former member of the Authority...must not disclose confidential information obtained in the course of carrying out official functions except—

(a) to another person who has official functions under this Act or a prescribed Act, to the Commissioner of Police or as may otherwise be required for carrying out such official functions

(b) as required by law; or

(c) as permitted by the person in whose favour the duty of confidentiality exists;

(d) to a reciprocating authority, or an officer or employee of a reciprocating authority.

So that is already dealt with.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 8 deletes section 50 of the Authorised Betting Operations Act which deals with barring orders. You are doing that, I assume, because there is a new system of barring orders coming into play. Were the TAB and the racing industry consulted on this clause?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I don't know the answer to that.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 9 amends section 87 of the Authorised Betting Operations Act. Section 87 deals with confidentiality of information provided by the Commissioner of Police. The government seeks to delete section 87(a) which deals with prejudiced present or future police investigations or legal proceedings, and it wishes to delete it so that information remains confidential. They way I read it, it currently says:

No information provided by the Commissioner of Police to the Authority or the Commissioner may be disclosed to any person (except the Minister or person to whom the Commissioner of Police authorises its disclosure)—

for instance, the police commissioner could authorise that it goes to the media—

if the Commissioner of Police asks for the information to be kept confidential on the grounds that its disclosure might—

(a) prejudice present or future investigations or legal proceedings

We are taking away from the police commissioner that right under section 87(a), and I wonder what the police commissioner's view of that is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the deletion there is in recognition of the insertion of the new criminal intelligence provisions. Rather than have a repetition of the new provisions that we were talking about a minute ago, we have replaced that section.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Doesn't the definition of criminal intelligence leave out the words 'or legal proceedings'? The definition of criminal intelligence inserted in the bill by the government deals with 'the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations'. Section 87(a) deals with prejudicing present or future police investigations—which one assumes is criminal investigations—or legal proceedings. I am not sure, under the definition of 'criminal intelligence', whether legal proceedings are covered by the new procedure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that in changing to some sort of uniform model of the formulation of criminal intelligence, these provisions are being replaced. Parliamentary counsel is of the view that the words the honourable member has referred to, 'or other legal proceedings', do not add anything to the provision to which he has referred, and that the only relevant information the police commissioner would have would be defined as criminal intelligence. In other words, whatever the police commissioner has that might be relevantly passed on would be characterised as criminal intelligence. Therefore, the 'other legal proceedings' thing is unnecessary.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I understand that, but I will make this point and then move on, because I know the minister wants to finish this by 6 o'clock tomorrow night. Existing section 87(a) talks about police investigations or legal proceedings. I think a fair interpretation of legal proceedings is something before a court so, in taking that out, we are relying on the new definition of criminal intelligence, which is 'the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations', as distinct from 'a legal proceeding'.

I am not sure they are the same thing. Plenty of people are investigated without the matter getting to court, but a judicial proceeding, a legal proceeding, is something when it is at court. The investigation is complete; they have their evidence, it has gone to the DPP and they are going to nail their person through the evidence. I will leave that to better legal minds than the poor old member for Davenport to contemplate between houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I must have this one wrong, but I will take my chance and ask the question. Clause 11 is a transitional provision that deals, in one part, with barring orders. It says, at the bottom, that, as a transitional provision, people who are currently barred are now barred for up to three years or until a review of the order is completed, under section 138. Does that mean that if I am barred for six months, under these transitional provisions I am suddenly barred for three years unless the review is completed more quickly than that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised the existing orders are not open-ended, they are not time limited, so it would actually be, I guess, beneficial to the person because they go from having an open-ended order to an order that would expire within three years, or sooner if application or review took place.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: All the current barrings are open-ended, so you are either barred or you are not barred; there is no time period. So, why are we giving someone the job of actually having to review them all, because would that not be part of their normal role? Why suddenly put a time limit on them? Why invent a job for someone? If we have had this legislation in place forever and there is no time frame for review, why now are we introducing a time frame for review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that people move, people improve their gambling issues and they do not, as a matter of course, notify anybody, so this is an attempt to have a purging, if you like, of the register so that over time it is established whether the register has names on it that do not really need to be there; that is the purpose.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have no problem with someone tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, 'Are you better? Are you under control? Do you need to be barred any longer?', but why do you need a piece of legislation to do that? Why can't the authority just say, 'Guess what, you've been barred for a couple of years, we think it is time to have a chat'? Why do we need a law to do it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The need for the transitional provision is because the existing orders would evaporate without one.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you are okay with having an unpurged register sitting there indefinitely that may well be the case, but some transitional provision is required to make sure the people who are presently barred continue to be barred and the purpose of this is to make sure there is some culling of the list; that is all.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me ask this question: does the authority currently have the power to review the barring orders currently in place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that, apparently, is no.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, the parliament has developed a system that once you are barred you are barred forever.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Unless there is a request from the individual for revocation, in which case I take it that can be considered.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, the way I understand it now is that everyone barred is barred forever unless they ask to be reviewed and then they can be reviewed. That is the current law. These are transitioned across and now we are going to say: even if they have not asked for a review we are going to have a review to see if they want to change their barring situation, even though they have not asked for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The government is inserting the definition of 'casino premises' under clause 12(5), which states, 'casino premises means the premises defined in the casino licence'. Does that definition define the crown land that the Casino has available to it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is what it is. One would go to the licence and that would say whatever it says. I do not have a copy of the licence.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But one assumes it will set out what area of land the Casino licence applies to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure where we got up to.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We have now moved on to sections dealing with the Casino Act. The government seeks to change section 3 of the Casino Act, which is the interpretation section, and it is introducing a new definition of 'casino premises', which is 'means the premises defined in the casino licence'. I am assuming that means that, in the casino licence, there is a definition of the crown land to which the licence is going to apply.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can only add this: as I understand it, a licence can be granted only to an applicant (in this case, the Casino) that has tenure over particular premises to which it requests to have the licence extend. I am told that is right.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is it the government's intention to grant access to areas of the Casino that currently are not defined under its licence but may have previously been defined under its licence as areas in the Casino? As this amendment highlights, the Governor has that power under section 6(3), on the authority's advice, without any public consultation. I am wondering whether it is the intention of the government or the authority to do that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, the situation is this: there is presently no agreement, so there is no present answer specifically to that question. As I understand the advice I am receiving, what we are seeing here is a change in methodology of description. Previously, the methodology was by reference to 'casino'. This is a different model.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Exactly. What I am seeking to establish is that, under the amended provision (section 6(3)), it highlights where the Governor, on the recommendation of the authority, can expand the Casino premises outside of its existing licence area to an area that has previously been licensed and operated as part of the Casino premises. What I am asking is: is it the government's intention, or the authority's intention, to expand the Casino to areas that were parts of the Casino that now are not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the whole building is presently included within the definition of 'casino' and the only bits of the building that were used but are not now are the north Loft and the North restaurant.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: What about the ATM area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The ATM area has never been part of the Casino, I am advised.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 12(8) deals with the premium gaming areas and allowing the Casino to operate a premium area. In the bill, this particular section provides that the area set aside for premium customers is only accessible to other customers in accordance with the approved licence agreement. Other customers are clearly not premium customers; they are something different. I am just wondering whether the minister could enlighten the house as to how premium customers are going to be defined, and under what terms and conditions other customers can access the premium gaming area.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is that those are matters that are presently the subject of negotiation and are commercial in confidence, and I am not able to assist with the exact formulation of that; so I am advised.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is not the first casino in Australia. Can the minister give us some advice on what other customers in other casinos might be let in who are not premium customers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can give you a for instance. If the honourable member were a premium customer, however defined, and the honourable member and the honourable member's wife wanted to go in there and she wanted to watch the honourable member at the baccarat table or something, then she would not be required to stay outside. She would be able to come in. As I understand it, that is the sort of thing contemplated.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Are the other customers, then, who are not premium customers, able to gamble in the premium area? Is this simply allowing entry to watch or is this allowing entry to gamble for other customers who are not premium customers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that in other places they can gamble, but that is not a matter that is resolved yet here.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 13 deals with section 6 which is the Casino premises and it specifically deals with 6(2) where it substitutes 'different premises' and puts in the words 'premises at different sites'.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Premises at a different site.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premises at a different site. Can the minister explain what that means? Does that mean that the Casino is changing site or gaining access to more land?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, the effect of this is in relation to the question of whether the public inquiry trigger is engaged and the point of it is that if the Casino were to change its precise footprint in some way, but remain basically where it is, it would not be a trigger. If, however, the Casino wished to go from over there to the Wine Centre, for example, that would be a trigger.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so I understand what the minister is telling me, by changing the words from 'different premises' and substitute 'premises at a different site', your advice is that if the Casino tripled in size at the same site, at the same location—so they could get twice as big or ten times as big—it would not matter as long as it just keeps adding on to the original site. This clause only comes into play if they pick it up and move it so none of its land is contiguous with the old location.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think as I read (2a) that is pretty explicit, isn't it? It says that the Casino premises will only be regarded as being at a different site for the purposes of subsection (2) if no part of the premises is situated on the previous site.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Has the government had discussions with the Casino about operating a satellite venue at a different site? It is well known that SkyCity operate a number of small casinos in New Zealand. I have visited them myself when travelling to New Zealand. In small country towns of 100,000 people they run satellite casinos. Is this possible under the agreement or the legislation that the Casino could run satellite venues? Is it possible to have more than one site under the legislation or the licence agreement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised the answer is no. It is only possible for the governor on the recommendation of the authority to redefine the boundary of the Casino premises or move them somewhere else, but, as far as I am advised, the answer to that is no.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry, minister, I didn't ask whether the authority had the opportunity to grant a licence for a new site, I asked whether it is possible, if your bill goes through in its current form, as we are changing the words from 'a different premises' to 'premises at a different site', for the Casino to run a satellite casino—still run one here, but run one at Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, etc., as they do in New Zealand.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the scheme of this is that there is one licence. There is only one licence under this act and that is for one site. There would need to be another licence for another site, and the act provides for only one licence. I think the effect of all of that is they could move potentially but they would just be picking up sticks and moving somewhere else. They couldn't multiply.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am not sure what clause 15 does. Is clause 15 the clause that allocates the entitlements to the Casino's existing 995 machines? It is not. Well, can the minister explain to me what it does?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this makes the entitlements referrable to the Casino licence. At the moment they are not tied in. They are issued under the Gaming Machines Act but not attached, as it were, to the Casino licence. This effects that attachment and also ensures that the maximum cannot exceed the maximum specified in the licensing act.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 16 deals with the term and renewal of the licence under the Casino Act. The government is inserting a new provision (2a). Section 9(2) of the Casino Act provides:

If before the end of a term for which the licence has been granted or renewed, the parties to the approved licensing agreement renegotiate the agreement, and the agreement as renegotiated is approved by the Authority, the Governor may renew the licence for a term fixed under the renegotiated agreement.

The inserted clause (2a), amending that section, provides:

Despite the above provision for approval of the renegotiated agreement by the Authority, an assurance of a kind referred to in section 16(6) is not subject to approval by the Authority.

Section 16(6) of the act provides:

The agreement may contain an assurance, on terms and conditions fixed in the agreement, that the exclusiveness of the licensee's right to operate a casino in this State will not be impugned during a period set out in the agreement.

The way I read the amendment is that if the parties to the agreement, which I assume are the government and the Casino, agree on the exclusive nature of the Casino's operation that there will be one (even though the Treasurer is running around threatening there might be two) and the government has given the Casino that assurance there will only be one operator, they don't need the agreement of the authority for that commitment. Do I have that right?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It sounded pretty close to me. I will read out what I have got here. It says that this amendment clarifies the assurance and exclusiveness of the Casino licensee's right to operate a casino for a set period, under section 16(6), and that is not subject to approval by the authority. This makes it clear that the current provisions set out in section 16(7)—that exclusivity provisions are not subject to approval of the IGA—also apply at the time of licence renewal. I am also advised that this is a technical improvement which is unlikely to change things much in any of our lifetimes because, based on the current licence, it will not have any effect until 2085.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And then they will probably send it for review.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 17 deals with the conditions of licence and amends section 10(1)(a) of the Casino Act. Section 10(1) provides:

The conditions of the licence consist of—

(a) the conditions fixed by this Act;

They are inserting 'subject to section 16(1a)'. So, the licence is subject to the conditions fixed by the act, subject to 16(1a). So, you go to 16(1)—it was great fun doing this over the weekend, I must say, minister—which provides:

There is to be an agreement (the approved licensing agreement) between the licensee and the Minister about—

(a) the operation of the casino;

I do not understand, to be honest, what you need that amendment for. I do not know what it achieves. There already has to be a licence agreement between the minister and the Casino. How can they operate outside the licence agreement? I am not sure why we need to put in the conditions fixed by the act. I just want to ask the question simply: what is the purpose of clause 17 of the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The good news is this one is easy. This amendment is consequential on the insertion of the proposed 16(1a)—there you are.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Of 16 what?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Of 16(1a) apparently, which says:

The agreement may exempt the licensee from, or modify the licensee's obligation to comply with—

(a) specified requirements of this Act or conditions fixed by this Act; or

(b) provisions of a code or requirement prescribed by the Authority...

in relation to premium customers or premium gaming areas.

So, it is directed specifically at premium customers and premium gaming areas.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry, 16(1a) of what, John? Of the current act or the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The bill. Clause 21 of the bill, I am advised. So, if you go to clause 21 of the bill, which is on the next page or the page over that, you will see that there is 16(1a) and the very last line, before you go to (1b) reads 'in relation to premium customers or premium gaming areas'.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay. I totally misread that because, when it says the insertion is 'subject to section 16(1a)', it is unclear to me whether it is 16(1a) of the bill or the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That wasted half an hour on the weekend trying to work out what that was all about.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 and 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 20 talks about the approval of designated persons. I just want to get not names but the sort of positions that the government envisages being covered by the designated persons clause at the Casino. For those who have not read the bill, they inherit certain levels of responsibility over and above normal employees in relation to the operations of the Casino.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that we are talking here about the New Zealand-based chief executive group and the local executive, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the clause that the minister confused me on a minute ago in relation to section 16. Under the current act clause 16(b) provides that the agreement must be consistent with the provisions of the act. I am assuming there is no amendment in the bill to that particular provision, to allow the agreement to be inconsistent with the act. The reason I asked the question is that section 16, which is being inserted, provides 1(a):

The agreement may exempt the licensee from or modify the licensee's obligation to comply with specific requirements of this act, or conditions fixed by this act.

I think what that means is that the parliament can sit here and debate all it wants, but if the government and the Casino come to some deal on the side the government have the power to exempt certain provisions of the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In a way the honourable member is correct about the effect of the provisions, but given the way this thing is constructed, the premium customer and the premium gaming area is a unique area within the Casino itself. The idea is that the general provisions that might have appropriate applications for the rest of the premises and for the rest of the functions of the Casino may in part not be appropriate for the premium area. The intention is, here, that there is a capacity by agreement for there to be some variation of provisions that otherwise would apply but only for that area, including, I am advised, the codes of practice which the authority does make.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT