HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 15 May 2013.)

Clause 21.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is in relation to the licensing agreement being able to exempt certain sections from the act. I think the minister was halfway through explaining why the agreement could allow measures that are specifically outside of the act. I think one of the questions asked was whether that matter was disallowable, that is, whether or not the instrument that allows the agreement between the Casino and the government to go outside the act is a disallowable instrument.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand that that is not the case. It is an agreement; it is not a disallowable instrument.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We are dealing with amendments to the Casino Act. What provisions of the Casino Act are able to be amended by the licensing agreement without the parliament's knowledge? That is essentially what this clause allows. This clause provides that, despite the act, we are going to allow the licence agreement in relation to premium gaming areas to exempt any area of the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the answer to that question is yes, but its intended operation is predominantly in respect to codes of practice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Are the codes of practice signed off by cabinet or are they simply signed off by the Independent Gambling Authority? Are we as a parliament about to divest the decision-making power as to what is in or out of an agreement that can, under this provision, not comply with the act? Is that then a matter for cabinet to sign off on or does the Independent Gambling Authority set the codes?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The authority makes the codes and then they are disallowable in the same way as a regulation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the codes are disallowable—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —but the licence agreement is not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Right. Let's split the two. We now know that the parliament can disallow a code and the codes can allow matters that are not allowed by the act. Can the licence agreement outside of the codes—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If I'm wrong, I'm confused, so let's rewind it and you explain it to me again.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The code, a code, is made under the act. It is made by the IGA promulgating the code but it is disallowable. An agreement with the licensee—in other words, an agreement with the one licensee—may exempt the licensee from or modify the licensee's obligations with respect to premium customers or premium gaming areas and I am advised that that is intended, predominantly, to affect the application of a promulgated code upon that part of the licensee's premises. This is only with respect to premium areas.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, it is not only to do with premium areas, it is also to do with premium customers, or premium gaming areas. So, there is no other power to allow the licence agreement separate from the code to exempt the licensee from any provision in the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there is very little in the act that is required to enable the licensee to provide the service it wants to for premium customers or premium customer areas. We are predominantly talking here about code requirements or regulations which might, for instance, deal with a maximum bet.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the difference between a code prescribed by the authority and a requirement prescribed by the authority? This particular (1a)(b) talks about provisions of a code prescribed by the authority, and it also talks about a requirement. What is a requirement? If it is not in a code, what is a requirement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the authority has the power to make a direction under section 48, so a requirement might be a direction in that context. The code is self-explanatory, that is the document we have been discussing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Are the directions by the authority disallowable? The way I read this clause it allows the authority to give a direction for the Casino to operate outside the terms of the act. Is that correct? Let me explain it to you, and you are legally qualified, I am not. It says:

(1a) The agreement may exempt the licensee from, or modify the licensee's obligation...

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

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

Now, we know what a code is and you just told me that a requirement is simply a direction of the authority. The code can be disallowed, so then how is a direction issued by the authority? Where is the parliamentary oversight for the authority issuing a direction outside the terms of the act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will try to answer the question, but I think it is reasonable to observe that we are moving now into a discussion about pre-existing, longstanding provisions of the act. We are not talking here about an element in the new bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes it is. It's a new amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This one is but you are talking about the requirement point, aren't you?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Which is (1b) of your amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, that in turn is referring back to provisions in the existing framework which is section 48, as I understand it, of the existing legislation. The answer to a question about if a direction were given by the authority which was ultra vires the act, would be that anybody who was the recipient of such a direction, who did not like it, could seek review and a declaration of that because it would be like any other error of law. A direction issued beyond power or without power is a challengeable decision, presumably.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Attorney, that might be right if your bill did not give the authority this specific power to issue a direction outside of the act; so, therefore, it is not ultra vires. If the bill gives the authority the power to modify the licensee's obligation to comply with the act or the provisions of a code or requirement, then clearly the authority has that power, so it would not be ultra vires.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I come back to this: as I said, I think, yesterday, the code is something of general application and many requirements that might be made might well be of general application to the licensee. I suppose an alternative might have been that there could have been a separate set of codes established for the premium area but, instead of that, the methodology has been adopted whereby the general application of codes can be modified by agreement and only in respect of premium customers or premium gaming areas—that is all.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me continue this point. If you go to clause 21 of the bill, which is dealing with section 16 of the act, clause 21(2) of the bill inserts before the word 'must' the words '(subject to subsection (1a))'. If you go to the Casino Act, section 16(3) currently says that it must be consistent with the act. In other words, the current act is specifically saying that the agreement must be consistent.

So, what your bill then does, minister, is pick up that clause and put in front of it the words 'subject to subsection (1a)'. 'Subject to subsection (1a)' is what you are amending with the new powers that say the agreement with 'the licensee from, or modify the licensee's obligation to comply with' the act.

My reading of what you are doing, whether by intent or accident, is that we are outsourcing the ability to the authority to give directions that are outside of the act. Otherwise, why do you need to amend the section that says it must be consistent with the provisions of the act? Why would you need to amend that to make it subject to subsection (1a), when subsection (1a) says:

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

(a) specified requirements of this Act...

Then it goes on to:

(b) provisions of a code or requirement—

which we now know are a direction of the authority. Those two are in the same clause, and I think if you read the clause with the amendments made, we are changing it from a clear direction that says it must comply with the act to a new variation that says the authority can actually change it outside of the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we cannot take this a lot further because I disagree with the member for Davenport's interpretation. The way I would interpret it is simply this: the existing section says that it must comply with the act. There is then an exemption in this bill under (1a), which is intended to say everything must be in compliance except if it is something that would modify the code or a direction in relation to premium customers or premium gaming areas, then you can make that modification. That is all it says, there is nothing more. It does not carry some broader import across the legislation, as I read it. That is what I am advised is the effect of it. That is parliamentary counsel's take on and that is the IGA's take on it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so that I am clear, your understanding of it is that this particular provision allows the authority to give a direction to the Casino to operate outside of the act in relation to premium customers and premium gaming areas?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; it allows an agreement to exempt the licensee from some things in relation to premium customers or premium gaming areas. Bear in mind that the agreement spoken of here is between the government and the Casino.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Directives aren't.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; but, as I understand it, the IGA has some sort of supervisory role in respect of the agreement as well. I am assured by parliamentary counsel it is intended to do nothing more than create an exception in relation to those particular topics and nothing more.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why does the Treasurer wish to delegate this power and what position do you think the Treasurer would be delegating this particular power to?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the intention would be that this would be delegated to the Commissioner of State Taxation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 23 to 26 passed.

Clause 27.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 27 deals with recognition of staff training courses. The minister, through this bill, is developing minor venues and major venues with different training requirements. Does the Casino, under section 33A, have the same training requirements as a major venue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that they are equivalent. The reason, apparently, that the word 'equivalent' and not 'identical' is being used by those who advise me is that the Casino has unique aspects, for example, table games, which mean that if exactly the same training were provided it would be deficient.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Section 10 of new clause 33A deals with 'the Minister may determine the application for review' in relation to reviews and in relation to the recognition of staff training courses. I am just interested as to who pays the costs of the review.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a no-cost jurisdiction, apparently. Each party bears its own.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Even if the minister finds in favour of the Casino? Even if the government was wrong, and then the Casino seeks a review to the minister and the minister decides the Casino is right? Even in that case the Casino is still penalised with this cost, is that right?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I guess that's right, but I am advised that it is contemplated that this would be a decision on the papers. So, the cost, if any, to the Casino would be it gathering together its argument and collecting whatever material it wished and bundling that up and sending it off. That may be an internally consumable cost or it might ask the lawyers to help it, or whatever the case may be. It is not anticipated that it would be a particularly burdensome exercise.

Clause passed.

Clauses 28 and 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 30 of the bill repeals sections 37A and 37B of the act, which deal with the approval and use of systems and equipment, the authorisation of games by the commissioner and the minimum return to players on gaming machines. What is the difference between the new clauses and the old clauses in relation to these two provisions? What actually changes?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there are two aspects to this. The first one is that there is a red tape element in the removal of some requirements so that, in effect, machines that have interstate approval do not need to go through yet another approval process. The second point is that there were provisions related to exacerbation, which I am advised were unsuccessful and served no useful purpose and have therefore been removed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 31 and 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 33 deals with insertions of new sections 40A and 40B in relation to the approval of automated table games equipment, gaming machines and games. I notice that, in paragraph (8) of that particular clause, the approvals are granted for five years and 10 years. I am just wondering why there is a time limit on the approval. Once a machine is approved, why wouldn't it remain approved, because doesn't that mean you are reinventing a job for someone having to go out and monitor whether they are replaced or are rejigged every five years? I would have thought, unless the act changes, what is the point of having a review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know much about this stuff; one of my colleagues knows a bit about this, but apparently, over time, these things become stale or antiquated, or technologically inadequate for whatever the contemporary management system might be—whether that be a responsible gambling system, or whether it be some form of tabulation of whatever is going on. This is intended to make sure that there is some active addressing of that issue.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, surely the venues will change their machines as they can afford to keep up with modern market practice to attract more revenue, so the government does not need to worry about that. Unless the parliament changes the requirement in relation to messaging and technology the parliament requires, then on what other basis would the authority wish to intervene to review a machine?

For instance; through this legislation, we are forcing onto the operators certain technology in relation to precommitment, electronic messaging, and those issues. So, parliament is deciding there is a technological reason why the machines must change. But, other than that, on what basis do we need a review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised of a couple of things. First of all, I make the observation that it is my understanding, in respect of all of these provisions that deal with the Casino, that the Casino is content with them.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, and I do also observe that, in opening remarks, the member for Davenport has indicated that the opposition has general support for the matters relating to the Casino, at least. I just make that point, particularly in this context, because I am advised that the machines, particularly those that might be required to comply with responsible gambling technologies—I am told there is a period of five years or so between a machine being the latest thing and a machine being old hat.

I take the honourable member's point that, in all probability, this may not be something that burdens anybody too much because they might be turning them over more quickly. If they do, good, but if they don't, then this is the operative provision. I have been provided with some information which I am happy to share with the honourable member.

This information is about clubs and hotels; it is not the same sample, but it is indicative, perhaps. In relation to the age profile of gaming machines, it says here that in South Australia as a whole—so, this is not confined to the Casino—the largest single number of machines presently in the marketplace were manufactured in 2002, followed by 2003, followed by 2001, followed by 2000, followed by 2007, and so on. So, it would seem from this information that the machines are not exactly cutting-edge.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Walk me through this process: the Casino goes out and buys the machine as per this legislation, with all the messaging, precommitment, and everything required under the legislation, and they are approved for five years. So, in five years' time—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Machines are 10, gaming is five.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's right; gaming is five, tables are 10.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, gaming machines are 10, and tables are 10. Roll forward to five or 10 years: assuming the gaming machine or the table complies with the act, what role does the authority have in reviewing it? What does the authority then do at that point?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand that it is the commissioner and not the authority that does the choosing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does the commissioner do it though?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am coming to that. The commissioner will then say either that the commissioner believes that the equipment is satisfactory for what are the then current requirements or that it is not. If it is not, then there would presumably be no renewal. If they are okay, then the commissioner is able to renew.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What power does the commissioner have to force the Casino to replace this machine if the equipment—whether it be a table, a game or a gaming machine—is meeting the requirements of the act? Is there any power the commissioner has to force the Casino to replace the machines at that point if they are meeting the requirements of the act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that an additional requirement is approval. Approval as set out here is an additional requirement and without that, even if the machine is otherwise compliant, it cannot be used.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My point is, at the end of the approval—the five or 10 years—if the machine, having been approved, meets all the requirements of the act, can the commissioner force the Casino to still change the machine for some other reason, if it is meeting all the requirements of the act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that all the things we are talking about, such as communications on the machine and warning signs that come up, for example, are not in legislation, they are administrative requirements. I think the other answer is that it may be that this does not enable the commissioner to direct the licensee to purchase a new machine or whatever, but it does enable the commissioner to say that the commissioner will not continue to approve a machine that is not compliant.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think we have got to the point where I am safe to say then that the commissioner has that power at any point under the codes. If the commissioner walks in after six months and finds a machine that is not putting up the message like it should, the commissioner can issue an instruction then. So, there is a rolling review. My point is that I think this is nothing more than a job creation scheme, because the commissioner can go in any day they want and review any machine they want and find that it is not performing on the messaging or whatever.

I think this is little more than a job creation scheme, because it gives someone a legislative backing to go and perform a function they should be doing any time they want during that five-year period anyway. I have made my point and I will go on to what is clause 33, dealing with new section 40B(3), which allows the authority to withdraw the recognition before the end of the agreed period by notice in the Gazette if it thinks fit. Is there some criteria around the power to withdraw authority?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Given that the authority can withdraw recognition any time, which this clause says, on what basis do we need a review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand what the honourable member is saying but I cannot add much to the conversation.

Clause passed.

Clause 34.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This deals with new section 41(3) relating to offences within the Casino proper.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is an interesting question. I assume it is in the gaming area as distinct from the Casino that these offences apply. It provides:

A person who uses a computer, calculator or other device for the purpose of projecting the outcome of an authorised game being played in a gaming area is guilty of an offence.

So, if I pick up my phone and try and calculate what I might win—the projected outcome of the bet—I am committing an offence. Is that right?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this is intended to capture card counting which, I understand from the various films I have seen, is frowned upon by the purveyors of casinos.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How many of those used a calculator?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. I know Rain Man didn't.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does it go broader, and does it capture people using their phones to calculate the outcome of a bet? Is it broad enough? Is it so worded that it is broad enough to capture people using calculators on their phones to calculate the outcome of a bet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The unlikely event of somebody being pinched for trying to work out on their phone what the outcome of a particular bet might be, I guess, is a question for the judge, but it is clearly not what is intended.

Clause passed.

Clause 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: These are new provisions in relation to Division 4A—Codes of Practice. New clause 41A(2)(c) provides that the licensee is required:

...to have a program for intervention in problem gambling designed to promote—

(i) identification of persons engaging in problem gambling, including through observation of attendance patterns...

I want to know at what point someone is starting to be observed in relation to this clause. At what point does Iain Evans become a problem gambler and my attendance recorded by some staff member when I am out having an enjoyable time at the Casino in my own private time? At what point am I observed and recorded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this is catching up with the Gaming Machines Act so that some of the programs that are contemplated for the management of potential problem gambling people which are reflected in the Gaming Machines Act are also capable of being reflected in the Casino.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Excellent. Then if it already exists, someone should be able to tell me at what point does Iain Evans become a problem gambler and start getting observed; and am I advised of that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that detail will not be prescribed in the code. It will be a matter for the licensee.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, so let me get this crystal clear. If the licensee does not think I am a problem gambler, they have no obligation under this provision under the codes (because this deals with the codes). This matter only comes into play if the venue decides—in this case, the Casino—that I am a problem gambler and only at that point do these provisions come into play. If it is up to the venue, then I am assuming that that is how it works.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the IGA would have a role in this sense, that the provision of the program would be a matter for the licensee or the venue, as the case might be. That said, the program cannot say just any old thing. The authority does not want to go around imposing their particular program on venues. It is not like a one size fits all program is being imposed by the authority, but the authority is in a position to say to a venue, 'Your program is not adequate, it doesn't comply, it doesn't meet the requirements, it doesn't adequately protect people'—or whatever the case might be—'Go away and do it again. include this bit, include that bit.'

I have just been provided here with some material which is in the form of a draft code of practice which would potentially be applying to the Casino. This draft document is in conversation stage presently. I will just quote from this, which is only a draft document:

1. The Casino licensee must maintain a host responsibility program.

So the word 'program'.

2. For the purposes of clause 1, a host responsibility program must meet the following minimum standards.

(1) There must be at least one program employee available to attend in the gambling area whenever the Casino is operating.

(2) The Casino licensee provides program employees with free and unrestricted access to the licensee's premises, other staff and patrons at all times the Casino is open for business.

(3) The Casino licensee must undertake to its staff that they will in no way be subject to prejudice or unfavourable treatment due to making reports of problem gambling behaviour or suspected problem gambling behaviour; and the Casino licensee consents to and facilitates comprehensive annual and more frequent periodic reporting to the authority by the program staff of their activities. The terms of reference for the program are notified to the authority.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the person being observed, their behaviour is being recorded by persons unknown, their statements—which I assume are oral statements, not financial statements—under this new system, does it record how much Iain Evans bets? I think it does. It is unclear to me whether the statements of the gambler in this provision refer to statements I make to the staff member, so there is a history of what I say recorded somewhere in the Casino, unbeknownst to me, or whether it is financial statements that the Casino are meant to hand over—I am not sure. Maybe you can confirm for me whether, under this new voluntary precommitment system, the amount people bet is recorded and kept.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the loyalty scheme is the one that records their activity and that is apparently covered by the normal privacy principles.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, but as a problem gambler I get special treatment. I am identified, observed, my attendance is ticked off, and my statements are taken. So am I advised that that is happening to me? Am I advised that I am a problem gambler by the venue? Do they have to advise me, or does Iain Evans find out down the track that I have been observed for five years because they think I am a problem gambler?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is not dealt with in the legislation; it is a matter for the operator.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In relation to paragraph (f), what other matters might the authority be thinking of impinging on in relation to the codes? They can make a code on anything they want under (f).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Apparently, that is a reflection of the current provisions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Good. Maybe the minister can advise me what matters have already been covered under that provision that are not listed in the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been advised that, perhaps, something in the nature of surveillance of car parks might fit into that category. It may be of assistance—probably between the houses anyway—I am advised that I can provide the honourable member with a draft copy of the codes of practice that would be applying. That might be of some use.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Very exciting.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That will give me something else to read this Sunday. I would appreciate that, minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 38 deals with gambling on credit being prohibited. Does the bill allow that provision to be exempted for premium gamblers in the premium gambling area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there is already a provision of credit since 2001 by way of a person presenting a cheque being provided with chips and then receiving an undertaking that the cheque would not be presented until five days have passed. But in answer to your particular question about whether credit is prohibited, again, it is a matter for interpretation but I would assume on my reading of clause 21, 'specified requirements of this act or conditions fixed by this act' should be able to be modified in there, I would assume.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so I understand what the minister is telling me, if you were a premium gambler or someone in the premium gambling area, it is possible for the rules to be changed to allow you to bet on credit there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That would be my reading of the legislation, yes. I just make the point that I understand the authority would need to agree to that, I am advised.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The authority would have to agree to the premium gaming area or the premium gamblers as a group being able to bet on credit and then the Casino will have to decide individually who they want to extend credit to, but the authority would not be signing off on the individuals, I would think.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. Currently does the Casino, in its premium area, have that exemption?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the Casino has a general ability to provide chips in exchange for a cheque in the manner I described before, which is provision of credit.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But if you read the section of the act, there is a whole explanation of credit as to what they are not allowed to do. Can they run an account?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the only exemption that has been given so far is the one I have just described.

Clause passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move

Page 23, lines 13 to 20 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(3) and (4)]—Delete subsections (3) and (4)

Clause 39 deals with ATMs and prohibition of ATMs. I declare to the house that I own four ATMs but none of them are near the Casino complex and none of them are in South Australian licensed premises—just for clarity. This amendment is a test in relation to uniforming the dates between federal and state legislation relating to pre-commitment on a whole range of other dates.

I am not going to speak at length on it, other than to say the opposition thinks it is an extra cost to the businesses to have two sets of rules overseeing the one concept. We think there should be a uniform date starting. The federal laws are going to override us anyway in due course. We think there is sense in uniforming the dates with the federal legislation and that is what this amendment essentially seeks to do. I understand the government is opposing it but we will deal with it anyway.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]


The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the honourable member's point in moving this amendment; I understand what he is saying. My only reply is that we have negotiated with the parties, as I have explained several times, a comprehensive package, which included accelerated application of some of these reforms and that is the consensus position we have arrived at so we will maintain our existing position.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 39 inserts a new provision 42C which prevents the Casino from allowing (permitting) gambling in the Casino premises other than in a gaming area. If I am having a drink at the bar and I pick up my phone and do a sports bet within the Casino premises, under this provision I am technically breaking the law, or the Casino is because I am betting inside the Casino precinct. So, I want to confirm that that is not the intention, because I am not sure how you are going to stop anyone from using their phone technology to place bets from within the Casino.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that does not seek to address that point. What it does seek to address is gambling with the licensee.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It does not say that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I am advised that is what it means.

Clause passed.

Clauses 40 and 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 42 deals with the licensee's power to bar. Section 44(3) has a footnote, which states:

In relation to barring on the ground that a person is placing his or her own welfare, or the welfare of dependants, at risk through gambling—see Part 4 of the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995.

Can you explain to me the difference between the two systems of barring?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the purpose of that is that welfare barring is being consolidated within that single act, and it will become the one-stop shop for barring generally. The purpose there is to direct attention to that provision, which will become the functional provision for many purposes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 43 to 46 passed.

Clause 47.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 47 deals with the duty of the auditor. There is a new provision dealing with subclause (3) which allows the authority to:

...on the written request of the Minister, the Treasurer or the Commissioner, divulge information obtained under this section to the Minister, the Treasurer or the Commissioner...

I am just wondering why it needs to be in writing. Surely, if I am sitting at a briefing with authority as minister and I seek information, I do not need to write.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is an audit trail to protect the confidentiality of material obtained by the auditor.

Clause passed.

Clauses 48 to 51 passed.

Clause 52.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This one interests me. I think this gives the power to the minister to give directions to the authority. Is this a provision in the current act or is this a new power the minister is giving himself?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised—it's very interesting, but anyway.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I thought it was when I read it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. You will continue to be interested, I suspect. The government stated its policy position in May 2011 that it supported implementation or precommitment in a way that is voluntary for the customer with mandatory budget reminder messaging to customers and so forth. The bill gives effect to that policy.

The amendment that the honourable member has drawn our attention to gives the government a reserve power to direct the IGA if, at any stage, it proposes to change the regulatory regime in a way that requires the Casino, for example, to limit access to gaming machines or automated tables only to those people who have precommitted, in other words, mandatory precommitment.

So in the event that the authority decided to, for whatever reason, advance the policy agenda beyond voluntary precommitment into mandated commitment, then this section would, apparently, authorise the minister to say to the authority that 'I, the minister,' or They, the minister, do not approve of that.'

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is a similar provision going to exist for clubs and pubs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I get back to the honourable member on that? They are looking presently. I presently do not know the answer to that. It would seem sensible that if it is going to be in one place it should be in others, but I do not know.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The authority is, after all, an officer of the crown. On what basis do we need a law that the officer, the public servant, cannot operate outside of government policy?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is the case that the authority is an independent authority. I do not think we can do much more than reflect on this and note it is there.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the direction only applies to a precommitment system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In answer to the honourable member's other question, section 109 does reflect the same sort of thing in respect of the other venues.

Clause passed.

Clauses 53 to 59 passed.

Clause 60.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister will note that we are outside of the Casino Act now; we are onto the Gaming Machines Act; and would you believe my first question is about the Casino Act. Clause 61 deals with section 4 of the Gaming Machines Act. Section 4 provides:

Except specifically provided by this Act or the Casino Act...this Act does not apply to or in relation to a gaming machine operated in the casino premises.

Are there any differences in the way they operate? I assume the same precommitment scheme is going to operate the same technology, the same supervision.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is my understanding. The explanation I have here is that the regulation of the gaming machines operated by the Casino is undertaken under the Casino Act. There are, however, some provisions of the Gaming Machines Act that also apply to the Adelaide Casino. Primarily this relates to gaming machine entitlements and the approved trading system.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In relation to the definitions of 'major gaming venue' and 'minor gaming venue'—the above 20, the below 20—did the government do any economic modelling on the impact of the government's legislation on those venues? In other words, did the government model, that if we introduce a set of rules for venues with 20 machines and less and another set of rules for machines 21 machines and more, what was the extra cost impact, and could they actually survive? Has any of that modelling been done?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not to my knowledge or of those who advise me.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Was there any modelling done from a regional impact statement point of view? The government previously had a policy of doing regional impact statements on all legislation. Was there a regional impact test done on this particular model, of having major venue, minor venue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to give the same answer, although, I am advised that the Responsible Gambling Working Party did seek input from regional places, but in terms of modelling, which is the specific question, the answer is no, as far as I know.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Responsible Gambling Working Party, when they sought that input, were specifically asking the question about what would happen if the government introduced a model of having a minor venue be 20 or less and a major venue 21 or more?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not believe that is the case.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, would it be fair for me to say, minister, that there has been no economic modelling on this model of having a minor venue defined as 20 or less and a major venue 21 or more?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So far as I am advised and so far as I am aware, that is the case.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Then, on what basis does the government believe it will work, and on what basis is the government progressing this matter if it is unsure and has done no work on the impact of those two sectors?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This brings us back to the earlier discussion, which I will not go to great lengths on. The policy reasons for going for major and minor venues I have already covered off and I do not want to repeat myself with that—there are many of them. I do not believe it would be either useful or probably possible, for that matter, to conduct economic modelling across whole sectors for reasons that have probably been quite well touched on by some of the speakers in opposition.

For example, how far down do you crack the subsets of people in order to model the implications of this? Do you just model between big venues and small venues or do you add the complexity that it is big venues divided by clubs and pubs and small venues divided by clubs and pubs, or do you then add a further complexity—metropolitan and non-metropolitan—and so on?

It gets to the point where, in reality, because so many venues have different localities, customer bases and contexts, unless you start going down to the individual venue level or very fine-grain analysis, what you are going to get is some very high level speculation, which would include, for instance, a whole bunch of very large and probably quite well-financed establishments in the same catchment group for the purposes of modelling as other quite different venues.

I understand the question. I understand the use that the honourable member wishes to make of the question and the answer, but I do say that the likelihood of any such modelling work to have been particularly informative, I think, is very small.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is there any reason why the government didn't speak to the SANFL or any SANFL club regarding these matters?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'these matters'. I have met with the—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was not primarily involved in a lot of the consultation phase, but it is my understanding that there were representatives of licensed clubs involved in those conversations. What they did by way of conveying whatever it was that they discussed to their constituent bodies, I do not know. A constant complexity about consultation (so-called) that I have discovered is that one consults with peak bodies in the expectation that consultation with that body represents consultation. One receives feedback from that body and incorporates that feedback into development of policy and development of legislation and then the legislation is introduced.

Elements that sit under the representative body then become highly animated about the lack of consultation where, in fact, if there is a failure of consultation, the failure is not between the state government and the peak body: it is between the peak body and its constituent elements. Whether that peak body is local government complaining about the fact that they do not know about a DPA or whoever it might be, it is a problem which is encountered all the time.

I am sure the honourable member knows this very well: there are some peak bodies you talk to and you have feedback that you can actually rely upon because, if that peak body says yes, they mean yes, and they deliver. There are other peak bodies that will say yes today and no tomorrow, and yes the day after that, and so forth.

There are other peak bodies that say, 'Oh yes, oh yes,' but in the end, they do not speak for anybody except the chief executive and whoever else is in the room with you, because their constituent elements do not take any notice of them or do not regard them as being delegated to have these conversations. It is a complicated business. If you want to know whether I personally sat down with the SANFL and discussed this, the answer to that is no.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Did the government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know who the various people involved in this program spoke to in detail; I cannot say for certain. One of my staff members was involved in the matter and public servants were involved in the matter. Whether they got down to the level of talking to particular football clubs or the SANFL, I do not know, but I am informed that they did definitely speak to the club sector.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Isn't it true that when the Hotels Association and Clubs SA were consulted, they were given an embargoed copy of the material and were not able to consult with their membership until very close to the date of the introduction to the bill—I understand only a couple of days out from the bill—and, if so, how did the minister expect to get feedback from the membership of those organisations if the information those organisations were provided with was embargoed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I understand the question; it is a fair enough question. I know I am not telling the member for Davenport anything he does not already know very well, but the more people you bring into the consultation about matters, the more likely it is that the consultation will no longer continue to occur in private or in a context where people are actually observing the Chatham House Rule.

If this legislation had been released at a number of points in time until quite recently, (1) it would have contained elements which were not ultimately within the final bill, because there were continuing discussions between all the parties which continued to make amendments, and (2) there were things in here of sensitivity for a number of reasons (let us say, for example, the Casino), where it would have been unhelpful for an early generation of a draft bill to find itself leaked in whole or in part, possibly with malice and possibly without, into the public domain.

It is not weird or unusual for governments to consult with peak bodies about a whole bunch of things on a confidential basis. There is a tension between consulting with the organisation in the field, which is obviously desirable to do, and losing the capacity to speak frankly and off the record and without any party in the room being compromised.

At all times we were working on the basis that we were trying to assemble here a package that everybody could live with, and there were changes made as a result of people around the table saying, 'Well, we've got a problem about this or a problem about something else,' and that continued to happen. When there are a dozen people perhaps around the table that is possible, but when there are 300 people around the table it is not. I know in a perfect world perhaps we would have locked everybody in the room for a couple of weeks and worked it all out, but that is just not possible.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: After doing whatever consultation was undertaken, why were the recommendations of the Responsible Gambling Working Party rejected?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think they were rejected. I do not agree with you saying that first of all they were rejected; they were very useful. The working party's recommendations were exactly that, recommendations. I guess the honourable member is referring in particular to the decision to go to 60 machines, which was not part of their recommendation, as he said before. I have already explained that it was in fact the welfare sector that put forward that proposition, which was picked up, so it was just part of the process.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But it is true, isn't it, minister, that the welfare sector as part of the Responsible Gambling Working Party put that argument to the Responsible Gambling Working Party, there were compromises in the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommendations in that not everyone got what they wanted, and the Responsible Gambling Working Party recommendations were unanimously supported. Am I to understand that, having been through that process, the government then turned its back on the rest of the Responsible Gambling Working Party and renegotiated with the welfare sector to give them what they wanted?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not entirely embrace the 'turned its back on' terminology, but they were going for a bunch of recommendations. Fair enough, that is one context. This context is the introduction of legislation doing a variety of things, including management of the Casino and so forth. Yes, the negotiations continued and the bill represents where they wound up.

Clause passed.

Clauses 61 to 66 passed.

Clause 67.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 67 is the second topic of my amendments, in that this is the provision that allows venues to go to more than 40 machines. As I mentioned in my second reading contribution, the Liberal Party do not support this. We do not support this because there has been no evidence given to the contrary. In fact, I think the government's response to our argument has simply been to confirm exactly what is going to happen, and that is that what this will do is centralise the poker machine numbers and therefore poker machine revenue into Coles, Woolworths and the big end of town of the hotel industry. It will also by definition transfer low value, low profit machines, primarily in regional areas or higher socioeconomic areas, into high profit, high turnover areas, which on all the evidence for anyone who has followed gaming machines tends to be the low socioeconomic areas.

What this government is doing is designing a system to put more machines into lower socioeconomic areas, and the entities that are going to own them are going to be Coles, Woolworths and a few fairly well-off publicans who are cashed up and ready to go in this particular matter. The government's justification for this is that they are going to have a voluntary precommitment system where someone can set an unlimited betting regime. They can re-sign up to that if they exceed that limit, and if they want to stay and gamble, the venue would have to instigate a barring order, essentially, to kick them out. If they want to stay there and keep gambling they can. The Liberal Party does not think that it is worth the pain that this measure is going to deliver to the smaller clubs and pubs. We do not see the outcome that the community is going to get.

Why would a Labor government, of all governments, want to design a system that is going to put more poker machines closer to lower socioeconomic areas? Because that is where the poker machines make their big money—no-one is going to dispute that. If you have a look at the evidence from between 2004 and 2013 when the parliament decided we were going to make all the hotels go down to 32 and have the trading system, get out the postcodes and see where the gaming machines left, and where they ended up. Have a look where they ended up. The government argues that by doing this, the 0.4 per cent of problem gamblers will be able to have a voluntary precommitment system attached to them. The other 99.6 per cent, in lower socioeconomic areas—because that is where they will end up, the market will dictate that—will have greater access and even longer access because the minor venues under this provision are lucky, they get to shut between 2am and 10am.

The minor venues have to close but the really big pokie parlours that are going to be closer to the lower socioeconomic areas, in my view over time—guess what?—they can still stay open. When they close for their six hours, which might be two lots of three hours, the one down the road can still remain open. The two venues can have a chat and say, 'Well, you close between 12 and 3, and we'll open between 3 and 6, and the gamblers can just shoot down the road if they want to.' I say to the government that I do not think, on balance, that the social outcome you are going to get out of this is worth the pain to the small pubs, the clubs and to those communities where the 60 machine venues are going to end up. We are not convinced, and we are going to oppose this both in this house and in the other chamber.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the honourable member's points and I respect them. I guess it is a weighing-up exercise. There is not too much black and white in all of this. There are lots of shades of grey. I think what the honourable member says is fine; I just happen to disagree. The only little comment I would make about the honourable member's remarks is that the observation about the impact on lower socioeconomic areas is, perhaps, not an invalid observation, but it is moderately ironic that the honourable member and some of his colleagues would appear to be less perturbed about those same people living in lower socioeconomic areas playing machines if the owner of the machine was a club. They would be less concerned about it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Because I know from things that have been said in here that people want the clubs to have more venues. They want more venues for clubs; that has been a very strong theme coming out. The other point is that the social effects test, by the way, continues. I think there is some counterbalance to the idea of there being new intrusions into areas without the community having an opportunity to be heard. I am not in any way ridiculing the honourable member's point of view; I just happen to disagree with it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Given that the social effects test applies, has Treasury modelled the impact of the bill in an unamended form and, when it modelled it, did it model it on all of the venues going to 60, or did it model it with the social effects test knocking them out and remaining at 40? How did Treasury model it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have no instructions on that. I certainly did not do any modelling.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Has Treasury modelled it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not to my knowledge.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Do the advisers know? Does anyone know whether Treasury has modelled this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there may have been modelling at some level in respect of potential revenue implications. I do not have that material. That is the extent that I am able to assist you with that question.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: To speed the process up, minister, will the minister undertake to brief the opposition on the Treasury modelling in between houses?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Inasmuch as I can give that undertaking. I am not the Treasurer, obviously, but I will ask that you be provided with a briefing. I am happy to ask for that to happen member for Davenport.

The CHAIR: Would you like to move that Amendment No. 2 standing in your name?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 36, lines 28 to 37 [clause 67(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (14)
Brock, G.G. Evans, I.F. (teller) Gardner, J.A.W.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S. Redmond, I.M.
Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.
NOES (24)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Breuer, L.R. Caica, P.
Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F.
Odenwalder, L.K. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M.
Rau, J.R. (teller) Sibbons, A.J. Snelling, J.J.
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
PAIRS (2)
Marshall, S.S. Piccolo, A.

Majority of 10 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.


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


Clause 68.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am just wondering what is meant by 'have regard to the scale of the proposed gaming operations' in clause 68, the social effects test?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not hear the question.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is meant by 'have regard to the scale of the proposed gaming operations' with regard to the social effects tests?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I gather it is intended to include a comparison between the magnitude of the gaming operations and other things such as the provision of food, the provision of dining opportunities, or whatever.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, when does the social effects test kick in? If I have 32 machines and I want to increase it by one do I need to do a social effects test? At what point does the social effects test kick in?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Where there is a new licence application or where the commissioner requires there will be a social effects inquiry.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If it is an existing premises that buys extra entitlements does the social effects test kick in?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is at the discretion of the commissioner and would be, presumably, based on whether the increase was sufficient to concern the commissioner.

Clause passed.

Clause 69 passed.

Clause 70.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 70 brings in a provision that closes all minor venues between 2am and 10am. Was there any modelling done on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Did the government ask any venue what the impact might be? Did it speak to any venue that is currently under 20 about what the impact might be? Has Treasury done any modelling on what the impact might be on closing a venue between 2am and 10am?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have already explained the way the consultation went. Consultation did not occur with individual venues. As I understand it, the honourable member, in briefings, has been provided with information relating to whatever modelling has been done.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anyway, that is my answer to that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On what basis does the government think that a venue with less than 20 should close between 2am and 10am, but a venue with 60 should be able to open the longer hours?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is only the gaming bit of the venue that is closed between 2am and 10am, for a start. Other activities are governed by other permission. The second thing is that under this scheme the minor venue is a less secure venue from the perspective of potential risk to a problem gambler than the major venue is. So, the major venue is a safer place in the context of the safety net provisions that are embedded in all of this and, therefore, I guess between 2am and 10am, if you are still out drinking, or whatever, at that time of the day and in a place with gaming machines, one would hope you are at a place where you are going to have a bit of an eye kept on you.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I make the point that the opposition are still consulting on these matters, so we may well have more to say about that particular clause in another place.

Clause passed.

Clause 71 passed.

Clause 72.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the provision that allows the Casino to have 995 entitlements gifted to it. The opposition is opposed to this particular provision and will be seeking to defeat it here and in another place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Noted.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In clause 72, there is a provision in subsection (2)(a) that says the approved licensing agreement under the Casino Act 'may specify targets relating to the obtaining of gaming machine entitlements'. What does that mean? Does that mean the government is going to set targets and certain dates for the Casino?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised, yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does the Casino have to agree to the dates or can the government simply mandate the targets?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an agreement.

Clause passed.

Clauses 73 to 78 passed.

Clause 79.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 79 deals with approval of gaming machines and games and, under section 40(4) has a provision in paragraph (a) that:

does not allow the expenditure, or part of the expenditure, on the game when played on a particular gaming machine to accumulate with the expenditure, or part of the expenditure, on a game played on any other gaming machine;

Is that to prevent link jackpots or something? Is that currently the provision just reworded, or is this a new restriction coming into the system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is current.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So why do we need to have a new provision? What is different then? There must be some difference, otherwise you would not have a new provision. Can someone explain to me the difference?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In legislation like this, many provisions often turn up by reason of parliamentary counsel having the view that they are appropriate or necessary. I am just presently seeking to ascertain whether this is, in fact, one of them. While they are doing that though, unless we are proposing to oppose this, can we move on and I am happy to come back to it?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, we can do that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an offence to have a linked jackpot now. This is just tidying it up and saying you cannot even get an approval for one. Technically, at the moment you could approve a machine that had a linked jackpot, but it would be an offence to allow it to happen. So the approvals are not in keeping with the offences; this is lining that up.

Clause passed.

Clauses 80 to 86 passed.

Clause 87.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 87 relates to offences relating to management with positions of authority. Under this provision:

A licensee must ensure that a gaming manager is present on the licensed premises at all times when gaming operations are conducted on the premises.

I am just wondering why that is not worded in the terms of 'the licensee must use their best endeavours', because the licensee may well instruct the gaming manager to be there while it is open. The gaming manager may well, unbeknown to the licensee, do a whole range of things and leave and therefore expose the licensee. I would have thought that a licensee must use their best endeavours to have a gaming manager there, and if the gaming manager breaks that rule the gaming manager inherits the fine, not the licensee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that as an observation. I understand what the honourable member is saying. If between the houses I can get any really good particular reason why that formulation has been chosen, I will advise.

Clause passed.

Clauses 88 to 91 passed.

Clause 92.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is just a drafting issue. I cannot work out why they are inserting 51AA before 51A. I am wondering whether these is an error in regard to that particular provision. I would have thought it would have been 'insert 51A' and then it would have gone 51AA.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the standard procedure is that if you have to insert something between 51 and 51A you call it 51AA and you stick it in between them.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As you do.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As you do.

Clause passed.

Clauses 93 to 96 passed.

Clause 97.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the issue of prohibition of coin machines in minor venues. Currently, someone gambling can go over and, I assume, exchange for coins. They are now going to be banned. How does that now work? Is it all going to be by card?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It would be face-to-face cashier, the object of the exercise being that it is less likely for the problem person to feel concerned about repeatedly going to a machine than repeatedly fronting up to a person who might actually say, 'Are you okay?' or, 'You again.'

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So this only applies to minor venues, as I understand it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay; so let me get this right. The government is going through all this pain in this legislation to introduce a precommitment system so a staff member intervenes when you have reached your gambling limit, because the government is of the view that by having that intervention the gambler may decide to leave. So then, for the major venues, where most of the machines are going to be, they are going to allow coin machines, which do not require a staff intervention, and in the minor venues they are going to enforce a staff intervention. Why the inconsistency in policy? If staff intervention is all about reducing gambling, why is the minor venue being treated differently to the major venue?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is that, in the major venues, the staff intervention or interaction is going to be generated by reason of the electronic system that's there, from the warning on the machine and the fact that there will be staff alerted to the fact that this person has got a problem. In the minor venue, where that technology is not necessarily present, the only way that you can actually make it difficult for a problem gambler not to engage with a staff member is to say that you can only get cash from a person.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But, surely if the government is about trying to reduce problem gambling, any staff intervention is better than no staff intervention, so surely an extra staff intervention is better than having one less staff intervention. There seems to be a big inconsistency and, again, I assume the impact on the small clubs and pubs wasn't modelled.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, and I understand the perspective.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So then why can't minor venues have loyalty programs? Section 53AC—prohibition on customer loyalty programs in minor gaming venues. Why can't they do that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have just heard the most eloquent explanation of this, and I actually really like it: it is the difference between hobby gaming and serious gaming.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Right, so let me get that crystal clear. The serious gamblers, who are just a step below the problem gamblers—and some of them are problem gamblers, I hear in interjection. So, they can have a loyalty program to encourage them to gamble more, but those old hobby gamblers, the ones who don't do it that regularly, can't have a loyalty program because?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we need to look at it from this point of view. The loyalty program in the future will be accompanied by a card. The card gives quite a lot of information and records information about the owner and operator of the card. So, the loyalty program is actually the admission to supervision, if you like, of that person. That is why the major venues are proposed to have those. When you are dealing with the minor venue, which, bear in mind, has less safety wrapped around it in terms of regulated anti-problem gambling things, the concept is that the smaller venue is more likely to be something which has the machines as an ancillary activity. It is not the primary activity of the venue.

For instance, you might have a country hotel, maybe near a caravan park or something, and people come and go in the holiday season. People come in and they might have a couple of drinks, a couple of bets on the machine, then go away and never go there again ever. Or it might be a small pub that has passing trade or even regular trade, for that matter. We are talking about relatively small venues where the focal point of the venue is not gaming.

The bigger venues are obviously going to be places where gaming is a substantial—if not the most substantial—part of their business. You should not see the loyalty cards as less control; they are actually more control.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On what basis can't the minor venues have a loyalty card that is not the same card as the major venues?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It encourages people to continue to go their and gamble rather than go somewhere else, and they are continuing to gamble in a venue that has less safety attached to it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So it discourages people to go to the little venues—I am glad we have got that on the record—and to 'go somewhere else'. In other words, it is a direct incentive to go to the bigger venues.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is a discourage—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Using a card or a loyalty program in a place with low-grade supervision of potential problem gamblers is more dangerous than using a loyalty card in a place that has high-grade security for problem gamblers. All we are saying here is: if you have low-grade security for problem gamblers, it is more dangerous for you to be having people using these cards; therefore, that will not continue. That is all it is saying.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I assume the loyalty card prohibition only relates to gambling?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 98 to 107 passed.

Clause 108.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why is the government seeking to change the date of payment under this provision from 'in equal monthly instalments' to 'whenever the Treasurer wants'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised the answer to that is that the amendment provides the flexibility so that cashflows into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund can match projected cashflows out of the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. It provides flexibility so that cashflows into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund can match projected flows out of the rehabilitation fund—that is what I am advised.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Do I understand this correctly: the government is going to give the Treasurer a discretion to vary the requirements when the businesses pay their gaming revenue? What is the payment we are referring to under this particular clause? The payment is from whom to whom?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The payment is from the Consolidated Account into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund.

Clause passed.

Clauses 109 to 111 passed.

Clause 112.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is clause 112 the government's response to the West Adelaide-Munno Para circumstance?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that all this is intended to achieve is to minimise red tape. It is designed to eliminate the need to involve a gaming machine dealer where the gaming machine is transferred from one venue to another at no cost, and the venue giving the gaming machine and the venue receiving the gaming machine have the same or related licences. Apparently at the moment there is some peculiar requirement that the machine be disposed of or something. This eliminates that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the minister explain to me the meaning or purpose of clause 112(3) of the bill, which inserts a new subsection (4) in the act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is basically to protect the choice of the venues to make their own decisions, if they would prefer to have a greater focus on gaming or not. If a licensee wishes to become a minor venue a landlord will be restricted from making requirements of licensees to the contrary. Landlords will not be forced to sell their surplus entitlements; that is, they will be able to retain gaming machine entitlements above 20 machines operating from minor venues, but they will not be able to compel the licensee to operate more than 20 machines if the licensee wishes to be a minor venue.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is that provision retrospective? Will it apply to all existing leases or is it only for leases signed after the proclamation of that clause comes into effect?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think from a practical point of view it would necessarily be prospective, because presently there is no distinction between major and minor venues, but the provision is a general statement that a discrimination of that kind—I think that my first comment is really the answer because there is no major or minor gaming yet, so it is inconceivable that a lease would be framed in such a way as to be dependent on that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But it is possible that there are leases out there which say that the tenant must operate 25 machines without using the words major or minor and which, by that clause, dictate they become major by definition, otherwise they breach their lease. I am seeking clarification from the government: is this clause going to apply to leases not yet signed, or is it the government's intention that it apply to all existing leases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is an interesting point. It possibly would be the sort of thing that one might wind up arguing in court, but the general proposition is that substantive changes in the law do not become retrospective unless there is an express intention to make them so. So, in the unlikely event that there was a licensee presently in that position, my expectation would be that this would not apply, but I think that I would require a little bit of research to be more confident about that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does the minister know whether the authority has a view on it and, if so, what is the view?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I actually feel a lot better now because my off-the-cuff opinion appears to have been confirmed by parliamentary counsel. So the answer is yes. In the hypothetical instance you've formulated, the answer to that would be, it works from whenever it is passed. So if the lease is already there, it does not matter, it will affect it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, the government's intention is that it be applied to all existing leases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have just answered that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will take that as a yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 113 and 114 passed.

Clause 115.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In my copy of the Gaming Machines Act there is no clause 85(3a) to delete—this is vicarious liability.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is in the Statutes Amendment (Directors' Liability) Bill, which apparently has just passed the other place, so it has already happened.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, there is a bill somewhere else that has been passed that inserts a new clause 85(3a), and what this bill does is delete that clause, because we did not like it, because we just passed it, and now we are inserting this one. Okay. I looked high and low over the weekend and I could not find it, but now I understand.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You can have a good clause and an even better one.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What was it—'I did but see her passing by'. Okay. What is intended to be in the regulations regarding criminal liability, which is the power we are giving the minister in this clause?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that nobody here has a particular answer to your question other than this is standard formulation for director's liability clauses, and I gather that this is just a rollout of the usual formulation for those things.

Clause passed.

Clause 116.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 116 talks about evidentiary provisions and it says:

that premises referred to in the complaint are, or were on the specified date, a major or minor gaming venue.

My question is, what else could they be? It would have to be one or the other. Surely it would just say 'gaming venue'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told that this is to say that they were one or the other, so another way of putting it is that you would have to particularise that in the complaint.

Clause passed.

Clauses 117 to 126 passed.

Clause 127.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why does the authority now require the ability to delegate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I gather 15A is being moved into this, and there is a change in the quorum requirements because there has been, as I understand it, some difficulty in some instances in obtaining the quorum when conducting a hearing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So when you conduct a hearing, what is a quorum? What is the number?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Presently, four out of seven.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Under the new rules?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Two or more.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And as to the two people, will one of them always be the presiding member?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Presiding or deputy.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When it goes to appeal, is it the presiding member again with one other?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The appeal is to the Supreme Court.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When it says 'for the purposes of conducting an inquiry, a reconsideration of a decision by the Authority or a review or appeal under this Act', a quorum is the presiding member and one other member of the authority. What does it mean?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The reference to appeal there is under other acts like the Casino Act where there is an appeal to the authority for a barring order, for example, made by the Casino. That is not an appeal from a decision of the authority. It is an appeal to the authority from a decision of another body.

Clause passed.

Clauses 128 and 129 passed.

Clause 130.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does this provision allow the authority to act without natural justice? This provision says the authority can do whatever it thinks reasonably necessary for the purposes of performing its function which, to me, seems a very broad power indeed. Does the authority have to follow the rules of natural justice or can the authority decide that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of performing its function not to follow natural justice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is simply there to broaden the opportunity for the issue of a summons to a witness. It is to give the authority to issue a summons to a witness to appear.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And natural justice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is an implication of natural justice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why can't we draft an amendment that restricts the power to just that? That is what it does. It gives the authority no broader power than to issue a summons to a witness.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I am advised, the application of this is that some matters might come before the authority which are not proceedings of the authority in a strict sense. They are proceedings where the authority is overseeing some other matter and, in those circumstances, under the present formulation which says 'for the purposes of proceedings before the Authority', it is arguable, I gather, that they cannot compel anybody to do anything or summons anybody to turn up. So if there was a barring order issued from the Casino, for instance, it might be argued that there could not be summonses to witnesses issued.

The formulation has been changed from 'For the purposes of proceedings before the Authority' to 'If the Authority thinks it reasonably necessary for the purpose of performing its functions', which simply makes it clear that any of its functions can include the summonsing of a witness. It is only issuing of a summons; it is nothing else. It is the issue of a summons.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will look between the houses, but it looks a broad power indeed.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (131 to 142) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:21 the house adjourned until Tuesday 4 June 2013 at 11:00.


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