HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (CHELTENHAM PARK AND RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Gaming Machines Act 1992 and the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to assist the SAJC and other clubs which find themselves in a rather unique position. The SAJC has a facility at Cheltenham which is a licensed facility and has gaming machines. Of course, it is well known to the house that the Cheltenham racecourse has been sold, and that the St Clair development is happening on that site, so racing no longer occurs on that site.

The SAJC has a special circumstances licence. The special circumstances licence is generally issued where there is major sporting activity undertaken onsite, or an office of a state sporting organisation. Given that the SAJC stopped racing there, that creates some difficulty for the SAJC at Cheltenham. The SAJC is part of the St Clair development; there is a block of land 270 metres away from its existing licensed facility. It is on land owned by the SAJC, and the land between the existing facility and the SAJC is all owned by the SAJC; the land is contiguous.

The SAJC seeks to move their licence and gaming facilities 270 metres. To do so, they have to go through an extraordinary process. They would have to sell 40 gaming machines to Club One, which means, by definition, they would only get revenue from 30, because they have to forfeit 10 as part of the sales process. Of course, what revenue they get out of selling those machines is anyone's guess; it depends on the market and the trading ground at the time. They then need to apply for a new liquor licence and a new gaming licence, and there are processes involved with both of those. In particular, they would have to undertake a social effects test.

Mandatory social effects tests were introduced in the legislation—I think I am right in saying this—in 2010. In the three years since mandatory social effects tests have been in place, there has not been one undertaken, but the estimated cost is around $100,000. If they obtain the appropriate liquor licence and the appropriate gaming licence, if they survive the social effects test, then they would have to go back into the market to try to buy 40 gaming machines in one or more trading grounds over an extended period of time and you would not know what value they would have to pay for those poker machines. It would be dictated again by the market in the trading ground at the time. But one thing is clear: they would be getting the revenue from selling 30 but have the expense of buying 40. Their best advice is that the difference in costs is about $700,000 just for that element.

They would have $100,000 for a social effects test, $700,000 lost in the trading rounds of the gaming machines, and there are other costs associated with that because they have to make applications and submissions. The round out cost will be about $1 million to move the facility 270 metres across land that the SAJC already own. They are not seeking to move it 10 kilometres, they are not seeking to move it one kilometre down to a totally different site, they are seeking to move their facility 270 metres across a block of land that they own. The process that is in place will dictate that they undergo a $1 million process to achieve that.

The opposition believes that falls into the case of bureaucratic red tape. We understand the reasons why certain measures were put in legislation to deal with transfers of greater distance or transfers to property that are not owned by the licensee but we think it is reasonable in this case where they are moving it on land that is contiguous. Our bill says the land must be contiguous and owned by the same entity—in other words, moving it onto their own land that is touching the land that the existing facility sits on.

We think it narrows down the bill to very few cases across the state. We think that harness racing may have a similar issue. They wish to move their facility at some time in the future closer to Port Wakefield Road, and the SANFL down the track will have a similar issue when they redevelop Football Park. The SAJC is a not-for-profit organisation and, to put an organisation through a $1 million process to move it 270 metres away with the uncertainty of that process, because there is no guarantee that they will get through, we say is nonsense.

The SAJC has a proposal to redevelop on the new site 270 metres away from the existing facility a new gaming and licensed facility. It is about a $7.7 million facility and it will help create permanent employment for myriad people in that area. So we think how the current legislation deals with this particular set of circumstances is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape. If the SAJC do not get through that process, it will cost them $900,000 a year in lost revenue and they can take their $7 million and invest it in interstate racing entities that will get them the rate of return they desire. They do not need to invest it in South Australian racing.

We think this is nonsense. We think our bill narrows down the circumstances that very few people, clubs and entities will be able to move under these circumstances. We think this is a fair outcome. The licensed facility has been there for decades; the gaming facilities have been there for a long time but a shorter time. They are moving it 270 metres. It is a million dollar risk, a million dollar cost and they might not get through the process. You are putting at risk $900,000 a year revenue to the SAJC. You are putting at risk jobs and you are putting at risk a $7 million development—to what end?

We hope that the government will support this bill because we think the bill is sensible. We think the bill gives a balanced outcome. It does not create open slather in these circumstances because the bill only applies where the entity wants to move the facility to land that is contiguous and owned by the existing owner. In other words, very short distances around the existing facilities. We think this is a balanced outcome. We think this is the right thing to do for those clubs and entities that find themselves in these circumstances, and we hope the government can find within itself to support this bill.

With those few words, I will close my second reading but I will indicate to the government that I will write to the minister and, given there are only four weeks left in the house, we would appreciate a vote on this at the earliest possible time. If the government supports it we would like to get it through both houses of parliament so that the matters that are addressed by this bill are dealt with before the parliament rises.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.

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