HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (CHELTENHAM PARK AND RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2013.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (10:57): The reason behind this matter is that we have a situation where a significant business in South Australia, that is, the racing industry, is being compromised by a number of actions, some of which I think to some extent are beyond its control and some of which I think fall firmly at the feet of this government and actions that this government have taken. They are, I believe, compromising the ability of the SAJC to continue to operate here efficiently and effectively in presenting a viable racing industry or racing program which underpins the whole industry.

What we find at Cheltenham Park is that when the SAJC ran races at the venue it had a significant club facility there. It is still there, and it operates a significant number of poker machines which provide a significant revenue stream to the SAJC and, obviously, to the industry.

With the cessation of racing on that venue, and the change of that land from what was traditionally a racecourse to now being developed, the SAJC find that their club is probably not situated in the most advantageous place, and that their business is suffering because of that. Also, it is arguable whether the licence under which the club operates its poker machines has not fallen outside of the licensing conditions, as it is a special licence because of the racing activities which were previously held there. So, it is a fairly complicated situation.

The SAJC want to move their operation to another site on land which is owned by them and is contiguous to the site of the current operation. What they want to do is move to this other location, re-establish there, and get on with business. To do that under the current law and regulations, they would have to go through a significant process. Part of that process is that they would have to relinquish their current gaming machine licences and then repurchase them; there is obviously a cost in doing that.

Also, under the regime which is currently operating in this state, they would lose a significant number of their machine licences, which would be relinquished and handed back to the government as part of the program to reduce the number of poker machines, and they would also wear the cost of doing that. They would also have to go through the full process which anybody would need to go through if they were establishing a new facility.

One of the significant issues is that, under the act and regulations, part of that process means that they would have to go through a social effects test. That opens up all sorts of rights of appeal, and I think I am right in saying that there has been no case in South Australia where somebody has applied and got through the social effects test and got a positive outcome from that process. Here we have the SAJC, which have been operating this facility there for a significant number of years; they want to move it, basically within their own land—it will obviously be on a different street front; I understand it will be moved around 200 metres, on land which they own. Notwithstanding that, they currently have to go through these processes because the address will be different.

What the member for Davenport is attempting to do with this matter before the house is to give the commissioner the discretion to waive some of those processes and to accept that this is indeed a minor matter, so that the SAJC will not have to go through the full process as if it was a brand new proposal, thereby protecting the business of the SAJC. The opposition believes that if this bill is not enacted and these processes are not made somewhat more favourable to allow the SAJC to move its premises, the cost to that organisation would be around $1 million.

We know that there is already huge pressure on the racing industry in South Australia. We are in competition with other states in providing racing product; that competition is very strong, and I do not believe the SAJC is in a position to forgo $1 million simply to move its poker machines 200 metres, so—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: If they are not successful in the process, they will lose $900,000 a year.

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Davenport points out that it is not just a $1 million cost as a one-off. It is our understanding that the ongoing cost to the SAJC will be about $900,000 per year if they cannot get the approvals. That money is what helps the SAJC to be competitive. I was just talking about the competitive nature of the racing industry and providing racing product in what is now a national betting system.

If you cannot provide a high quality product, you will not get people wagering on your product and, therefore, you will not get the return, and the wagering obviously provides a big part of the business of the racing industry. Also, the $900,000 return from other aspects of their business underpins their product. It allows them to put that money into prize money for their races on a regular basis and, therefore, improve the quality of their product, and that is part of the business plan.

This is very important to what is a significant industry in South Australia, and I urge members to take this matter very seriously. I congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing this matter before the house. I remind members of a matter that went through this house a few years ago, sponsored by the Labor Party, to support a not dissimilar move by the North Adelaide Football Club, which sought to move its club operations and poker machines away from the oval at Prospect to a more advantageous site. I think it was across Main North Road at North Park, I think it is called.

I remember that particular move was the subject of considerable debate in this house. The Labor Party in that case strongly supported the North Adelaide Football Club and I think the North Adelaide Football Club has been very thankful and benefited greatly from that move. I would urge members of the government to consider this matter in the same light, because it is just as important to the SAJC and the racing industry in South Australia that we come to an equitable and sustainable solution for the SAJC to allow them to continue to participate and operate sustainably in South Australia. I commend the matter to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:07): I rise also to support the member for Davenport in his very genuine, very serious and very carefully thought out support for the South Australian Jockey Club in this issue but, more importantly, it is support for the South Australian economy. Let me declare an interest. I am a member of the South Australian Jockey Club but that really has nothing to do with my support for this bill.

The issue here is that the SAJC has poker machines that they operate and they just want to shift them 200 or 300 metres down the road onto another block of land that they own. It will cost them about $1 million to do that, currently. The real crux of the issue is that people are trying to force them, when they surrender the licence that they have to operate in one place and try to start it up again just down the road on land that they already own, to surrender one out of every four gaming machines that they want to close the licence on. They have 40 machines now, they would have to give up 10 of them and they could apply to have another 30 licences just down the road. People might think that's a good way to get rid—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: They would apply for 40.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, they could keep 30 of the 40 that they currently have just down the road. People might think that is a good way to get rid of gaming machines, and let me say quite clearly that when it comes to the appeal of playing pokie machines, I just don't get it. I really don't get it. They have no appeal to me whatsoever. However, I do understand how important they are to the economy more broadly. For the SAJC to shift their 40 machines, they have to surrender 10 of them, shift 30, and then buy 10 back. So, essentially, they have to give away the value of 10 machines and then pay the value of 10 machines to, basically, keep their business as it currently is just down the road.

The reason this is so important to me is because of the value of the racing industry to our state. It is not about pokie machines, as far as I am concerned, it is about allowing the SAJC to continue to do what they do on behalf of the racing industry, but also on behalf of the South Australian economy. The SAJC, of course, is the pre-eminent racing club in Adelaide. There are other racing clubs sprinkled throughout regional South Australia. It is fair to say, and very important to point out actually, that all racing clubs throughout South Australia and in regional South Australia have benefitted significantly over the years from the South Australian Jockey Club.

Racing is—I am sorry, I forget—either the fourth or fifth largest employer in the nation. Compared to any other industry, the racing industry is the fourth or fifth largest employer in the nation by number of people employed. You think about the thousands and thousands of race meetings held all across the nation, you think about the very broad range of people who are able to gain employment in the racing industry, from farriers all the way through to the sort of things you normally think of in terms of trainers and jockeys, all the people associated with the hospitality industry and, very importantly, people who may not be able to pick up employment at other times: high school students, university students, middle aged and older people who, for whatever reason, their life requires that they get part-time work outside of normal business hours, they benefit enormously from the racing industry. It makes a staggering contribution to our state's economy.

If the SAJC suffers the racing industry suffers. If the racing industry suffers then our state's economy suffers. That is why, for me, this is a very important issue. I am not suggesting that the SAJC should get any significant advantage compared to any other business that just wanted to, basically, pick up what it currently does and move a couple hundred metres down the road. That is really what they are asking to do. As the members for Davenport and MacKillop have quite rightly pointed out, this is not new. The principle was established with regard to the North Adelaide Football Club, for very good reasons. I think that same principle should be continued here, as set out by the member for Davenport's bill, and I think it should be done because of the benefit it provides to the South Australian economy.

Racing is one of those industries that people can participate in however they choose, and people of all walks of life. You can be interested in horse racing really seriously or just a little bit and go to the races and have a great day. You can go to the races and drink or not drink. You can go to the races and gamble or not gamble. You can go to the races and get dressed up or not get dressed up. Anybody in South Australia: male, female, rich, poor, young, old, Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, migrant, it does not matter, any single person is attracted to racing for all those sorts of reasons, because you can go and enjoy it at whatever level you choose to enjoy it. It is that attraction that makes it such an important—

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Florey to order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is that attraction to such a broad range of people that is the foundation of the employment that it creates, which is such an important contributor to our economy. I say again, if the SAJC is disadvantaged in this way the racing industry will be disadvantaged and our economy will be disadvantaged.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:14): I can put on the record that the only electorate in the metropolitan area that has an SAJC racing course now is my electorate of Morphett. It is a huge industry in South Australia and particularly down in my electorate. It is a big employer and a big contributor to the local economy. Just this week I received—and I assume other members did—a booklet from the SAJC outlining some of the benefits of racing in South Australia. Can I just put it on the record that the South Australian racing industry—and that is not only the gallops, but it is the dogs and the trots as well—generates over $401 million per annum in economic benefit for South Australia; sustains the employment of 3,628 South Australians—I will repeat that: 3,628 South Australians—that is a huge industry; provides $224 million per annum in household income; provides $19 million in GST; and generates $303 million per annum in direct expenditure, with more than 40 per cent of this expenditure occurring in regional areas.

It is a huge industry, not just in the electorate of Morphett, but across the state. For the SAJC to be able to conduct their business, as they have been legally for many years now, down at Cheltenham, with the gaming area down there, is something that we should not be getting in the way of. This is not creating a new area. This is not going to change the whole social impact of that area; it has been there for a long time.

This is a sensible motion that has been put up by the member for Davenport, and I strongly support this motion. I urge everybody in this place to have a look at the racing industry in South Australia and have a look at the gaming industry generally in South Australia to see what we can do to make sure it is working for South Australians.

There are some issues with problem gamblers, I know that. I have had personal issues with family members who have had serious losses—and I mean hundreds of thousands of dollars worth—through problem gambling, but that is not to say we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We invoke the precautionary principle again to social legislation, we make sure we use a sensible approach, and this is a sensible approach not only for the SAJC but for the people of South Australia. It is fair and sensible.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:17): I also wish to speak in regard to this bill, and there are probably a few people who have unexpectedly risen to speak. I must admit that I put a lot of thought into this one, personally, having in a previous life held the shadow portfolio for gambling. I have been exposed to the activities of the industry and the concerns of many people in the community who have problems with it. I will admit that I am a member of the Balaklava Racing Club, so as much as I am associated with horseracing, it is in that area. I also wish to recognise that earlier this week the City of Charles Sturt forwarded an email about their concern and noted their opposition to the bill. I thought, as a local government spokesperson, that I should just put that on the record to note that it has been received.

However, I am supportive of this, and it is because I have given it a lot of consideration, to think about the impacts—positive and potentially negative—and the implications of current legislative requirements for facilities that do wish to move, and the social effects test which is significant in cost—up to $100,000, as I understand it. That money in itself is an issue—there is no doubt about that—but the clear point for me, when I was told that the facility already owned by the SAJC, less than 300 metres away, which has been targeted for this development, has therefore been part of the planning since the development took place the first time, and that was after the closure of the racecourse. It seems to me there has been a lot of public knowledge out there about the fact that there is an intention to move.

The SAJC is a very reputable industry. The member for Morphett, in outlining just the financial implications of racing in South Australia, has put a lot of information on the record about how important it is. I respect Mayor Kirsten Alexander, and I have had discussions with her about other matters, so I understand the reason for this motion coming from the City of Charles Sturt; but I do believe, for the benefit of full consideration of this, and in the knowledge that must exist in our community, and the operation that has occurred there for decades and decades, with these gaming machines already there, and their entitlement of 40 machines already there, and considering the financial impact upon that operation, and unless there is an opportunity to move, that it is an appropriate thing for the member for Davenport to put this bill before the house.

I hope there is an opportunity for a lot of discussion to take place and questioning that will occur from the other side on this, because there has been some legal diligence taken on this. I know the member for Davenport has consulted quite widely on it. It will not be unanimous, there is no doubt about that, but it is an appropriate measure to come before the house for discussion because this is an important factor.

The member for MacKillop, in referring to the North Adelaide Football Club decision, has certainly put on record the fact that it has occurred in the parliament before. That is where discussion must have taken place and valid arguments must have been put up, and that is what should occur in this chamber. I look forward to the continued debate.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:19): I rise too to support the bill in regard to Cheltenham Park and related amendments, introduced by the member for Davenport. I think it is absolutely appropriate that this bill be debated, especially in light of the issue around the moving of the gaming machines only a few hundred metres to another site. It certainly, to my mind, seems ridiculous that, just because of this minor move, the club would have to give up 10 of its 40 machines and, essentially then, if it wanted to get them back, buy them back.

I understand the current rate, roughly, for a gaming machine is about $65,000, so there is already a $650,000 cost in that transaction before anything else happens in regard to the moving of these premises. I think this is certainly a fair and equitable move, and I agree in the main with some of the comments made by the member for Stuart in regard to poker machines. I have the odd flutter, but I really do not get how people can sit there for hours on end and just lose money, but I do understand how they have become part of our community.

People have built businesses—not necessarily racing venues but certainly the hotel industry—and they supply a lot of employment across the state. So, whether we fully appreciate them or not, they are part of the economy. They are certainly part of many businesses' business plans, including the racing industry. We have a racing industry which, like any business in this state, is having its moments, especially at this time.

I reflect on the proposed change at Murray Bridge with the new racing club developments there and the Gifford Hill proposal. I know there have been applications to the diversification fund for money, and we are still waiting on the outcome as to whether that will be agreed to by the new federal government. I certainly hope it will be.

There was $5 million put up for that, and this is part of a $36 million project on a broader scale, which will assist the racing industry not only in Murray Bridge but right across the state by having a venue that can have not only a normal grass track, obviously, which is already in place bar the fencing, but also, in the future, with a $4 million investment—it might be a bit more than that—an artificial track, so that race meetings can be held in all weather. It is certainly applicable, given the many meetings we have recently seen having to be cancelled.

I heard of one the other day on the radio, I think in Bordertown, from memory. The officials were flying down to start the race day but, because it was so wet, apart from the fact that they could not hold the race day on that track, the officials could not land in the weather conditions. So, they certainly need an appropriate venue so that, if events like that happen, races can be transferred to somewhere else in the state.

I certainly think it is when and not if that, with the drive of the Murray Bridge Racing Club and their co-partners Burke Urban and Thoroughbred Racing South Australia, they will get there, and this will be a pristine development for racing in this state. The beauty of this development is it is not only about racing: it is about supplying housing. There will be at least 3,500 housing allotments, and it will essentially be another suburb of Murray Bridge.

Murray Bridge now already exceeds 20,000 in population, and this Gifford Hill development could certainly give the town up to 50 per cent of that again with up to 10,000 people living in that area at Gifford Hill, just south of the freeway as you head towards Adelaide.

So, anything that can assist racing—and not everyone gets involved in racing, but racing needs all forms of its operations to function so that it can function. I have noticed recently that a hotel just outside my electorate at Coonalpyn does not have live betting anymore because it is just too costly to host the facilities. These are the types of things that are happening in the industry, where these charges are reflected on businesses throughout communities.

This is a country hotel that services regional people, like many others, and gives them the chance, if they want it, to have a flutter on the races; now that opportunity is gone because it was so expensive to do. As I said, this is an industry where the cost structures can be very large. We need to do what we can to make sure that it is another industry that flourishes in this state and not one that walks away.

Certainly, in regard to the Murray Bridge Gifford Hill proposal, it would be nice if the state Labor government came up with the $6 million they gave to the Gawler Racing Club; somehow I cannot see that coming, but I would certainly appreciate it. I would shake the Premier's hand if it were forthcoming and thank him very much for the support. I am sure the Murray Bridge Racing Club would be more than excited if it came, but one thing I have learned about politics is that there is not too much equity when it comes to handing out the cash.

The SPEAKER: Is there any chance the member for Hammond might join up his remarks to the bill?

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely, Mr Speaker, and thank you—

Mr Gardner: A chance.

Mr PEDERICK: There will be a chance that I may get back to the absolute substance of the bill.

Mr Treloar: Talk about politics again.

Mr PEDERICK: Oh, member for Flinders! What I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that all this is linked to the success of racing in this state, and one part of this process is the proposal that could see the SAJC having to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars in moving these pokie machines a few hundred metres. What I am trying to indicate is that the racing industry in South Australia is not just tied into the South Australian Jockey Club proposal; it is a state-based proposal. I am just talking about the issue across the state, and different race tracks, and the opportunities for racing across the state and how it can be developed.

I think it would certainly assist the South Australian Jockey Club if these state-of-the-art facilities could be developed at Murray Bridge, as I think they will be, but it would certainly be a major help if the state government would put their hand in their pocket and offer the same sort of support, the $6 million, they gave to the Gawler racing fraternity. I do not deny them having that money, but let's see some equity across the state, instead of having a government that is just so focused on the city and does not even think of anything outside the boundaries of the city.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You are all happy to speak, if you like. There is still a minute or so.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Ramsay to order.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. What I will say in my closing remarks—and I keep getting these interjections, these waves of disinterest from the other side—

The SPEAKER: No, 'uninterest'.

Mr PEDERICK: Uninterest, thank you. But I fully support the motion.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: A point of order by the member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: The member's comments about waving and disinterest or whatever are quite incorrect, and it is unlike the member to make statements like that.

The SPEAKER: That is a bogus point of order and I call the member for Torrens to order. Before the member for Morialta rises, is the member for Hammond telling us that one cannot get a bet on at Coonalpyn?

Mr PEDERICK: I am, sir.

Mr Goldsworthy: Outrageous!

Mr PEDERICK: And it is outrageous. So, if you are ever travelling down the Dukes Highway, sir, and you want to call into Coonalpyn and put a bet on, it cannot happen.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Legally.

Mr PEDERICK: Legally, thank you. But you can play the pokies.

The SPEAKER: The terminator.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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