HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Online Gambling

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:13): I move:

1. That, in the opinion of this house, a joint committee be appointed to investigate and report on online gambling, having regard to:

(a) the prevalence of online gambling and sports betting in South Australia;

(b) the social and economic impacts of online gambling and sports betting in South Australia;

(c) the impact of online gambling and sports betting on South Australian gambling licences, licensed venues and racing industry;

(d) the regulation of online gambling and sports betting in South Australia;

(e) mechanisms available to control or prevent access to online gambling by vulnerable gamblers in South Australia;

(f) mechanisms available to prevent access to online gambling and sports betting by minors, including any barriers to achieving robust age verification requirements;

(g) the prevalence and impacts of online betting agencies advertising across different media platforms;

(h) the regulation of advertising by online gambling and sports betting agencies in Australia and South Australia;

(i) gambling markets on local sporting fixtures in South Australia, particularly amateur and semiprofessional matches;

(j) online markets in local sport and its relationship with potential match fixing;

(k) marketing and inducement schemes provided by online betting agencies;

(l) what legislative or regulatory changes may be required to control or restrict access to online gambling and sports betting in South Australia; and

(m) any other matter.

2. That, in the event of a joint committee being appointed, the House of Assembly be represented thereon by three members, of whom two shall form a quorum of assembly members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee.

3. That a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing resolution and requesting concurrence thereto.

The question of online gambling and the difficulties surrounding it have already been the subject of national reports and of inquiry by our independent gaming authority, the provision for which has now been repealed. Indeed, it was also the subject in similar terms of reference referred to one of our state parliament committees for its consideration, but that had not commenced.

When we debated the gambling reforms in this parliament, which are now operational and for which regulations are on the way to being published, it was very clear that the incidence of online gambling, its lack of regulatory management and protection capacity for those who might be vulnerable in the use of it, was growing and concerning.

During the course of our discussions on that matter, it was agreed with the opposition, particularly in discussions with the member for Lee, who had general carriage of this matter on behalf of the opposition in relation to the reforms, that it was worth having a joint standing committee to investigate this matter and that the terms of reference, broad as they were in our parliamentary committee as they had not embarked on their inquiry, needed to be expanded and needed to be undertaken.

I thank the member for Lee for his contribution in assisting with the further extension of these terms of reference. I understand that they are consistent with all the aspects that he seeks to have involved. It has also been under scrutiny and drafting through the consumer and business affairs division under Commissioner Dini Soulio, who of course has general control in relation to regulation of gambling in this state, in that it is necessary that we advance this undertaking of work. More critical has been in evidence the extent to which there has been a transfer to online gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are yet to see the outcome in relation to the transfer of who the players are in this and who has been more adversely affected if there are going to be more and more people looking to online services to facilitate their gambling option. There has already been this transition, and I should point out that it has been in a circumstance where there has been a restriction, as you might be aware, in relation to the availability of hospitality services in the closure of hotels, Casino services and racing.

Horseracing was under significant restriction for quite some time, but I am pleased to say that has now been restored. Of course, the Casino is now open with limited gathering restrictions and placement of the patrons. However, even with hotels, which are the large accommodators of poker machines, together with the sporting clubs, there is still a very significant restriction on access to gambling options on site, and online continues to be a support.

A number of stakeholders have already raised with us their concern with that on the effect on employment, on the effect of their revenue, on the effect of their profitability, etc. I do not think I need to go into that today, but I make the point that, if we are going to see this transition and it is going to be permanent and continue to grow, we need to make sure that we are protecting the vulnerable under the general principle that when it is in the wrong hands—in the hands of children, etc.—we need to have protective mechanisms wrapped around it, and then we are going to have to move to have this inquiry.

I am aware also that some of the industry are starting to look at new ways in which they have the developed products in their own organisations, and therefore it is important and timely that we progress this. I commend the motion to the house. I understand the procedure is that the matter will go to the Legislative Council, if passed here, that they will then indicate their support and that then each party will make nominations from each of the houses.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:20): I rise to speak to the Attorney-General's motion on the establishment of a joint committee to investigate and report on online gambling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are the lead speaker, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, thank you. I will not go through the tedium of repeating the terms of reference the Attorney-General included in her motion and briefly read to the house. We have all been focused on a pandemic over the last few months, and that has almost entirely exhausted and drawn the focus and attention of the community away from other matters that, in another time and in another context, would be considered to be very important as well.

I put it to the house that an epidemic is underway in South Australia and across the country that involves online gambling and sports betting. The Deputy Premier is correct: this is in part being facilitated by a growing shift away from the forms of gambling we have been more or less used to for some time in the community, whether it is gambling at horseracing tracks, whether it is gambling at local pubs on TAB facilities, whether it is gambling at pubs—for example, on poker machines—or even going across the way, close to where we are, to the Casino, to use either poker machines or table gaming.

It would be incorrect to think that the amount of reduction of those more traditional forms of gambling, those forms of gambling we have been more used to in recent years, is consistent with the uptick in online gambling and sports betting, because that is not the case. The growth in online gambling and sports betting each year in Australia is exponential, as far as we can tell. The growth in this is extraordinary, and the changes to what we are seeing in society as a result are there to see.

It is impossible now to look at a fixture of professional sport across Australia by virtue of a media platform without being bombarded by advertisements for odds on those fixtures. There is an enormous swathe, every day and particularly on Saturdays, in the local paper here in Adelaide, which is entirely sponsored by an online gambling company. There are entire television channels, both on free-to-air TV and also on pay TV, which are entirely financed by online gambling and sports betting. The extraordinary amount of advertising which occurs on social media, whether it is on Facebook, on Twitter or on other platforms, and which is promoting the opportunities to gamble online or to place bets on sport, is extraordinary.

We know that year on year there is an exponential increase not just in the level of gambling and the amount of gambling but also in the amount of advertising to attract gamblers to this activity. What it means in effect is that we now have this enormous operation and activity across Australia which, unlike those other traditional forms of gambling I have just mentioned, is largely unregulated. It does not have the levels of disclosure and reporting that those other forms of gambling require.

So what we see is very little information that is publicly available on the incidence of online gambling and sports betting by the community and by particular demographics within the community, but you can get a fair indication of who is being targeted by this advertising and who is participating in this activity by looking at the nature of the advertising itself.

When it comes to sports betting, the focus of the advertising and the vast majority of the activity is being done by young men, and you might characterise those young men as commencing in age from teenage years up through their 20s and perhaps into their 30s. I have had work colleagues, somewhat younger than me, of course, make the comment to me that they cannot remember the last time they watched a professional sporting fixture on television without seeing a gambling ad or indeed placing a bet or checking odds, and so on.

What it means is that these predominantly young men at the early years in their lives, at the beginning of their working lives and often at the beginning of their careers, are being encouraged in an almost completely unrestricted and unregulated way to part with their money to engage in these activities. As the saying goes: overall, the house always wins.

There is a reason why these companies are so large, so wealthy and so successful, and that is because the odds are always stacked in favour of the house; that is because these companies have refined their business models, refined their operations and more to the point refined their odds and the betting markets that they provide to the community so well that they know they will make tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year from Australians and South Australians who participate in these activities—and that is just from sports betting.

When it comes to online gambling, a far bigger field of engaging is perhaps casino-type table games replicated in an online game format. Well, of course, the figures are even larger, as far as we understand. The impacts are, unfortunately, not accurately known, but certainly the inducements and the encouragements are there.

Unfortunately, early on when I was at that early and relatively naive stage of parenting (although I admit that I am still in a naive stage in many ways) and I allowed our older child to start using an iPad and the crack cocaine that is YouTube Kids was looked at, it did not take long until there were ads for other apps that popped up in the middle of so-called children's programs that were promoting online gambling. It is very easy for a young child under the age of five to be tempted to click whichever button is being promoted to start engaging in that activity. That is why, perhaps like some other parents in this place, we have had to enforce the rule of keeping children away from YouTube Kids and trying to keep them on more traditional platforms like ABC iview and—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Bluey.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —Bluey, of course, and so on. This is the insidious entry of online gambling into all of our lives. It starts at such a young age and is done in a way to try to condition people to think that it is normal, reasonable and not harmful and that its impacts on those people are not harmful.

Since they have been introduced, there has been an enormous amount of effort in this state and in other jurisdictions around the country to recognise the sometimes devastating impacts that addictive gambling on poker machines can wreak on someone's life and the livelihoods and lives of those around them. Measure after measure has been introduced. Risk reduction regimes, or harm minimisation regimes, have been trialled. They have been implemented. They have been cancelled in favour of newer and more effective ones and so on over a long period of time.

Largely, none of that applies when it comes to sports betting. Unlike a young bloke going down the pub with his mates and watching a game of footy on TV and placing a couple of bets through the TAB at the end of the bar, or even unlike someone a little bit older who chooses to go into a pokie room at a hotel, online gambling and sports betting are completely unsupervised. I suspect that particularly online gambling and other forms of online gambling, as opposed to sports betting, are largely conducted by people who are on their own at home and without any means of intervention if their gambling starts to become a problem for them.

If you are interested, Deputy Speaker, it is worth reading a terrific book that was released about 18 months ago by someone we know from another endeavour. Titus O'Reily has written a book called Please Gamble Irresponsibly. It is a great book about the history of sports betting in Australia. It is mostly about the origins of the tote in Australia and how the totes were regulated, brought into government control and eventually privatised around the country. The Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place could probably tell us how not to privatise a tote, with his sale of the TAB here in South Australia.

This book also touches very briefly on how a forward-thinking company got their toe in the door to a territory government in Australia to establish permission to conduct online sports betting operations in Australia. That was Sportsbet up in the Northern Territory. They did so on the promise by the then Northern Territory government of favourable taxation and other treatments from the government. It instantly became clear to Sportsbet what the market appetite for these activities would be and it became clear to the Northern Territory government how lucrative this would be if only there was to be more of it, and then the race was on. Other jurisdictions around the country progressively allowed online gambling and sports betting to occur.

There are slightly different regimes of course when it comes to the regulation of online gambling versus sports betting. This is perhaps something that will be better fleshed out by the joint committee, should it be agreed to by the house and by the other place. What we have seen in South Australia over time under this government and also the previous government is the approval of what are called contingencies. These are, in effect, approvals to allow gambling on certain sports with some conditions. That condition usually is that a sporting event must be sanctioned by a national governing body, but those sporting events that come under that umbrella—if I can put it like that—are then available with some limited restrictions for gambling to occur on them.

I became interested in this when my electorate boundaries were significantly redrawn for the 2018 election. I was fortunate enough in some regards (I will not make any remarks about the areas that I lost in that boundary redraw) to take on the area of Royal Park at the 2018 election. I am perhaps not the person who should be extolling the virtues of Royal Park—we have another member, the member for Cheltenham, who knows the area very intimately and can speak very proudly about it—but within Royal Park there is the Western Strikers football club, and in the expansion of my electorate through to Seaton another very proud football club, White City, is resident right on the edge, right on the boundary, of my electorate. In fact, I think it is shared with the member for Cheltenham.

Mr Szakacs: There are two local members.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They get two local members, that's right. Also, both of them are well served of course by the member for West Torrens, the former treasurer, who made the unprecedented support available for football in South Australia. When I say 'football'—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The real football.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right, the real football: people skilful enough just to play with their feet I think is the definition. That is why it is called football, not ambidextrous hand and foot ball.

It became clear to me—both of these clubs having junior programs; the clubs are now looking to expand or are now having involvement in teams for girls and for women—that from time to time betting markets were appearing on these online sports betting apps for matches that those clubs were participating in. You might think that this would be restricted to the fixtures that would involve either the senior men's team or the senior women's team but, no, that is not always the case.

It became clear to me that from time to time odds were being offered on the junior fixtures those clubs were participating in, which raises a few serious questions. One is: is it moral or ethical for bets to be placed on junior amateur sport? Also, whether it is junior or merely amateur, what sort of inducement does it provide to the clubs participating in those fixtures, and to the players participating in those fixtures, as to whether there should be any consideration of providing inside information to those companies about the likelihood of who may win and by how much, and might there even be the temptation for some form of match fixing?

That might sound like an extreme allegation, but this is something that has been reported at a national level about junior tennis. In fact, there has been a conviction for match fixing in junior tennis interstate. The more I learnt about this the more concerned about it I became. It was drawn to my attention that odds were being offered on junior basketball matches amongst the amateur clubs in metropolitan Adelaide, and it also became clear to me that odds were being offered for junior and senior netball games, particularly involving the Hills leagues.

To my mind, there is no justification for allowing odds to be placed on these matches. I do not believe it is the intent of any government in South Australia, Labour or Liberal, or any minister responsible for consumer affairs who has ultimate carriage and responsibility of these matters, that in approving contingencies it would enable betting to occur at such a junior and amateur level, because when you approve a contingency, indeed if you read the contingency, it is written as if it applies to fixtures sanctioned by the national body. For the example I gave about football, for those fixtures sanctioned by Football South Australia, you would probably think that that refers to Adelaide United or maybe the Premier League, not at that level.

After the state election, I became a member of the parliament's Economic and Finance Committee. Of course, the Economic and Finance Committee has a bit of work to do from time to time considering the tax introduced by Rob Lucas when he was last in government, the emergency services levy. We have to think about that. We also look at, for example, the grants which are provided by the Office for Recreation and Sport, which has been interesting since the recent whiteboard scandal of those opposite. But, by and large, we are free to look at other things at the committee's volition.

So I came up with a set of terms of reference to consider this epidemic of online gambling and sports betting. Of course, the Labor opposition only has a minority of members on the committee. Despite moving that this inquiry be established, successfully mind you, the committee decided to proceed with other inquiries first and repeatedly voted not to commence this inquiry. I put up this motion 13 times only to be voted down by the Liberal members. I thought, 'Why would the Liberal Party have anything against looking at online gambling and sports betting?' I came into this place and started raising my concerns about online gambling and sports betting.

In fact, I put out a press release in June 2018 calling for a parliamentary inquiry into this. Shortly afterwards, only eight days afterwards, there was a further approval of contingencies for snooker, Gaelic football, handball, volleyball and gridiron—not the US gridiron but the local gridiron—which would enable, for the first time, online sports betting onto these South Australian fixtures and sports, not with any restrictions for junior fixtures or amateur fixtures.

I again raised this in the context that the parliament needed to have a look at this. The Deputy Premier, in her contribution on the Budget Measures Bill, raised that the Independent Gambling Authority (IGA), which was the regulator for gambling in South Australia, which was being abolished by the Deputy Premier, had done some work looking into this, but had not yet completed that. We then had a ministerial statement by the Deputy Premier on Thursday 28 November 2018 explaining to the parliament why these contingencies for new amateur sports in South Australia had been allowed. Throughout this time, my criticism of online gambling and sports betting continued.

In April 2019, the Deputy Premier updated the house on what the commonwealth government was doing about online gambling and sports betting, which, as you can imagine, given the size and cashed-up nature of the lobby group that they employ, was not much. Again, a press release was issued in May by the Deputy Premier about some changes being made at the national level that prevented integrative wagering providers sending direct marketing promotions to consumers in South Australia unless the consumer has given prior consent. That is not tackling the key issue of online gambling and sports betting.

The Deputy Premier raised with the opposition the prospect of reforming the regulatory environment for gambling in South Australia with a particular focus on poker machines—not just poker machines but on poker machines. The opposition made it very clear that in order for Labor to support those bills a range of changes would need to be made to the legislation, and in addition a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling and sports betting would need to be established. This is now the motion that seeks to establish this committee.

Given this was a Labor initiative, it is not unreasonable to expect that the Labor Party would have some interest on how the committee is composed. It would not be unreasonable to think that we would have some interest in who will be chairing the committee. I had made it clear—in fact, on instruction from my parliamentary colleagues I had made it clear—that it was our side's very strong desire that we would be chairing this committee and that, if we were not to be chairing this committee, certainly we would like sufficient and necessary control over our membership of the committee.

It is with some frustration that I report to the house, in speaking to this motion, that we are yet to agree on the number of members of this committee, from which houses those members will come and in what proportions. It has been an enormous frustration to me that, despite repeated requests either to the Attorney or to her office, I am yet to have the opportunity to sit down in a meeting and canvass these matters. It is a great frustration to me that we are speaking to this motion without an understanding or an agreement between the government and the opposition on how the opposition's initiative is to be progressed.

I made it clear to the Attorney what the opposition's preference is, and the Attorney insists on proceeding in another way. Of course, I am aware that, rather than working out with us how the government's membership priorities and the opposition's membership priorities can both be accommodated, there has instead been a series of entreaties to the crossbench down here about how to make sure the Deputy Premier gets her way and the Labor opposition does not.

What that means to us is that we had given a commitment, that we had made an agreement in good faith with the Deputy Premier about the support of the passage of her legislation and that we are seeing that agreement not being honoured in full by her.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Really?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, really. And now I start to get an understanding about why so many in this place find such frustration with the deputy—I am not just talking about people on my side who are frustrated with the Deputy Premier; I am talking about people on all sides.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You are just frustrated because you are not in government. Get over it!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: She says I am frustrated because I am not in government, but get over it. Do you know what I am very happy about? I am very happy to have the opportunity to represent my electorate of Lee. I am very happy to be able to do that, and I am very happy to have the opportunity to be here in parliament and represent them in the issues that mean the most to them.

She might think that online gambling and sports betting is not a big issue in the western suburbs—well, it is. I have been contacted by a lot of people, mostly parents, who are concerned about their children's online gambling and sports betting habits. I have been very concerned that now the Deputy Premier opposite is seeking to curtail my opportunity and the opportunity of the Labor Party to pursue these issues.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Yes—control yourself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is late on a Thursday just before the winter break—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Control yourself. Get it under control.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, that is enough.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The interjections will cease. The member for Lee was alluding to the fact that his opportunity to argue these points was being somehow stifled—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for agriculture—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the Minister for Primary Industries apologise and withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everybody sit down. I was speaking during that interjection; I have no idea what the minister said—I have no idea.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Why don't you get up and tell us, Tim?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: Yes, sir. I referred to the member for Lee. I said: does he always speak to women like he just spoke to the Attorney-General? He should stand up and apologise.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I demand a withdrawal and an apology.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, minister for agriculture, it would be best, given that it is late on a Thursday before the winter break and there was no real need to aggravate the member for Lee—I was actually talking to the member for Lee about his contribution. Minister for agriculture, could you withdraw and apologise, please.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Lee, in your contribution you were talking about your opportunity to argue points for your electorate was somehow attempting to be curtailed in this place. That is in fact not the case, because you are the lead speaker. You have been on your feet for quite some time and I have a feeling that you might be there for some time yet, so we are not curtailing your opportunity. You have the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In fact, I was referring to paragraph 2 of the motion, which seeks to establish the number of House of Assembly members that will be nominated to this joint committee. There is a lack of agreement between the government and Deputy Premier and the opposition and me about the composition of that membership, despite plenty of opportunity and entreaties from me.

I find that regrettable because it might mean, for example, that I or other people from our side—it might be the member for Enfield, or it might be the member for Cheltenham—who are particularly interested in this issue may not have the opportunity to participate on this committee. Indeed, after the entreaties from the Deputy Premier (member for Bragg) it might also thwart the opportunity the member for Frome thought he may or may not have to participate in this committee.

When it comes to paragraph 2 of this motion, yes, I am very frustrated about that. There are those two soccer clubs in my electorate, which I spoke about earlier. Those are two of dozens in the metropolitan area of South Australia. You, sir, would perhaps know much better than I about whether this sort of activity is occurring out in the regions, including in your electorate of Flinders.

Those clubs would like some answers about why on some game days, for example, they see a furtive-looking pair of people with a laptop standing at the far side of the sporting field, tapping away. They are not related to any person within the club or any person from either side. It is their supposition that they are perhaps logging ground conditions or working out whether Joe or Jane Bloggs from either team, who usually performs well, is warming up okay.

This is an extraordinarily important issue for us to be able to canvass. We will be supporting the motion because, of course, it is a Labor initiative. We will be looking forward to having the opportunity to serve on this committee. However, as I have an insistence from the Deputy Premier that the Labor opposition in this house is only able to be represented by one member on this committee, I will be moving to amend the motion. I move to amend the motion as follows:

2. After 'appointed', delete 'three members' and insert 'five members'

Five members is well over the odds. Five members is way more than should be required. All I am trying to do is make sure that those of us who are interested in this, and also the member for Frome, can now try to make good not only on our interest in these matters but have an opportunity to serve.

If the Deputy Premier were to come over or even get up on her feet and tell the house that she is willing to talk further with the opposition, as requested on 29 June to discuss these matters, then that might obviate the need for an amendment. If the Deputy Premier were to indicate that she remained open and willing to have a discussion with the opposition, then that would be gratefully received. On this side, we are always happy to be collegial and work with those across the chamber.

I understand some entreaties have been made about membership. I understand it has been bandied around, for example, that the member for Heysen might serve on the committee if the committee is successfully established. To my mind, that would be terrific because he strikes me as not only a fair-minded and balanced person but he also strikes me as someone with—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens and the Attorney-General will cease interjecting across the chamber. I get the sense that the member for Lee is winding up his comments.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am winding up the member for Unley as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are winding up your comments. You have the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are open for discussion with the Deputy Premier. I know that she knows that we are passionate about this. I know that she would like to be thought of as someone who can be seen to be relied upon when it comes to reaching an agreement with the opposition about a piece of her legislation. Far be it from us to want to be in the position where we would have to think that the Deputy Premier is not someone who could be relied upon when it comes to this sort of matter.

I know, for example, that she has a strong reputation on her side of the chamber with her party as someone who can work openly, cross-factionally, collegially with all her colleagues. All we ask is that she extends the same thing to us because we have done what she wanted. We have passed her legislation. All we ask is for something which surely cannot be political.

This is not a committee which seeks to have a dig at Labor or have a dig at Liberals or have a dig at some other political party. This is a motion which seeks to improve the environments under which amateur sporting fixtures at the very least can be conducted to have a full understanding of how much betting is going on in South Australia, who is doing that betting, who is taking those bets, what is happening with that money.

I think we should all be alarmed that there are some insidious multinational corporate behemoths which are diddling South Australians out of their livelihoods under our very noses, and because of the recent nature of the rapid expansion of this industry, because of the difficulty in regulating this environment and because of the toxic impacts of the media advertising campaigns that these organisations run and the addictive nature of that advertising revenue to sporting bodies and media organisations, this is something that needs to be looked into.

These people, who are poisoning members of our community, should front this parliament and they should answer for their behaviour. We deserve a thorough understanding of what is going on amongst our community and we also should have a think about what we can do to make sure that the worst impacts of this can be curtailed so that we can improve the livelihoods of South Australians going forward.

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