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

Motions

Online Gambling

Debate resumed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are still dealing with the motion. The member for Lee is on his feet. Have you finished, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I have concluded my remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:06): In relation to the motion that is before the house, I thank the member for his contribution—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you are closing the debate, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, yes. I thank the member for his indication to support the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee with the Legislative Council. I confirm that, for all the reasons that he has outlined as to the merits of why we—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, sir: we have to deal with the amendment before we close off the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have to speak up, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have to deal with the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the amendment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have given it to the people who need it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can speak to the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would like to know what it says because I have heard the ramble. I just need to know what it said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do we have a copy of the amendment?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I have given it to the attendant, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A copy of the amendment is available here at the attendant's desk.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, I have read the amendment. Just for the record, it tells us:

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

I will deal with both matters: firstly, that the amendment that is proposed will be opposed. Secondly, although I welcome the indication of the member's contribution in support of having an online inquiry in respect of online gambling, the concept of having simply a circumstance of what is effectively five members from the House of Assembly and five members from the Legislative Council would not be orderly. It would be completely unprecedented, as far as I am concerned.

In any event, the proposal of the government is very clear in having this online committee: that we have three from each house and that we have two from the government of this house. At all material times I have invited the member for Lee, who has been quite a strong advocate in dealing with online gambling and the concerns that he has raised about it, to be the nominee from the House of Assembly. If he does not wish to be—because of his insistence to be the chairman of this committee—he could certainly nominate someone else. He has nominated one of his colleagues on the basis that he now insists that there be two from his party.

I have had conversations with the member for Frome because he also has been a longstanding member of the house and is interested in this topic. His indication to be available to be a third representative from this house in the event that, for whatever reason, the member for Lee or the Labor Party generally, the opposition generally, do not wish to nominate a person, or will not stand unless their terms and conditions insisted on are complied with, then he is available to—this is not a tactic that is acceptable.

It is certainly an affront to the parliament that somehow or other now we are going to change the rules. We are going to sort of minimise in some way the decisions and the usual practice, I understand, of the Legislative Council. They run their own affairs in relation to who they put on these things. My understanding from the Hon. Mr Lucas, who has been around for quite some time, is that he says that, on joint standing committees, we have three each.

Our practice in our house is that we have one from the government, one from the opposition and one nominee from the crossbench whoever they decide amongst themselves would like to be on it. That is the offer in relation to this proposal consistent with precedent. That is precisely what we propose.

I have made it clear at all material times that the nominees for the House of Assembly from the government will be the member for Heysen and the member for Narungga, both very interested, studious and acknowledged to be competent already—the member for Heysen in particular, but I add into that the member for Narungga. I would not be putting them forward unless I thought they had an important interest and a capacity to contribute, as well as the member for Heysen providing valuable leadership for that purpose.

If it is the intent of the opposition that it is the whole spit the dummy, 'Unless we get our terms we're not going to participate,' well, so be it. We think this issue is important enough and we need to get on with it. If it turns out that we end up with a scenario where they walk away, which is not the first time they have done this—they just walk away and say, 'Well, we just refuse to be part of a committee of the parliament.' I remember premier Weatherill doing this, saying, 'Well, we're just not going to be part of it. We're just not even going to put anybody up.' That is the disrespect that would be shown to the parliament.

That would be very, very concerning if that is the approach this opposition is going to have. Nevertheless, we can refer the matter back to the Economic and Finance Committee, which is under the chairmanship of the member for Colton. It can go back to that committee or it can go to other committees in the Legislative Council, but we thought, and I think the opposition thought during the course of the gambling reforms, that it would be meritorious to have this as a group representative of both houses of the parliament that it be a joint standing committee.

That is still the position of the government. We still maintain that position. That proposal is on the table. If they spit the dummy, walk away, kick the stumps over and say, 'We're not playing games. We're walking away,' well, so be it. We will get on with an inquiry in relation to this matter one way or another, but the proposal is on the table. I put the motion for consideration.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to put the amendment to the motion. The amendment is standing in the name of the member for Lee. The amendment is to part 2 of the motion. The amendment reads:

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

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 21

Noes 24

Majority 3

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. (teller) Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.

Amendment thus negatived; motion carried.

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