HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (BETTING OPERATIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2008. Page 742.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:33): I rise to indicate, not without some concern, Liberal Party support for this bill. At the outset, I indicate that, whilst the Liberal Party has been kept in the loop with regard to what has been happening with this legislation, we are particularly disappointed that state Labor Party racing ministers did not get together to sort out some of these issues before the New South Wales state parliament introduced legislation that has thrown the industry in Australia into turmoil.

All of a sudden, we are being asked to support legislation that will, in fact, be retrospective, and that is hardly a position the Liberal Party would want to support under almost any circumstances. Having said that, we understand the parlous situation of the industry in this state. I indicate that we are very well aware of how far behind the eight ball we are in this state compared with the rest of Australia with regard to prize money, certainly in relation to horse-racing.

In relation to a recent Saturday race meeting, South Australia's total prize money was $213,000. In Victoria, given that it was the spring carnival and they had two group 2 races, their total prize money was $1.32 million; New South Wales, $560,000; Queensland, $405,000; and in Western Australia, they raced for $900,000 on the Saturday. So, we are hardly in a position to disadvantage the industry in this state at all.

From the outset, I must say how grateful we are to minister Zollo for organising some crown law advice for us which we had some interest in. We were pleased to have that cooperation. We have raised concerns and, while we could hardly say that we look into a crystal ball on this side, I want it on the record that we can see serious challenges coming to this legislation, from, in particular, the Northern Territory corporate bookmakers who really have been the target of this legislation from New South Wales. It annoys me that a lot more consultation and consideration could not have been given to the other states and the effects on the other states.

I have had circulated to me an amendment that has been proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and, whilst from the outset it looks as if that amendment down the track could have some merit, it is a fair concern to us on this side that the industry in particular is desperately keen to have this legislation passed. Without the opposition consulting all stakeholders with regard to the amendment that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire proposes, it is very difficult for us on this side at this point to be able to support it. That is not to say that we could not perhaps revisit it possibly next year, given proper procedures and a reasonable amount of time.

I suspect that we are going to have to revisit this legislation down the track in any case. We will watch with great interest to see some of the challenges that we think will probably come. We on this side of the council will do everything we can to support the racing industry and, because of that, we obviously support a reasonably speedy passage of the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:37): I rise to support the second reading of this bill. I say from the outset that I will have some more to say at the committee stage, but my general comment is that Family First supports the bill and, furthermore, wants to assist the government in taking a tough stand against potential corruption in the betting industry. That is the point of our amendment, which I will discuss during the committee stage.

The government was placed in a difficult position by the High Court decision outlawing the Western Australian effort to ban the operations of Betfair in its jurisdiction. Most members would be familiar with Betfair thanks, in part, to the advocacy of a former member of the council, Nick Xenophon, now Senator Xenophon, with his bill on betting on losing.

Before I was sworn in to this chamber, Family First had been concerned about the time it was taking for the government to respond to this issue. It is good to see a response now and I, for one, will not be critical of the government because this bill and the briefing we have received make it apparent that some of the best constitutional legal minds were required to think up a strategy to deal with the problem that the High Court has come up with.

The government might still need those best constitutional legal minds if, when it is passed, the legislation is criticised. Any move that seeks to tighten regulation and reduce the betting opportunities in South Australia is welcomed by Family First. This bill will have the effect, compared to the practical situation—or should I call it the regulatory vacuum created by the High Court—that we have now in particular in relation to internet and mobile betting.

Betting on losing and other contingencies that open racing and other sports to corruption is a huge concern to Family First, not only because these are new betting opportunities but also because they create a very real risk of corruption within sports. I will say more on that during committee but, for this move, the government is to be congratulated.

Before concluding my contribution to the debate for the moment, I refer to clause 7 of the bill. Codes of practice may include, we are told, measures on problem gambling that require accounts to be kept and managed by punters in a way that limits the amount they can spend in a given time period—self barring, if you like—and also requiring account statements to be provided at regular intervals. Of course, this is a code of practice and, therefore, not mandatory. Furthermore, the wording is 'may' not 'must'—so, there are some weaknesses there.

However, we want to encourage the government by saying that Family First welcomes these moves on problem gambling and looks forward to the government implementing these measures as a bare minimum standard in the field of other gambling—in particular, poker machines. These sorts of initiatives have been resisted by the government for some time, and I hope that this bill represents a watershed moment whereby the government accepts the effectiveness of these methods to reduce the incidence of problem gambling and will put them forward in all other spheres of gaming; in particular, as I say, in relation to the plague of poker machines. With those comments, and a vote of support, I can conclude Family First's second reading contribution to the debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:40): I rise to speak to the second reading. At the outset, having listened to the contribution from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I think it is the perfect example of why we should not be rushing legislation through the parliament. If the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's understanding of this bill and the reasons why he is supporting it are accurate, then my understanding of the bill (and other people's understanding of the bill) is inaccurate. I will explain that later on in my contribution.

As I said, I am surprised that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and his party are supporting this legislation on the grounds that they see it as a further restriction and prohibition when tackling the issue of problem gambling. Let us explore with the minister in committee what this bill actually does—and I must say that the time to go through this measure has been relatively limited. This is the state government throwing its hands in the air at its previous policy position (which was similar to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's) and basically saying, 'We can't do much about it because of the Western Australian High Court decision, and the best thing we can do now is to try to regulate the industry and make sure that there is an even flow of money between jurisdictions.'

That is the reason why my colleague, arguing fervently on behalf of the racing industry, is strongly supporting this particular legislation on behalf of the Liberal party—that is, it sees that, potentially, the racing industry in South Australia is losing out on some of these gambling dollars and it wants some of the gambling dollars to come back to South Australia. As I said, I stand to be corrected on this matter, and that is why we need to explore it in greater detail with the minister and her advisers in the committee stage.

I do not see anything here that is consistent with a view about cracking down on problem gambling; I certainly do not see anything in here about cracking down on Betfair. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire was speaking eloquently about the evils of Betfair and betting exchanges, but my understanding is that this actually regulates and allows Betfair and betting exchanges to operate; all they are worried about is how much money they get out of it coming back into the industry. As I said, I will return to that in a moment when I talk about this government's position on these issues.

I come to this debate from a different perspective to that of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, obviously, and the Hon. Mr Xenophon and others previously. In relation to Betfair, whilst we have not had to vote on it, frankly, I have been sympathetic to the notion of another gambling option being available for those people who want to take a punt. That was not a position being adopted by the Hon. Mr Xenophon, Family First and, indeed, the state Labor government—and, also, I might say, the racing industry in recent years.

One of the reasons for this particular legislation is the popularity, as my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens referred to, of the views of the Northern Territory bookmakers. The reality is that there is an increasing number of people—not all outside this chamber, I might say; there are some in the parliament and there are members of staff—who have accounts with the Northern Territory corporate bookmakers.

The reason is, first, convenience, and also the fact that, in their view, they get better odds on a variety of bets they can get. One of the reasons for that is—and other gambling operators will confirm this—that they do not pay the same level of fees, taxes and charges. There is an increasing group in the community and in this Parliament House as well (we are not atypical) who have been attracted to the notion of the betting options being provided by providers interstate, to the degree that a number of people that I know both in Parliament House—staff and members—and outside the parliament maintain betting accounts which even five or 10 years ago they would not have contemplated.

We ought not underestimate the increasing popularity of some of the betting options being provided by betting providers outside the state. It is not just the odds, because other things include the intriguing nature or attractiveness of some of the bets that are allowed by interstate gambling promoters. It is not just a straight bet on winning a horse race or a straight bet on who might win a particular Grand Prix car race; it is a whole variety of betting options in relation to who will kick the most goals in football, who will win the toss, who will score the first goal, who will hit a run off the next ball, how many runs will be scored in an over or—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Who wins an election.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes—who wins an election. In recent times there would be prohibitive odds on your party, Mr Gazzola, as opposed to ours—I am talking historically. There are a variety of options that attract those people who want to gamble. Whilst the racing industry is important, we should not underestimate the fact that there is a variety of other interests in all of this that have an interest in betting regulation and the sorts of odds one might be able to get.

I come back to my first point: the problem with rushing legislation through the council. I assume notice was given of this matter in the last sitting week, but the first I registered that there was something on was some time around the middle of last week when my colleague, the Hon. Mr Stephens, indicated that the legislation was in the chamber and, further, that the government wanted to jam it through this week, supported by the racing industry and others.

One of the dilemmas is that the first debate we are having is today. The House of Assembly is claiming that it wants it passed today for tomorrow: whether that is possible or not I am not sure. My party has indicated its willingness to try to ensure the passage of the legislation through both houses by the end of the week, which formally takes us to Thursday. However, one of the dilemmas with that sort of shortened time frame is that you have no opportunity, particularly when you do not have carriage of a bill, to look at the consultation and take advice on the implications of the legislation. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has questions—maybe even more after I have spoken—and has an amendment. I flag that there are a number of issues, and the only way we will be able to explore them now is in committee.

I return to some of the comments of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire on whether this legislation does what he says it does or whether it is something different. I return to the position of the state government, and I want to refer to a press release issued by the Hon. Michael Wright, the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, on 22 November 2005. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the Hon. Mr Xenophon before him, and others, would have been delighted at this particular press release, because it says:

'Betfair not fair at all'—South Australia's Minister for Racing, Michael Wright, has supplied the Australian Racing Board with a copy of his draft legislative amendments aimed at blocking the controversial Betfair exchange's ability to take wagers from South Australian punters.

So, the Hon. Mr Wright was heading straight down the path of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—at least back in 2005, anyway. He had legislation under his arms and was going to block Betfair. In the press release he states:

British-based Betfair allows punters to back horses to both win and lose...'Letting punters back a horse to lose is un-Australian and it will only bring the horse-racing industry into disrepute', says minister Wright.

I am sure the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will be delighted at that previous statement by minister Wright in 2005.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I could have written the press release for him.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You could have written it for him; I am sure you could have. I will not read all the press release, but it states further:

Betfair, and any other betting exchange, has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the racing industry. Our concerns range from probity issues to the potential for criminal activity—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is still nodding, so he is still with the Hon. Mr Wright (at least, three years ago). The press release continues:

Potential problem gambling issues and diminished financial returns to both the racing industry and to government are also, in my view, unwanted by-products of betting exchange activity. We will take every possible step to severely curtail the operation and impact of exchanges on the South Australian racing industry.

As I said, the press release says 'Betfair not fair at all'. There are many other statements from minister Wright and representatives of the government in and around that time indicating that they were not going to have a bar of Betfair, and the racing industry I think at that particular time probably had the same view. So, in summary, the government was saying it is un-Australian; it would bring the racing industry into disrepute; it would cause irreparable damage; there are probity problems; and there is the potential for criminal activity. It does not sound very nice.

Subsequent to that, the Western Australian court case decision was handed down. Again, to summarise a very long story, a Western Australian government sought to do much the same things as the South Australian government was talking about but it was ruled unsuccessful by the High Court under section 92 on the ground of freedom of trade between the states.

That was some time ago now: I think that court decision was at least a couple of years ago. We now have this government legislation. One of the questions that I put to the minister is: given that there has been this court case, I assume that the South Australian government's views and the minister's views remain the same—that is, Betfair and betting exchanges are un-Australian, there is the potential for criminal activity and probity issues, and they have the potential to cause irreparable damage to the racing industry. Clearly, what we will be seeking from the minister is information about what the government is doing to ensure that none of these things that minister Wright was publicly warning of back in 2005 will occur as a result of this legislation, in essence, legislatively sanctioning the operation of betting exchanges in South Australia.

I hasten to say that I was sympathetic to Betfair right from the word 'go'. I did not have a problem, Mr President. Minister Wright, and many on your side of politics, thought it was un-Australian and all those sorts of things but, as long as there was transparency and an ability to ensure that if there was corruption it was identified, rooted out and action taken, I did not have a problem with the notion of Betfair. So, it is important that my bias, or perspective on this, is placed on the public record at this stage.

On my understanding, therefore, what we now have is the government reacting to the High Court decision, doing a 180-degree backflip on all these things in relation to Betfair and, in essence, saying, 'Okay, we can't do anything about it. We will now regulate and make sure that we get our fair share of the dollars in South Australia.'

I do not disagree with the notion of getting our fair share of the dollars in South Australia from gambling activity. However, the point I come back to is aptly highlighted by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's contribution. He has read this bill and has done a lot of work on it and is moving an amendment, and he has a completely different understanding about what the government is doing with respect to this legislation. I think that under clause 1 during the committee stage of the debate we need to hear from the minister (she can briefly respond, obviously, at the end of the second reading) as to exactly who is right in relation to what this legislation is seeking to do.

The other point I should make is that I had the unfortunate—I should not say that, because all service on Legislative Council select committees is a privilege and a benefit. However, I spent many years with the Hon. Mr Redford and the Hon. Mr Xenophon on a select committee trying to ban internet gambling. Whilst I am sure they have some wonderful attributes, which I am sure they are prepared to share with their colleagues and others who are prepared to listen, in my humble view their attitude to the potential to ban internet gambling was, if I can understate my response, naive.

They established a select committee, which sat for a number of years, and its purpose was to ban internet gambling. Their view was that we could put up the barriers in South Australia and stop those members and other staff members around here (or anyone else) who might like to have a punt from getting on their telephone and taking a shade of odds with a Northern Territory bookmaker and having a bet. They also believed that we could stop people in South Australia from having a bet on overseas gambling providers.

Some of us at that time were struggling to mount an argument (which is now, as I understand it, this government's position) that, in essence, we ain't King Canute in relation to internet gambling. Whatever you think you can do, the reality is that, in the privacy of your own home, your own car or your own office, you can do what you like in relation to taking a punt on any number of gambling sites or gambling providers. This now, as I understand it, is the government's endeavour to, in part, accept that reality but also to try to ensure that we in South Australia receive a fair share of the gambling dollars for our racing industry.

One of the questions that springs from that (and I put the question to the minister) is that my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens gave me a copy of a letter from the Director-General of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor in Western Australia in relation to the Western Australian legislation (I think that is a fair description). The letter states:

Betting operators located overseas will be required to apply to the Gaming and Wagering Commission for approval.

How I read that sentence in the letter is that the Western Australian legislation is seeking to regulate and provide approvals for betting operators located overseas; not only interstate in the Northern Territory but also overseas.

As I said, I have not had time to go through the government legislation in inordinate detail. There is certainly nothing in relation to overseas gambling providers in the second reading explanation that I could see or on my quick reading of the legislation, which seems to mirror the Western Australian legislation.

My question to the minister is: is that correct and is our legislation therefore different from legislation that exists in other states? I understood from my briefings on this bill that one of the arguments is that similar legislation has been passed in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, and a number of other states and jurisdictions, and South Australia is really just following similar legislation that has been passed elsewhere. Is our legislation today different in significant aspects from the legislation that applies in other jurisdictions? I instanced the overseas gambling provider as one example, but are there other areas where there are significant differences in terms of our legislation compared with others?

If the Western Australia legislation is seeking to outlaw or regulate overseas betting providers, how do we actually achieve that? How do we achieve regulation of gambling providers in Vanuatu who provide betting options on Australian racing or sporting products? If there are people in South Australia or Australia who punt on those particular sites, how do we propose to prevent that? Again, I put that question to the minister. It is an issue we will explore in the committee stage of the legislation, as well.

There are a number of other issues that, as a result of a quick reading of the bill, are probably better pursued in detail during the committee stage, but I want to highlight one or two matters. It comes back to the issue which I have just highlighted. What degree of control will we have in South Australia in relation to the information supplied by Northern Territory providers, for example? I guess, preceding that question, do we know how many South Australians are currently registered with interstate betting providers? Do we have estimates of how much money is involved? In the Western Australia information that my colleague has given me there are estimates of the amount of dollars that Western Australians punt on interstate racing products, and vice versa, in terms of the flow of money with the legislation. I am seeking from the minister some detail about what the government's knowledge is, and will be, of the use of these particular interstate betting providers.

I think the other questions I have are probably better pursued in committee. I am not sure what the government's intention is in relation to this bill. Certainly, I know my party has given a commitment to pass the legislation through both houses of parliament by the end of this week. If the bill is to proceed through the council today, then I seek responses to the questions I have already put to the minister. If we do not get those responses by the end of the second reading—which I imagine would be difficult if the minister is going to respond now—we will need some time in the committee stage to pursue those issues.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:04): I thank members for their contributions and expressions of support. I place on record the government's appreciation of the willingness of all members to debate the legislation in an expeditious manner. I want to make a few closing remarks about the bill.

This bill gives strong tools to the South Australian racing industry to secure its future in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing wagering market. This bill also establishes a consistent consumer protection framework that applies to both South Australian betting operators and interstate betting operators, thereby addressing the issues arising from the recent High Court decision. I hope that even those comments allay the fears of the Hon. Rob Lucas that this legislation is only about protecting earnings. It is not. It is also about consistent consumer protection, but I appreciate that I will need to provide some responses during committee.

I thank the members of the council, as I said, for their willingness to progress this bill as a priority. This is in recognition of the need of the South Australian racing industry for the tools that are offered in this bill. I note that this bill is supported by the three racing codes—Thoroughbred Racing SA, Harness Racing SA and Greyhound Racing SA—as well as the South Australian Bookmakers League and the SA TAB. I thank the industry for its willingness to work through the issues with such short notice for the benefit of the South Australian industry as a whole.

As noted in my second reading explanation, I would like to report back to the council on the work with SA TAB regarding its consent under the Approved Licensing Agreement. Consent would eliminate the possibility of SA TAB seeking compensation from the government for a diminution of the value of the SA TAB licensed business. Since I introduced the bill to the council, I have written to and met with representatives of SA TAB with a view to procuring their consent for this bill. Despite supporting this bill, SA TAB is not willing to provide consent.

Understandably, SA TAB wants to protect the rights it received under the Approved Licensing Agreement as part of its purchase. It is the government's view that the lack of consent represents a low risk. The reason for this assessment is that compensation is payable to SA TAB only if SA TAB could prove a causal connection between the event which triggers the claim and a diminution in value of SA TAB's business and licence. It is the government's view that, if SA TAB suffers any diminution in value of its business and licence, it is the result of the Betfair High Court decision.

If anything, the proposed amendments will even the playing field and lessen the impact on the High Court decision on the value of the SA TAB business and licence. The government does not support the payment of any compensation to SA TAB arising from this important legislation. While the government will continue to work cooperatively with SA TAB to arrive at an outcome that will not expose South Australian taxpayers to the risk of litigation, any claim for compensation made by SA TAB arising from this legislation will be vigorously defended by the government. As I mentioned, we will respond to any issues raised in committee.

In particular, I note that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has tabled an amendment, which seeks to extend the concept of both contribution agreements and integrity agreements across to sports betting. These agreements need to be between an authority responsible for the conduct of sporting events and the betting operator. The purchase of integrity agreements is to ensure that there is a flow of information between the betting operator and the controlling authority to ensure that the event is conducted with integrity. The purpose of contribution agreements is to require betting operators to make a financial contribution to the running of the sport on which bets are taken or facilitated.

The amendment of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire as drafted requires the betting operator to enter into an integrity agreement with the Independent Gambling Authority. The problem with this concept is that the Independent Gambling Authority is not the body responsible for the conduct of sport in South Australia: it has no legislative mandate to control or regulate the conduct of sport in South Australia.

While the racing controlling authorities are clearly identified in legislation, the same is not true for sports-controlling authorities: a legislative scheme for the identification of sports-controlling authorities and dispute resolution is required. I understand that a similar model is in place in Victoria.

The proposed amendment could be changed so that the integrity agreement was with the relevant sports-controlling authority rather than with the Independent Gambling Authority. Without a contribution agreement in place, this would cause a sports-controlling authority to incur the cost of handling inquiries from betting operators around Australia and perhaps beyond, without any source of revenue to cover the costs. Including contribution agreements has the potential to cause an event with the SA TAB under its approved licensing agreement.

Given these issues, it is the government's view that extending contribution and integrity agreements to sporting events conducted in South Australia would require wider consultation with sporting bodies to ensure that provisions presented to this parliament are appropriate. Given the urgent needs of the racing industry, the government has decided at this time not to include sporting events in the new contribution and integrity agreement provisions in this bill. However, I am happy to commit the government to further development of these ideas in 2009 and to subject that work to wider consultation with the South Australian sporting community. I clearly understand why the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has placed this amendment on file, but I also hope he appreciates that, given the urgency of this legislation, we are happy to commit to further developing his ideas in 2009.

In the meantime, the Independent Gambling Authority, through its power to approve contingencies, will have regard to the standards of probity applying in relation to those particular contingencies. For the reasons I have just outlined, the government cannot at this time support the filed amendment.

Again, I thank the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the Hon. Robert Lucas for their contribution, and I also appreciate the indication of support by other members. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that the minister was unable to respond to the many questions I put in the second reading stage, I take the opportunity in clause 1 to pursue some of those questions. At the outset, I ask the minister what information the government has available to it in relation to the flow of revenue between the states. To that end, I quote from a press release of 5 November this year from the Western Australian racing and gaming minister, Terry Waldron. It states:

Without this legislation, the Western Australian racing industry faces a product fee bill of at least $17 million per year for bets made by Western Australian punters on interstate races. Once this legislation is in place, Western Australia's three racing codes will be able to recoup around $14 million to $15 million from interstate wagering operators betting on Western Australian races.

Can the minister provide the equivalent figures for the South Australian industry?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I advise that we do not currently have accurate information about the use by South Australians. The figures that were quoted by my colleague the then acting premier, Patrick Conlon, were in relation to Racing NSW, and I am happy to place them on the record. Racing NSW has already sent the first monthly account to SA TAB for $123,000 based on last year's thoroughbred racing turnover and future estimates.

That amount will increase to around $180,000 when the fees applied to wagers are placed on New South Wales harness and greyhound racing events. This means that South Australia's three racing codes face a combined bill of over $2 million per annum, and it was calculated that, if other jurisdictions adopt the New South Wales measure, this figure could exceed $9 million per annum.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: How is it that it is possible for the Western Australian racing minister, in pursuing similar legislation in the Western Australian parliament, to provide members and observers with information on the flow of revenue between Western Australia and the other states while it is not possible for the South Australian government to share that same information with this parliament and the community?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I advise that the information from betting operators is, I understand, commercial-in-confidence, and we do not have ready access to it. What we do have is the expectation of the industry. The industry expects that this will result in a marginally revenue-positive outcome for South Australia: that is, the racing industry will receive more from wagering operators who wager on SA events than they will have to pay other jurisdictions for wagering on their product. We simply do not have that detailed information.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a pretty critical issue. The parliament is being asked to support the legislation quickly, and we are told that there is an expectation that there will be a net advantage to South Australia and the South Australian industry. As I said, in Western Australia they were able to provide definitive estimates. We are not being provided with that information here and, clearly, the minister does not have that information. There is no purpose to be served in trying to delay the committee stage on that issue any longer, but it is disappointing that we do not have that information.

If there are no figures, who is actually providing this estimate and who will take responsibility for this estimate? We are hearing broad terms used such as 'the industry'. Who is 'the industry'; who has actually provided the estimate upon which we are being asked to rely that there will be a net positive?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We are seeking some further advice, but I place on the record that, of course, the reason we are asking this parliament to deal with this legislation quickly is that we are certain that we will face losses if we do not legislate in this area.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I repeat my question to the minister: who is actually responsible for the advice to the government that there will be a net benefit, which is the phrase the minister just used in response to my earlier question?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: First, I am advised that the Western Australian estimate is a guesstimate. As I have said, the net benefit is not relevant in this case. If the legislation does not pass, as I mentioned earlier, South Australia would be $9 million worse off. I am advised that no jurisdiction is aware of what turnover the other TABs actually generate from other jurisdictions. Private companies do not divulge the information, nor do the bookmakers.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Would it be fair to say that, because this legislation has been put together reasonably quickly, there would be a fair expectation that we will probably have to revisit this matter next year when we get actual figures and results from other jurisdictions? This has not been generated by South Australians but it is something that we have to work within to try to make sure that we get a reasonable result at the end. Would that be a fair assumption?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice (which, I guess, is logical) is that it is fair to say that it is a rapidly changing environment and, should South Australia need to revisit this legislation, similarly other jurisdictions would have to do the same. Certainly, Treasury and Finance and the Office for Racing will continually monitor the outcome in the coming years.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would like to ask the minister to return to a phrase she was given to answer my question, two questions ago, which I think was that there was a marginal benefit or a slight positive. Will the minister repeat the advice she had in relation to my first question about the net flows between the states. The minister came back with an answer which was something like there was a 'marginal benefit' or there was 'a positive'.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The advice we had from the industry was that it expects that this will result in a marginally revenue positive outcome for South Australia—that is, the racing industry will receive more from wagering operators who wager on SA events than they will have to pay other jurisdictions for wagering on their product.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that was the phrase: marginally positive revenue situation. That information was provided: who was responsible for that advice to the government? When you say 'the racing industry' who does that mean? Who are we talking about?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that the information came from the controlling authorities: Thoroughbred Racing South Australia believes that it will be better off; the Harness Racing Authority is not certain at this stage; the Greyhound Racing Authority believes that it will be better off.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I take it then, on the basis of that verbal advice, the government's advisers have put that together and used the phrase 'a marginal positive revenue impact'—if that was the phrase that the minister quoted. Is that a phrase provided by the authorities or is that a phrase provided by recreation, sport and racing officers in the government or treasury officers in the government?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it came from the controlling authorities themselves and not from other government agencies.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The reason I have pursued this issue is that, in my long experience sitting on both sides of this chamber (in terms of the taxing and regulation of the racing industry), the one thing you can guarantee is that the various assurances that you are given will be wrong—and wrong by a considerable amount—within a relatively short period, almost without exception. I make that observation regardless of whether I am sitting on this side of the chamber, as I do now, or whether I sat on the other side of the chamber.

Various assurances or guesstimates are made by those involved with the racing industry in relation to the impact of various changes. This comes to the point the Hon. Mr Stephens raised before—although I think he raises the issue also in terms, potentially, of the drafting of the legislation—that, inevitably, the assurances or the best estimates of people are wrong for a whole variety of reasons. They always come up with good reasons as to why they were wrong. Some of them, I am sure, are good reasons but others come back to the nature of the industry involved.

However, that is the reason I am pursuing finding out who made the estimates. Next year, or in two years or three years, if we come back to revisit this on the basis that it was a good idea at the time in 2008 but the actual impacts have been widely different to what was being predicted, we have—and I assume you will have—the names of those people who urged the support of the legislation and provided those particular indications of the impact on the industry.

Another general issue I had was related to whether our legislation is different to the other jurisdictions regarding what it is seeking to do with overseas gambling providers. The Western Australian government was claiming that it was going to register and approve overseas gambling providers, according to the press release I quoted. Is our legislation different, in that particular respect, to the legislation in other states?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that overseas providers offering services to South Australians cannot be authorised. Therefore, for them to offer services and for people to use those services it is unlawful under the Lottery and Gaming Act 1936.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister saying that our legislation is different from the Western Australian legislation?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that we have not seen the Western Australian legislation but, if it is proposing authorisation for overseas betting providers, yes, we are different because clearly our section 3(1) only authorises interstate betting operators.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister might not recall, but in the second reading debate I quoted from a letter from Mr Barry Sargeant, Director-General of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor in Western Australia dated 18 November, wherein he says:

Betting operators located overseas will be required to apply to the Gaming and Wage Hearing Commission for approval.

If the minister has not seen the Western Australian legislation, and if Mr Sargeant is a reliable informant on the Western Australian legislation, I assume that its legislation is providing a mechanism for overseas operators to be approved and to pay their fair share of revenue to the Western Australian industry.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that there are two aspects to our legislation: first, authorising to offer services to people in South Australia (only interstate operators can do that); and, secondly, in relation to making a contribution, proposed new section 62E requires any person conducting betting operations in relation to South Australian races to have in place both an integrity agreement and a contribution agreement with the relevant racing controlling authority. Proposed new section 62E is not limited to authorised interstate betting operators or even Australian operators but applies to any betting operator that offers services in relation to South Australian races.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister now saying, contrary to what she said earlier, that overseas betting operators can bet on South Australian races and enter into these sorts of agreements under this legislation, contrary to the previous situation? That is what I understand the minister has just said to the chamber, which is different from what she was saying earlier.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My first answer was in relation to offering services to people located in South Australia, and my subsequent answer was in relation to receiving funds into South Australia.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister may be able to help us through this situation. Is she saying that no South Australian is allowed to bet with an overseas gambling provider under the provisions of the Lottery and Gaming Act she was talking about, but that the same gambling provider can take bets on South Australian events from anybody else and from any South Australian who is prepared to breach that provision of the act and enter into agreements and provide funds back here to the racing industry?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the response to that is yes, it is possible for an overseas betting operator to enter into an agreement with a racing controlling authority to provide a contribution, but overseas providers cannot lawfully offer services to South Australians.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that. I think it just highlights the bizarre situation we are getting ourselves into. For those interested in a punt, in essence, what we are saying is that these overseas gambling providers who can go there can lawfully operate by running events and taking bets from anyone other than South Australians but, of course, as the minister highlighted in answer to an earlier question, the gambling providers do not indicate from whom they are taking bets. So, unless the government is going to have authorised officers invading your office, Mr Acting Chairman, your home or car, there appears to be no way of enforcing that particular provision. Anyway, I do not intend to delay this particular bill any further on that aspect of the legislation.

I ask the minister as a matter of policy, now that she is aware of what she is doing and what we are being asked to do in relation to this issue: what is the policy logic in this legislation of authorising all sorts of betting operators interstate (including these terrible agencies, according to minister Wright, called Betfair and others) to operate in South Australia, and also authorising overseas gambling providers to enter into agreements with South Australian racing authorities, but not to allow South Australians to have a punt on the overseas provider? They can have a punt with the Northern Territory or interstate provider, but they cannot have a punt with the overseas provider.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that essentially this legislation offers the broadest possible scope to the racing controlling authorities to get funding from betting operators who benefit from their product.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I do not want to delay this bill, but the enforceability of this is something that we have had an issue with from the start. We wish the racing industry—all codes—every possible success, but we are ultimately very concerned about where this will finish, and it is a pity that this was not done by consultation within all states.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify that it is the government's policy position that South Australians should be allowed to bet on the internet with interstate gambling operators but should not be allowed to bet on the internet with an overseas operator?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It is the South Australian government's policy position that South Australians should be allowed to bet with interstate betting operators who comply with South Australian consumer protection requirements.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But not overseas providers?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The last general issue on clause 1 that I want to raise is the fundamental issue I raised in relation to Mr Brokenshire's question. Can the minister clarify whether or not it is correct that this legislation is, in essence, providing a regulatory framework for the operation of Betfair and other betting exchanges in South Australia?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The answer to that is yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure whether Mr Brokenshire was following that, but this legislation is providing, as the minister has indicated, a regulatory framework to allow Betfair to operate in South Australia. It is not cracking down on Betfair or preventing it or restricting it: it is providing a regulatory framework for it to operate here in South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My question relates to subclause (6), which is the definition of 'prescribed interstate licence'. That definition says:

but does not include a licence of a class excluded by regulation from the ambit of this definition;

I ask the minister what her advice is as to why that particular exclusion is there; and what sort of licence are we talking about?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the South Australian parliament retains the responsibility of establishing a legislative framework that provides for the proper conduct of betting services offered to persons located in South Australia. The bill proposes to recognise all licences or other authorities issued under the law of another state or territory of the commonwealth authorising the holder to conduct betting operations. If, however, it is determined that a particular class of licence or authority does not meet regulatory standards acceptable to South Australia, it is possible by way of regulation to exclude that class of licence or authority from offering services to persons located in South Australia. This is achieved through the definition of 'prescribed interstate licence', which allows from the exclusion of that definition a class of licence excluded by regulation. My advice is that it is certainly not our anticipation that any class of licence will be excluded, but we reserve the right to do so.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I ask the minister to clarify the intent of the government's changes in relation to notification in the Gazette. Clause 6(3)(b) provides:

(3) Before approving contingencies or varying an approval, the authority must—

...

(b) give prior written notice of the proposal to the minister.

When the government refers to 'proposal' here, are we talking about the original idea that is considered by the authority or is it the final decision of the authority in relation to the proposal? To me, 'proposal' means a proposition that is put to the authority. However, on reading it, I thought that it was meant to be read perhaps the other way, that is, the proposal that came out of the authority, in whatever shape or form it might be.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It is the proposal of the authority to approve before it is formally approved. I understand that, under new subsection (3a), it remains unchanged. It provides:

The authority must, within 14 days after approving contingencies or varying or revoking an approval, publish a notice in the Gazette setting out the terms of the approval, variation or revocation.

So, that remains unchanged. My apologies. Apparently, that is a change. Subclause (3)(b) has been changed to give prior written notice of the proposal to the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I obviously did not make my question clear. At what stage is that written notice of the proposal meant to be given to the minister? Is it prior to consideration by the authority? Someone comes up with the idea for this bet or contingency, and the authority has to consider it. So, does the 14 days' prior written notice of the proposal occur at that stage, before the authority considers it, or after the authority has considered it and is in a position of recommending something?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is before the authority makes a decision. I understand that the reasoning behind that is that new section 4 provides that the minister may give the authority binding directions preventing or restricting the approval of contingencies.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That leads to a further question that I was going to ask in relation to new section 4. I think new section 4 is generally interpreted as being the minister either saying yea or nay to a particular bet or contingency that might be considered, but is it possible for new section 4 to be interpreted that the minister could give the authority a binding direction to say, 'You are not to approve any further contingencies in a blanket fashion'?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that if a blanket direction was to be applied by a minister he or she would run into administrative law difficulties. For example, all bets offered by the betting exchange—for example, betting on losing—obviously would be an administrative law issue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: New subsection (3a) provides:

The authority must, within 14 days after approving contingencies…publish a notice in the Gazette...

Assuming the authority makes a decision and the minister has not overturned it, then 14 days later it publishes the notice in the Gazette, is it possible under the government's framework for the event to which the contingency relates to have already transpired within the 14-day period? What prevents that?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is theoretically possible.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: From a policy viewpoint, why is that reasonable? Let us say that something controversial is allowed—some peculiar bet in terms of a football or cricket game—and the minister has approved it or not approved it. The first notification that that sort of betting is being allowed is the notification in the Gazette, which I assume will be after the betting operator has already advertised the particular bet to which the contingency relates. It seems entirely unreasonable in terms of transparency to have this provision where the first public notification is 14 days after the approval and after the event might have occurred.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the proposed amendments give greater flexibility to the Independent Gambling Authority in relation to the approval of contingencies. This ensures that South Australian licensees are not unduly restricted in their ability to offer events and bet types when competing in the national market. Currently, I am advised that the approval of a contingency comes into effect the day it is published in the Government Gazette. In order to reflect the sometimes fast-changing nature of the business, it is proposed to make the approval effective on the day it is approved by the Independent Gambling Authority. I understand that this change was requested by the Independent Gambling Authority to ease the administrative burden on licensees and the authority.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not mind a range of bets and gambling options to which a lot of other people might object but, basically, the parliament is authorising the authority to approve what some people might see as a bizarre betting option—which is approved straight away. The first thing that the Hon. Mr Xenophon or the Hon. Mr Brokenshire might know about it will be up to 14 days later when it is gazetted. Why is that a reasonable proposition? Why could the government not have a situation where, when it is approved, it needs to be gazetted and advised, or there needs to be an approval prior to the particular contingency?

If there is to be a funny sort of bet on the Clipsal race next year, why should that not be approved and advised prior to the Clipsal race? In essence, what is being said here is that it could be done prior to the Clipsal race and the actual notification of whatever that bet option might be will not be formally gazetted until 14 days later. Of course, the betting provider would have to provide advice to their customers during that 14-day period.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the point of the Gazette is just evidentiary. The authority cannot approve without having given notice to the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand the minister knows, but the minister—with the greatest respect to the current minister—is not necessarily the reflective wisdom of the whole parliament or, indeed, your side of parliament or the whole community. I was the gambling minister for a while. The Hon. Mr Xenophon would have died with his legs in the air if the situation was allowed where as the gambling minister I was the only person to be advised of a particular contingency. I probably would have allowed most or all of them—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As minister you would be advised but no-one else would know for 14 days. I would think that, if the Hon. Mr Xenophon was here, he would die with his legs in the air at the prospect that a future gambling minister like me, or anyone with views similar to mine, would have a position where they are the only person who is advised—the rest of parliament is not advised and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire knows nothing about it, heaven forbid! Some 14 days later the authority would gazette it and, potentially, all hell would break loose when they say, 'Why on earth have we allowed this sort of betting in South Australia?'

Not that long ago, there were arguments in this place as to whether or not you should be allowed to bet on the Bay Sheffield. Special legislation had to go through the parliament to allow betting on a specific event at the Bay Sheffield. That is how things have moved in 15 years, or so. I understand that this is the government's position. As I said, given the inability to consider this in any detail, I have not flagged with my party any changes in this area, and I am therefore not in a position to delay the legislation. I would flag my objection, I guess, to the government's position on this, and I am surprised that other members—in particular those on the crossbenches—are also supporting it.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The 'codes of practice' under new section 6A(3)(c), as I understand it, are the sorts of requirements we will be requiring of the interstate gambling providers. New paragraph (c) will require account statements to be filed at regular intervals. Will we, as a result of these requirements, be in a position to indicate what we cannot indicate at the moment, that is, how many people are betting from South Australia on various events in other states in terms of the jurisdictional breakdowns, and can we require and will we be requiring of the interstate gambling providers some indication of the amount of betting with particular providers from our jurisdiction?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I refer the honourable member to new section 40B, 'Annual fees and returns'. This proposed new section provides for data collection from authorised interstate betting operators. It is important to ensure that regulators, the government and parliament have access to accurate information about betting operations in South Australia. The reporting time frame is such that it allows the information to be included in the Independent Gambling Authority's annual report.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister therefore saying that we will be requiring and therefore reporting as we approve these interstate gambling operators on how many of them there are and how much betting is coming from South Australia?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: New section 6A(3)(c)(ii) provides:

Require the accounts to be managed in a way that allows the amount available for betting at any given time to be limited;

What exactly is the government intending in relation to that provision?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It allows customers to set pre-commitments. Betting operators offer customers the ability to set their gambling limits on their accounts to see more responsible gambling.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On behalf of my colleagues and staff members who might have accounts with these operators, is the minister saying that this would be only a voluntary commitment by an individual punter who has an account with one of these operators? Is it something that would be imposed by the gambling authority here or some other authority in relation to the level of betting by an individual?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the policy intention is that it is voluntary.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that the policy intention is that it is voluntary but, when one looks at it, new paragraph (c)(ii) provides:

Require the accounts to be managed in a way that allows the amount available for betting at any given time to be limited.

The minister is obviously saying that the policy intention is that it is voluntary, but does not the drafting of this particular provision allow for mandatory restrictions to be imposed if a different policy provision is adopted?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is (and it would be my interpretation also) that we are using the word 'allow'. It does not say that it is mandatory. We are saying that it allows it to be kept in such a way so that, if a customer does want to set pre-commitments, it allows the person to do so. They are then able to obtain the data.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister confirming that, if the policy position of the government was to change to support compulsory restrictions on the amount of betting by an individual, this particular new subparagraph could not be used to implement a changed government policy position?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I refer the honourable member to sections 10 and 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 which allow a notice to be published in the Gazette under these sections as if it were a regulation within the meaning of the act. Obviously, it is something that can be changed under regulation and, of course, as a regulation it can be disallowed by the parliament.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 17, after line 21—Insert:

Division 5—Betting operations relating to other contingencies.

62J—Integrity agreements.

(1) A person (the operator) must not conduct betting operations in relation to contingencies that relate to events held in this state other than races held by a racing club (SA non-racing betting operations) unless the operator has entered into an integrity agreement with the Authority conforming with the requirements of this section and the agreement is in force.

Maximum penalty: $25,000 or imprisonment for one year.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the SA non-racing betting operations are conducted wholly within or outside the state or partly in the state and partly outside the state.

(3) Without limiting the matters that may be included in an integrity agreement, the agreement must include—

(a) provisions requiring the operator to provide to the authority on request information about the operator's SA non-racing betting operations (which may include information relating to trade secrets or business processes, financial information and information identifying or relating to persons making bets), verified, if the authority so requires, by statutory declaration; and

(b) provisions requiring the operator to implement specified measures to identify potential issues of probity in relation to the operator's SA non-racing betting operations and report identified issues to the authority; and

(c) provisions requiring the operator to inform the authority of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings commenced against the operator, or a close associate of the operator, in connection with any betting operations; and

(d) provisions requiring the operator to facilitate investigations or inquiries into the conduct of the operator's SA non-racing betting operations; and

(e) provisions establishing a dispute resolution procedure; and

(f) other provisions prescribed by regulation.

(4) If a person seeks to negotiate an agreement with the Authority under this section, the Authority must negotiate with the person in good faith subject to and in accordance with legal requirements (including, without limitation, the requirements relating to authority to conduct betting operations in this state under the Lottery and Gaming Act 1936 and this act and requirements of section 92 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth).

(5) An integrity agreement may be varied by a later agreement between the parties.

(6) If the operator holds a licence under this act, it is a condition of the licence that the operator must perform its obligations under an integrity agreement.

This amendment is specifically about the integrity issue and nothing more. The simple premise of this amendment is that, if it is good enough to have integrity measures (which some of us would call anti-corruption measures) for racing, it is good enough to have anti-corruption measures for all other events upon which people can bet in South Australia.

Even though racing comprises a large slice of the pie insofar as gambling activity goes, if the anticorruption measures of the current bill as they apply to racing are passed, it is foreseeable that corruption will shift to what I will call sports betting, although in my amendment I use the term 'non-racing betting' because there could be events some would not call sport but where there could be an opportunity for a betting exchange.

Let us remember that the government is not alleging or adducing evidence that corruption exists in racing: it is simply implementing anticorruption measures as a safeguard. Therefore, the logic of this argument must extend to other codes, whether or not the government has its regulatory activity up to standard in that area; otherwise, we will see a shift in gambling activity into sports betting. Remember, too, this bill imposes a contribution arrangement on racing that it does not impose on sports betting. The least we can do is introduce integrity anticorruption measures to protect the integrity and the existing balance between racing and sports betting.

Technically speaking, this amendment, which would become section 62J of the Authorised Betting Operations Act, simply mirrors clause 23 of the minister's bill insofar as it relates to proposed section 62E, subsections (1) to (6) inclusive, that is, taking the integrity agreement requirements for racing, leaving out the contributions requirement, and imposing them on sports betting. There will be virtually no impact upon sporting event operators, or other events for that matter, as a consequence of this clause. The onus would fall on the betting exchange and the regulator (in the amendment, initially the Independent Gambling Authority) to inquire about and receive data on betting patterns on the new contingencies allowed for sporting events.

In conclusion, I want to put a couple of practical examples that might help members in their consideration. In giving these examples, I make no allegations about or slurs on the racing industry, nor is the government making allegations. I suspect this is about safeguards to protect the industry, not about bashing the sports industry. Let us say that an AFL team is five goals up going into the last quarter, and let us say that a betting event is on a particular player kicking seven goals. Let us say that that player and his team mates each put $10,000 on that particular player's kicking seven goals. Then let us say that news about that got about in privileged circles and a plunge on that event occurred. When someone had an open shot on goal, a couple of strange handballs to that particular player sets up the situation, and he actually kicks seven goals, and the team mates and those in the know cash in. I do not believe that to be appropriate.

Another more concerning scenario would be when, say, the team players are down on their luck and a bunch of them secretly agree to tank for a particular game, not for draft picks but for a loss; one contingency on the table by Betfair is betting on losing. They agree to kick a clanger or shoot wide of the mark to ensure that the team loses. It is a horrific thing for a footy supporter to think, but money talks, as we have seen in the subcontinent. Again, let us say that word gets out amongst a select few, and there is a plunge on that team losing the match. If the price is right and the salary is too low, corruption can sneak in. Integrity measures will prevent that scenario, and that is what I am on about with this amendment.

Finally, betting on losing is particularly concerning. As my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood said on 14 March 2007, when supporting the now Senator Xenophon's bill on this issue, one can much more easily ensure that a loss occurs than a draw or a win. A goalkeeper might be all you need, for instance, in a soccer match to ensure a loss. Just one missed save, and it is a sure assault.

So, members should inform themselves about the history of match fixing in order to understand how this kind of scenario can play out. We need to think seriously about the goose and the gander argument, that is, if integrity is good for the goose, it is clearly also good for the gander. In other words, if it is good for racing, it is good for all sports betting.

My final point is that the intention of this amendment is that this should be funded by government, not the industry. I support the amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As previously indicated, the government does not support the amendment. However, I think it is worth while reiterating just a few of the comments I made at the conclusion of the second reading debate. In principle, the government is supportive of the concept of extending both contribution agreements and integrity agreements across to sports betting. The amendment as drafted requires the betting operator to enter into an integrity agreement with the Independent Gambling Authority. Of course, the problem with this concept is that the Independent Gambling Authority is not the body responsible for the conduct of sport in South Australia: it does not have any legislative mandate to control or regulate the conduct of sport in this state. While the racing controlling authorities are clearly identified in legislation, the same is not true for sports-controlling authorities. A legislative scheme for the identification of sports-controlling authorities and dispute resolution will be required.

I need to stress that, without a contribution agreement in place, this amendment would cause a sports-controlling authority to incur the costs of handling inquiries from betting operators around Australia and perhaps beyond, without any source of revenue to cover the costs.

Again, I am happy to commit the government to further development of these ideas in 2009. Clearly, we understand the good intent of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, and we commit ourselves to wider consultation with the South Australian community when we revisit this idea in 2009. I again stress that, in the meantime, the Independent Gambling Authority, through its power to approve contingencies, will have regard to the standards of probity applying in relation to those contingencies. For the reasons I have just outlined, the government cannot support the amendment at this time.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition does not support the amendment at this time. We understand the intent, and I do believe that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's proposal is well intentioned. We certainly would not entertain anything without consulting widely within the community. One of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's examples related to AFL football.

The AFL football code of conduct means that not only are players not allowed to bet on their own games but also they are not allowed to bet on other games and, sadly, one of my heroes was recently widely criticised for indulging in betting on football games that he was not involved in.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Kieran Jack.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I won't mention any names because I do not think it needs to be revisited, but sporting groups generally already have a code of conduct that provides some integrity. That is not to say that we would not be prepared to look at it, investigate it, consider it and form a balanced opinion at the time.

Sadly, today, we do not have the ability to do all of those things and, given that I have been contacted by every racing code again today stressing the urgency and their concern with this legislation, we cannot support the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment at this time. However, we give the honourable member a commitment that we are quite prepared to look at the intention of his amendment with a reasonable amount of time to consult widely.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (24 to 35), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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