HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (LOCATION OF GAMING VENUES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2008. Page 319.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (18:25): This is a piece of legislation that we have seen before and, consistent with the government's position at that time, we do not support it. The government is certainly concerned about problem gambling in our community and, indeed, it is taking a range of positive steps to address this issue. I will not go through all those now because they are not strictly relevant to the bill.

The government supports the current ban on having gaming venues located inside shops and shopping centres or the associated car ark, and it does so in order to reduce the likelihood of problem gamblers being tempted away from purchasing essential items. So, we support that part of the current bill. However, this bill tries to override the state's planning and development system. This broad-brush approach will have a major adverse economic impact on the development of centres and country townships while, I would argue, not addressing the issues of problem gambling.

Given that most hotels are located near groups of shops in the established areas of Adelaide and most planning policies promote integrated centres consisting of retailing, office and entertainment facilities, this bill would place a significant constraint on the promotion of centres and the redevelopment and expansion of shops and hotels in such centres while not addressing the issue of problem gambling.

Given that most country towns have hotels and clubs as well as all their shops in the main street, such an amendment could place a significant constraint on the redevelopment or expansion of their town centres. This bill tries to introduce planning policy into legislation, whereas it is more appropriate that suitable location and design policies are incorporated into development plans.

The government prefers to tackle the problem of gambling directly rather than using indirect approaches which will potentially have a major impact on economic development involving both small and large businesses in the state. As I said, the government is doing a significant amount to deal with the problems created by gambling but, to do it in this way, we believe, could create some significant problems.

I will give an example quickly that will illustrate the problems that might arise under this legislation. Many of the more contentious issues that come to me as Minister for Urban Development and Planning involve opposition to new shopping facilities in areas. There is always intense lobbying when there is a proposal for a new shopping centre because, of course, the owners of existing shopping centres wish to protect their patch. Sometimes they may be right and sometimes they may be wrong in a planning sense.

However, clearly, if we are to use the existence of a gaming machine venue as a constraint on what development might take place that could lead to significant distortions in our planning laws. It is one thing to say that where you have an existing shopping centre you should not allow a gaming machine venue to be added to that. In some cases, we do have gaming venues in there. That clause was introduced some years ago, and it was grandfathered. In some cases there are gaming facilities within existing shopping centres.

As I have said, the government supports that piece of legislation to ensure that there is no further encroachment of gaming machine venues into shopping centres. However, to say that one cannot build a shop—which would include a shopping centre or a school—within 60 metres of a place that has a gaming machine venue, we believe, could lead to some real distortions under the Development Act. It is essentially for that reason that we oppose it. However, as a government we recognise the problems with gambling, and we will seek to deal with those directly rather than indirectly through changes to planning legislation, which could have unintended consequences. So, for that reason, we oppose the legislation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (18:30): This is a small bill. I would like to make note of the fact that it has four clauses. I am grateful for the minister's previous contribution reiterating that there is currently a ban on gambling in shopping centres and the sharing of car parks. I believe that this parliament has supported the principle consistently that shopping centres and gaming venues should not be in too close proximity because of the principle that people who are out and about obtaining the staples of life should not necessarily be tempted to whittle away what they have on gaming machines.

There are a number of Liberals who have some reservations on this, myself included. I think in South Australia we have seen some maturing of the market, as it were, in relation to gaming machines, with more comprehensive efforts by gaming proprietors, hoteliers and so forth, and the industry is taking a lot more responsibility in terms of problem gamblers. I hope that, in future, we will have much more informed debate than we have had in the past. Unfortunately, people still make remarks to me that gaming is somehow a tax on the poor. I note that my colleague, the Hon. Robert Lawson, gave a speech on this fairly recently, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I think that we do need to make decisions based on evidence, and a number of my colleagues were a little sceptical about this, because the evidence about what contributes to people developing problem gambling has, at times, been quite a hysterical and uninformed debate, particularly perhaps in this chamber, and that has led to some reservations. One of the questions that I would like to ask the honourable member—and I will place that on the record now—is whether he has any evidence or piece of research that he can point to which demonstrates that this measure is going to make any difference in that regard. In keeping with the spirit of the legislation that we have supported consistently, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (18:33): I rise to speak to this and to indicate my support for the second reading of the bill but flag that, at this stage, I am unlikely to be able to support the third reading. The reason I thought that I had better speak is that the Hon. Mr Darley quoted the 1997 legislation which, as leader of the government, I spoke on and led at the time. In my position now, I do not have quite the restrictions that I enjoyed at that time in terms of the very strong views of my premier and my party at the time in relation to that legislation.

I think I can indicate now, with the passage of 11 years, that I was not necessarily the strongest supporter of the legislation in 1997. Frankly, I am not sure how effective even the original legislation has been but, certainly, I think it was warmly regarded and received by at least the media and some sections of the community back in 1997, and there was general support, I suspect, at the time for the passage of the legislation. However, as we are here in 2008, as I said, I am prepared to support the second reading of the bill to allow discussion in the committee stage, but I indicate at this stage that probably I would be reluctant to support the legislation at the third reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:35): I thank honourable members for their contributions. I think this provides some certainty and clarity in the meaning of the Gaming Machines Act in terms of not having particular new developments in the same vicinity as a gambling venue. It is well within the spirit of what was originally intended by the drafters of section 15A of the Gaming Machines Act.

The bill also addresses the undesirability of having poker machine venues located near areas where there are children, namely, schools and childcare centres. In answer to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's question, I do not have any finite evidence to support that view. With those few remarks, I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.


At 18:37 the council adjourned until 2 December 2008 at 14:15.


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