HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE: INQUIRY INTO THE INDEPENDENT GAMBLING AUTHORITY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo:

That the report of the committee, on an inquiry into the Independent Gambling Authority, be noted.

(Continued from 29 April 2009. Page 2100.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:51): I rise briefly to speak to the Hon. Carmel Zollo's motion regarding the inquiry into the Independent Gaming Authority (IGA). From the outset, can I say that it was quite a long inquiry, and I thank all interested parties for coming along, giving evidence and giving us what I thought was a pretty good insight into the IGA. I would also like to compliment—and this will be one of the few times I do—the Hon. Bernard Finnigan for his chairmanship of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I must say that I enjoyed working with the Hon. Bernard Finnigan.

Generally, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee does manage to put party politics aside. It is quite an objective and hard-working committee. Whilst the evidence that we took was quite broad and wide-reaching, as far as conclusions go, what I basically took out of our committee was that the IGA fulfilled its duties in a reasonable manner. I was also quite reassured that the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner fulfils its role more than competently. At this point I get the opportunity to thank Mr Bill Pryor for his past service with regard to the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. He is highly respected and quite a competent fellow, and I am sure he will be sadly missed.

One of the things that I thought came up consistently—whether by the concerned sector, the gambling industry or any other interested parties—was the concern expressed about Mr Stephen Howells' quite abrasive and gruff manner. Often, if it were just one particular sector complaining about the way a presiding member was presenting themselves, you might think there was some bias. However, we heard from a number of people that they were quite concerned about the way Mr Howells related to people in all walks of life. In the future, I would like to see that people who take on such positions treat all people who appear before them with due respect, whether they be the smallest of the small or the tallest of the tall.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo spoke to this report. To be fair to our new presiding member, the Hon. Carmel Zollo really did not sit through any of the evidence and had to rely on reading through this report to get up to speed. As I said, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan quite ably chaired the committee. Whilst the Hon. Carmel Zollo could not contribute a lot to her particular motion, other than the basics, she has gone to great lengths to talk about her time as the minister for gambling.

There is one thing that I would like to know, given that she has touched on this particular subject. Some time ago, the Premier beat his chest about the fact that he was going to remove 3,000 poker machines from the industry in South Australia. We have been waiting for some time to see the 3,000 machines removed. I personally thought it was a bit of a nonsense, because I believe that if you have 32 machines in a venue you can do the same amount of business if you have 40 machines. Nonetheless, the measures were supported at the time.

There has been a reduction of 2,200 poker machines over many years. Quite obviously, the issue of the 3,000 machines has dropped off the radar to some degree. The Hon. Carmel Zollo talks about the fact that the government has flagged the removal of the fixed price on gaming machines to assist us to reach the target reduction of 3,000 machines. Well, they say 'Slowly, slowly catch the monkey'; but, if this government moved any more slowly on this particular measure, it would be absolutely farcical; it is moving at glacial speed. I would be interested, if someone from the government would like to report back to us, to know whether they do or do not intend to move with this legislation. It has been broadly spoken about, and I think the removal of the cap would probably have broad support, yet nothing in particular is happening.

With those few words, I would like to acknowledge those who sat through this inquiry, which took quite a period of time. I must also acknowledge that you, Mr President, were on the committee for a period of time during the IGA inquiry. On the committee we had the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Nick Xenophon. In fact, this inquiry covered a period of nearly five years. A number of committee members have come and gone, and I think I am probably the only one who has sat through the whole inquiry.

I would very much like to thank Mr Gareth Hickery, our very competent secretary and Ms Jenny Cassidy, our former research officer, who I thought was an incredibly competent person. This is also an opportunity for me to sing her praises and wish her very well for the future. I would really like to thank her for the way she went about her work not only with this inquiry but with the other work that we have conducted in SARC. I know that the Public Service's gain is our particular loss. She will be very competent in whatever she takes on.

Ms Lisa Baxter, our new research officer, has shown that she is quite capable of picking up the pieces and has completed this particular bit of work, and I thank her for that. I would also like to mention Ms Cynthia Gray, who is long-serving and hardworking. I certainly appreciate what she does for our committee. With those few words I support the motion.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:58): I rise briefly to commend the motion to members and thank the Hon. Mr Stephens for his kind remarks. The Statutory Authorities Review Committee was a very good committee to work on, as I said in my last contribution, in relation to the annual report. It is productive to be able to work on a committee where most things are done by consensus between members.

As the Hon. Mr. Stephens indicated, a number of issues came out of this inquiry, perhaps not as many as some had expected when it began. One of those was certainly the behaviour and conduct of the former presiding member, Mr Stephen Howells, in particular in relation to public hearings. Not having actually seen how he dealt with people, I am probably not in a position to reflect on it but, certainly, there were some who had concerns about his manner and approach to witnesses in authority hearings in particular.

Mr Howells seemed to take the view that organisations which were presenting to the IGA, including churches and other groups within what is known as the concerned sector, were fairly well resourced prominent organisations that could afford to have legal representation, as could the major hoteliers, the Casino and so on.

While I understand the point that one would not regard the Anglican Church, Anglicare or any of those organisations as small or insignificant, nonetheless, I do not accept the principle that they should have to go out and hire silks to appear before the Independent Gambling Authority in order to put across the point of view of those who are dealing with problem gambling in particular.

The hotels and those who make money from poker machines and other forms of gambling make quite a bit of money from them, and I think that, when appearing before the Independent Gambling Authority, it is not unreasonable that they are placed on the same footing as a small community organisation or a larger charity. Given the demands on the services of those who look after people affected by problem gambling, I think it is unreasonable to expect that they should spend many thousands of dollars to retain expensive legal counsel.

Another issue that was discussed was the division of responsibilities between the Independent Gambling Authority and the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. While I understand that some have concerns that there have not been many prosecutions or interventions undertaken by the commissioner or his office, it does not seem to make a lot of sense to me to have two inspectorates, given that a number of inspectors are employed by the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to inspect licensed premises in respect of both liquor and gambling licences. This would double up the resources and thus lose certain economies achieved by having the same inspectors serve both premises. On the evidence presented to the committee, I am not satisfied that, in relation to gambling, there is a compelling case for removing the inspectorate role from the OLGC and transferring it to the IGA.

Problem gambling was discussed in some detail in the inquiry. I recognise that there is a great concern in the community—and I share that concern—about problem gambling and what can be done to address it, alleviate it and prevent it and help those afflicted by it. However, as the Hon. Mrs Zollo stated in her contribution, it is important to note that this was not an inquiry into problem gambling as such; it was about the role the Independent Gambling Authority can and could play to address problem gambling, rather than the broader question of what can be done regarding problem gambling itself.

I think it is important to note that, while individual committee members and those appearing before the committee may have strong views about the role of gaming machines or other broader questions in relation to gambling, that was not and is not the scope of the inquiry being undertaken by the committee. However, it certainly was interesting to me to hear some details about initiatives to combat problem gambling and how significant the problem is.

In particular, the SKYCITY Casino has an interesting program, and I commend it on that. I understand that a number of people go through the casino seeking to intervene where they believe a person has a gambling problem because of their behaviour, prolonged play, losing money or what have you. While I am not aware of all the details, I understand that the program is quite successful in identifying people who cannot control their gambling behaviour, particularly in regard to gaming machines, and I think it has certain merit and ought to be considered more broadly in relation to problem gambling in other venues.

I thank the members of the committee and the committee secretariat for their assistance. In particular, I acknowledge the Hon. Mr Hunter, who did quite a bit of work to help edit the report. He and I came up with an amended draft after our research officer left, as it did not seem fair that, since she had a lot of other inquiries to catch up on, our new research officer, Ms Baxter, also wrap up this inquiry, given that it had been dragging on for some time.

The Hon. Mr Hunter was certainly of considerable assistance in preparing a draft, and I am pleased that all those members involved in the inquiry were able to agree on the final report. I believe it is one that deals with its terms of reference very well, and I commend it to members. Again, I offer the members of the committee, particularly my successor, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, every best wish for their endeavours in the future.

Motion carried.

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