HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GAMING MACHINES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole council on the bill that it have power to consider new clauses in relation to the prohibition of replicate gaming machines and the prohibition of gaming machines precursors in licensed premises and to amend the long title.

Motion carried.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, I am now responding to questions on notice from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. The questions focused on approved intervention agencies preventing minors from gambling, the approved trading system and recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

First, I will address questions asked by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire about approved intervention agencies. Currently, approved intervention agencies are Gaming Care for the hotel sector and Club Safe for the club sector. I am advised that there are no other agencies currently seeking approval.

The bill proposed to formalise the process for the recognition of responsible gambling agencies (currently known as approved intervention agencies). The bill also proposes to formalise the approval of the form of responsible gambling agreements and proposes an appeal process. Currently, 558 of the 565 gaming licensees have an approved intervention agency agreement in place; that is, 98.7 per cent of gaming venues.

It should be noted that it is not necessary for the licensee to be a member of either Clubs SA or the Australian Hotels Association in order to have access to Club Safe or Gaming Care. To be approved, each of Gaming Care and Club Safe had to satisfy the Independent Gambling Authority that it was appropriately resourced and that the agreements with licensees complied with the requirements set out in the codes of practice. The key conditions relate to:

access to venues by the responsible gambling agencies;

no unfavourable treatment of staff who report suspected problem gambling behaviour;

implementation of pre-commitment; and

annual and periodic reporting.

I am advised that the IGA is satisfied with the positive engagement of Club Safe and Gaming Care and that initiative appears to be progressing well.

The reporting process continues to be developed. Quarterly reports are being provided with both quantitative reporting and case studies, which demonstrate the potential that in-venue interventions have to address aspects of problem gambling. While there have not been specific instances of non-compliance with the agreements addressed by the Independent Gambling Authority, I am advised that the IGA will subject Club Safe and Gaming Care initiatives to an evaluation as part of its next review of the codes of practice.

I now address the question asked by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire about what action the minister has taken on preventing minors being exposed to gambling within venues. The Gaming Machines Act protects minors from being exposed to gambling. Section 15(4)(g) of the act provides that a gaming machine licence will not be granted unless the applicant satisfies the commissioner that no proposed gaming area is so designed or situated that it would be likely to be a special attraction to minors.

Section 55 of the act specifies that minors must not be employed in gaming operations. Section 56 prohibits minors from being in a gaming area, with offences for minors, licensees and approved gaming machine managers. Section 57 requires warning notices to minors to be erected in a prominent position at each entrance to each gaming area. Section 58 provides authorised persons with the power to require suspected minors to provide evidence of their age, with penalties for persons failing to provide evidence or making a false statement, or providing false evidence. Authorised persons also have the power to remove suspected minors from the premises.

I am advised that, typically, each gaming venue is inspected at least once every 12 months. Standard inspections include gaming inspectors monitoring the gaming area to ensure that licensees are not permitting minors to enter the gaming area. In addition to standard inspections, a number of special operations were conducted by the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner in the 2009-10 period.

For example, a covert operation was conducted in Port Augusta. The covert operation and other task forces that were conducted by the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner included targeting gaming machine premises to ensure minors were not playing gaming machines. The advertising code of practice also specifically states that a licensee must not direct advertising of their gambling products at minors and must ensure that their advertising does not portray minors participating in gambling activities.

Regarding amusement devices, I am advised that condition (z) of the commissioner's licence conditions for licensed gaming venues requires licensees to ensure that no amusement device, such as a pinball machine, pool table, arcade game or device of a similar nature may be located within the approved gaming area without the prior approval of the commissioner. This was done so as not to entice minors to gaming areas.

I now address the question from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire regarding the proposed approved trading system and concerns about potential losses of entitlements from the club sector. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, public consultation closed on 3 September and the details are now being worked through with the subcommittee of the Responsible Gambling Working Party. Representatives for the club sector include the president of Clubs SA and the executive officer of Club One.

The first meeting of the subcommittee was held on 15 November 2010. That subcommittee is the appropriate forum to finalise the details of the proposed approved trading system and I cannot speculate on what the final outcome may be. As noted in the consultation paper, the subcommittee has been asked to consider the development of an approved trading system that is low risk, fair, simple, low cost, transparent and voluntary.

Finally, I would like to address the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's question about progress against the Productivity Commission's recommendations. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the South Australian government is working with other Australian governments on a national response to the Productivity Commission's recommendations. The Department of Treasury and Finance is also currently working on the changes necessary to gambling legislation to allow a national response to be developed and implemented. Public consultation on the proposed changes is planned for the coming months. I now look forward to progressing the bill through the remainder of the committee stage.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 4, after line 7—Before clause 4 insert:

3A—Amendment of long title

Long title—After 'gaming machines' insert:

; to protect children against conditioning for playing gaming machines

This amendment relates to amendment No. 8, which proposes to insert a new part into the act relating to the protection of children. More specifically, that amendment seeks to prohibit replica gaming machines outright and to prohibit gaming machine precursors in licensed premises.

For the sake of convenience, I will speak of amendments Nos 1 and 8 together. There are two aspects to amendment No. 8, and I will address each separately. The provisions relating to replica gaming machines make it an offence to manufacture, import, sell, let on, hire or offer for sale, hire or operation a replica gaming machine. Replica gaming machines are defined as items that mimic a gaming machine or the operation of a gaming machine.

What constitute items that mimic a gaming machine or the operation of a gaming machine will be determined by the minister after taking into account the following considerations:

1. whether the appearance of a gaming machine is simulated;

2. whether the sounds of the gaming machine are simulated;

3. whether the operation of a gaming machine is simulated, including, for example, through simulation of the insertion of coins or wheel spins or the rollover of credits or the delivery of coins on a win.

Members may be aware of the sorts of machines this amendment is aimed at. They are typically located within shopping centres and gaming arcades and are primarily aimed at minors. These arcade-type games provide incentives in the form of prizes such as toys and sometimes even more expensive items, such as iPods and console games. They are based on games of chance rather than skill. Many of them have features similar to poker machines and are sometimes located in close proximity to poker machine venues. The concern with these machines is that they have the potential to expose children to gambling-like products from a very early age.

I note that a recent University of Adelaide study of 2,500 teenagers found that those who regularly play video and arcade games are more likely to experience problem gambling. These machines therefore have the potential of increasing the likelihood of those playing them developing gambling addictions as adults. As such, they should not be allowed, irrespective of where they are installed and operated.

The second aspect of amendment No. 8 relates to arcade games typically referred to as skill testers. These games are based on skill rather than chance. The machines, which are coin operated, allow you to try to pick up a prize using a large claw. Again, prizes vary from chocolate bars to stuffed toys and sometimes more expensive items. The amendment does not propose an outright ban on skill-tester machines. Instead, it bans them from being installed and operated within licensed premises.

I have been advised that there are some gambling venues around Adelaide that have installed skill-tester machines on their premises as a form of children's entertainment. I am advised that other forms of entertainment often located at venues include gaming consoles, such as PlayStations and X-Boxes. Whilst the skill testers do not replicate gaming machines as such, I am concerned about their being situated in such close proximity to gaming rooms within licensed premises.

My colleague Senator Nick Xenophon, who I have been working closely with on gambling-related issues, which, no doubt, has become apparent to honourable members, has been raising this issue for some time. While he was still a member of the Legislative Council, he complained to the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner on behalf of a constituent, who advised that she had observed a mother leave two children in school uniforms unattended inside a venue while she played the poker machines in the gaming room.

The children were continually wandering up to the entrance of the hotel's gambling area and standing in the doorway between the hotel's bar and gaming room. At one point the constituent advised that the mother came out and gave the children money, which they then proceeded to feed into a skill testing machine. The potential that children face in terms of developing gambling addictions is, I believe, exacerbated by this sort of activity. Children should not be left unattended in licensed premises under any circumstances, but to also give them money to feed into one of these machines sends completely the wrong message.

There is, I believe, real danger that these children may sooner or later advance from a skill testing machine to a poker machine. That risk can be reduced by banning skill testing machines from licensed premises. As I said earlier, the purpose of this particular amendment is to amend the long title of the act to include 'for the protection of children against conditioning from playing gambling machines'. I am happy to debate the merits of the proposed clauses in amendment No. 8 when we get to them. In order to allow that debate, I urge all members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I understand that this will be a test clause for a number of other amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Darley in relation to gaming machine precursors. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. The government intends to prohibit arcade games that are essentially similar to electronic gaming machines. This will be achieved under existing provisions in the Lotteries and Gaming Act of 1936. The regulatory approach and statutory instruments will be subject to consultation to ensure that we get the details right and that the regulatory impacts are fully understood.

The government is preparing a consultation paper to invite submissions on aspects of arcade games that are considered to be similar to gaming machines and should be prohibited and impacts on industry and the community of prohibiting certain arcade games, including impacts relating to the prevention of problem gambling. That is the preferred approach that the government would take: that we first consult on it, and we have the powers under the Lotteries and Gaming Act to achieve the prohibition of any replica gambling machines if that type of machine is deemed to be a problem, subject to the consultation on the matter.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will not support the amendment. The government has given a reasonable excuse. I remind the Hon. John Darley that, whilst I am the shadow minister for gambling, it is a conscience vote for all Liberal members of parliament. I speak for myself and he will get a guide as to how others vote as to what is our position. I do not support the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 4, after line 23—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) Section 3(1), definition of gaming machine—delete 'a coin' and substitute:

money

There are, essentially, two elements that I want to test with this amendment. I raised this issue briefly in my second reading contribution, that is, that in South Australia the issues that relate to note acceptors in machines is anomalous, from my viewpoint, compared with other jurisdictions in Australia. The advice provided to me indicates that in New South Wales, for example, there are no limits on note acceptors, and that in Victoria note acceptors are used up to a maximum of $50 notes, except for some gaming machines at the casino, I am advised.

In Queensland, I am told, there are no limits on the use of note acceptors (other than up to a limit of $20 notes) that can be used in the machines. In Western Australia there are no gaming machines in hotels and clubs so it is not applicable. In Tasmania, my advice is that it is not permitted in hotels and clubs but note acceptors are allowed in the casinos. My understanding is that in the Northern Territory it is the same as in Tasmania, and in the ACT note acceptors are permissible with a limit of a $20 note to be used.

South Australia stands out from all of that, in that we do have gaming machines in hotels, clubs and casinos but note acceptors are not permissible. Clearly, there are issues there for a gaming machine manufacturer who has the situation of manufacturing machines that are only suitable for the South Australian market but that is not the prime reason for my raising this issue. I raise the issue because 98 or 99 per cent of people are, as I argued in the second reading, recreational gamblers.

The Hon. Mr Xenophon and others have outlined that 1 to 2 per cent of people are problem gamblers in South Australia. For the 98 to 99 per cent of people the use of notes for a whole variety of purposes in this day and age is completely acceptable. One can think of any number of devices these days—whether it is a dispensing machine for confectionery, drinks or the use of carparking stations (certainly, in relation to parking meters in some parts of Australia; I do not know whether they exist in South Australia)—where the use of notes is just an issue of convenience for normal functioning adults in terms of going about their everyday activities.

It is the same, on the basis that I have just outlined, in virtually every other jurisdiction in the nation: note acceptors are an acceptable device in terms of a gambling option for gamblers in hotels and clubs and certainly in casinos, as well, in many instances. In South Australia we had this restriction because the argument was (from those who argued for the distinction) that it would mean, as part of a package of measures, that we would tackle problem gamblers better.

My challenge to those who argue that is for them to demonstrate that the range of measures introduced in South Australia have resulted in a better situation for problem gamblers in South Australia compared to any other state or jurisdiction in the nation. That is a challenge I put to the Hon. Mr Xenophon on many occasions and I do so to those who argue this particular case on this occasion, as well. I am not aware of any evidence which indicates that the restriction that we have in South Australia on note acceptors, contrary to the claims, has meant that the situation is better for problem gamblers and their families in this state.

There is no evidence of the supposed benefit to tackling the problem gambling issue. We still have the one to two per cent of problem gamblers in South Australia that we had when the Hon. Mr Xenophon started this crusade a decade or more ago. As I have argued on many occasions, many of the attempts we have made to tackle problem gambling have been largely tokenistic. They look good on the surface. It is a bit like the government's idea of 'let's cut the number of poker machines by 3,000: that will help solve the gaming machine problem'.

We have got rid of just over 2,000, and the opponents of poker machines are saying that we still have the same problem and some are arguing it is actually getting worse. Whether we get rid of another 800 or so, those of us who argue my particular point of view say the number of problem gamblers in South Australia and the extent of the gambling problem will not be impacted by a further cut of 700 or 800 gaming machines.

The one or two per cent who have a gambling problem, as I said in my second reading contribution, will crawl over cut glass to get to a gaming machine and satiate their gambling addiction. The fact that you do not have a note acceptor in a machine ain't going to make a jot of difference, because they can convert through a note exchange not attached to the machine or they can get whatever it is that they need to gamble with—a coin or token—in the gaming machine, anyway.

I guess my challenge (and it has been unanswered thus far in all of these debates but, nevertheless, I remain ever hopeful) is for those who argue that this will make a difference to demonstrate today, or at some stage in the future, how it has actually made a difference and how these additional restrictions will see the one or two per cent, whatever it is, of problem gamblers in South Australia reduced to half a per cent. Do we see any progress at all in terms of tackling the number of problem gamblers in South Australia?

Those who argue my particular position argue that the only way you will tackle this one or two per cent is through direct intervention, with counselling and assistance for the people concerned; because, whether they are gambling in this way or whether they are going to gamble (as I argued) online with their mobile phones or computers at home or at the TAB outlet, whatever it happens to be, they have an addiction and a problem and, by and large, will continue with that addiction or problem in some way or another.

We can restrict the number of machines and outlets and we can make them put coins in the machine rather than notes and think that is going to make a difference and we will feel good about it but, in the end, it will not make a jot of difference. In two years' time, five years' time or 10 years' time when this parliament debates gaming machines again, the opponents of gaming machines will still be saying that there are one per cent to two per cent of problem gamblers in South Australia and we now need to introduce another range of restrictions. We have been introducing these restrictions for a decade or more and we still have one or two per cent of problem gamblers in South Australia.

For all those reasons, as I said, I do not hold great expectations that the majority in this chamber will support this proposition. I suspect, without putting words into the government's mouth, it will give the government of the day the opportunity to say, 'Hooray for us as the government, because we have opposed this particular provision that the Hon. Mr Lucas has moved', and in some way think that it will be seen by opponents of gaming machines as a good thing for the government to have opposed. Having moved it, I will certainly be testing, by way of division, the views of all members, because it is a conscience vote for all but government members, obviously.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am led to believe that there is at least one. So, just to explain, I move just the amendment in relation to 5a, because there are two propositions that I intend to test. I suspect the first is easier than the second for some, and I have not explained the second one yet. In the first instance it is just, in essence, allowing someone to put notes into a machine in addition to coins, so it is money.

The advice I have received is that the current legislation does use the word 'token', but my industry advice tells me that they do not believe any tokens are used in the industry in South Australia. As I said, that is the advice from industry to me, and, whilst legislation allows for tokens to be used, I have asked for examples of where that occurs. As I said, their advice to me—and I am no expert in these things—is that the token is largely superfluous. They are not aware of any examples where tokens have been approved by the various regulatory authorities.

Nevertheless, my second amendment will still leave the word 'token' in the legislation, given that it is already there, and it will test the second notion (proposed new subclause (5b)), which is the issue of ticket-in, ticket-out, which is a gaming machine ticket. So, this first amendment does not test the issue of gaming machine tickets—ticket-in, ticket-out—it is testing just the use of money, that is, coins and/or notes.

I understand that the various regulations would permit some limit to be put on the denomination of notes, as occurs in some other states. I am not strongly tied to that particular notion. I am led to believe that, in the other states, some have a limit of $50 and some have a limit of $20. It obviously varies in some of the other jurisdictions. As I said, I think that could be regulated by a regulation under the act in relation to the extent of denominations allowed if ticket machines are allowed as part of these gaming machines. As I said, the first amendment is testing only the issue of notes; it does not yet raise the issue of ticket-in, ticket-out, which is the subject of proposed new subclause (5b).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Lucas has introduced amendments to allow note acceptors in clubs, pubs and the casino in South Australia. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes these amendments. Since the introduction of gaming machines in South Australia, we have never had note acceptors on electronic gaming machines. The fact that our gaming machines only accept coins and not notes is a significant harm-minimisation measure.

The Productivity Commission was concerned about note acceptors on gaming machines, which are available interstate. In its inquiry into gambling, the Productivity Commission recommended that note acceptors be restricted so that a player can only insert a maximum of $20 at a time, with no further cash able to be inserted until the maximum credit on the machine falls below $20.

Introducing note acceptors, even ones that are limited to a maximum of $20 in line with the Productivity Commission, would need to be subject to extensive consultation to fully understand the regulatory impacts, in particular, the effect on problem gambling. So, the government believes that it has no alternative but to oppose these amendments.

Also, the Hon. Mr Lucas asked about evidence. I will just say that the last South Australian gambling prevalence study was undertaken in October 2005 and covered October 2004 to October 2005, which was effectively a before figure in relation to the impacts of cutting gaming machine numbers. The next prevalence study will show if there has been a reduction in problem gambling since 2005. The timing of that next prevalence study is yet to be finalised.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I rise briefly to indicate that I will not be supporting any of the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendments unless, of course, he reconsiders his position and proposes that real money be replaced by plastic tokens not to be exchanged for cash. As I understand it, the amendments propose to allow notes to be inserted into poker machines, as well as tokens, and some form of ticketing. The tokenisation of money for the purposes of gambling on poker machines has been identified as being causally related to problem gambling. Tokens are said to facilitate the suspension of judgement and create a false sense of how much is actually being gambled.

Similarly, by allowing poker machines to accept notes in addition to, or instead of, coins, problem gambling behaviour is more likely to go unnoticed by gaming room staff. It will result in less face-to-face contact between gamblers and venue staff and, more particularly, cashiers, which increases the likelihood of problem gambling by individual patrons.

It also takes away the opportunity for a break in play for gamblers, which is important in allowing them to assess their level of gambling. I appreciate that the Hon. Mr Lucas has a much more liberal view towards gambling than I have; however, in my view, these amendments are counterproductive to harm minimisation measures.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment, although, like the Hon. Rob Lucas, I am not overly optimistic about his chances of success but, nonetheless, I am happy to be a brother in arms with him on this. Much is said about problem gambling. My view, as I have said on the record before, is that if we are serious about problem gambling I believe the almost $6 million a year that goes into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund should be dispersed to non-government agencies, the concern sector, to actually work hard with problem gamblers.

I am extremely concerned that a lot of that money gets lost in bureaucracy. When we are talking about problem gambling, I would much prefer that we focus on that rather than having the recreational punter put up with the inconvenience of having to use coins all the time. I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out on the floor the council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First, as we often do on crucial matters, will be supporting the government because the last thing we need is more liberalisation—whether it is 1, 2, 3 per cent or more. I do not think we need to be bringing anything into this chamber that encourages people to put more money down the drain.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (7)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. (teller) Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G.
NOES (14)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Parnell, M. Vincent, K.L.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Clause 4, page 4, after line 23—After subclause (5) insert):

(5b) Section 3(1), definition of gaming machine—delete 'or other token' and substitute:

, a token or a gaming machine ticket

I indicate at the outset that I will speak briefly to the amendment and accept a loss on the voices rather than dividing, but nevertheless I do want it recorded. Subclause (5b) goes a step further than just providing the option of notes to be used. It actually provides what is available in some other jurisdictions known as ticket in, ticket out. I did speak a little about this in my second reading contribution and I do not propose to go over it again, suffice to say, that it does allow the option which occurs in some other jurisdictions where one receives a ticket out.

You do not get that sound of coins clanking at the bottom of the gaming machine, which I am led to believe is a seductive sound for the 1 to 2 per cent of gaming machine problem gamblers. Evidently, the seductive sound of the clank of coins at the bottom of the machine is one of the reasons that some problem gamblers continue. Of course, if you do not have that seductive noise of the coins clanking as you collect $1,000 or more (or whatever it happens to be) and all you get is the whirr of a machine indicating that you have won $1,000 (or whatever), then those who are concerned about the seductive noise of coins at the bottom of the machine may well be attracted to this notion. I suspect they will not be, but nevertheless that is the argument.

Again for the reasons I outlined in my second reading contribution, I think in other jurisdictions it exists. For those 98 or 99 per cent of gamblers in South Australia who do not have a problem, why should we in South Australia not have the option, as every other state has? Again I repeat what I said in relation to the last amendment, the challenge for those who argue for these restrictions is: prove to us that these restrictions have achieved anything.

As I said, I am still listening. I heard nothing when I moved my last amendment and I suspect I will hear nothing during this whole debate at all. It sounds terrific to put all these restrictions in, but, ultimately, no-one ever demonstrates, with any proof or any evidence, that it has made a jot of difference to the 1 or 2 per cent of problem gamblers. I accept that I will lose this amendment on the voices and, if that is the case, then I will not be dividing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Lucas has introduced amendments to allow gaming machines to accept tickets in place of coins in pubs, clubs and the casino in South Australia. As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes these amendments. This would be a significant change to the way money is inserted into gaming machines. Ticket-in, ticket-out systems use printed tickets to carry funds. These tickets carry a bar code, which can be read by a bar-code scanner to determine the cash-out transaction which took place and, therefore, exactly how much money is on the ticket.

Tickets can usually be exchanged between gaming machines. At the end of play, tickets can be redeemed for cash at a kiosk or retained for use at a future time. The player has a choice whether to insert coins or a bar-coded ticket and, if the amount to be withdrawn is under a certain amount, winnings can be withdrawn in coins or via a ticket.

The proposed amendments provide the commissioner with the power to approve ticket-in, ticket-out systems with no guidance on the details; for example, whether there should be a limit on the amount of money that can be inserted into an electronic gaming machine via a ticket. It would be possible, therefore, for the commissioner to approve a system with tickets which carry a high value, which would be inconsistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. It is premature to implement a measure of this nature without considering the potential impacts in detail. There may be unintended consequences and, as such, the government believes it has no alternative but to oppose these amendments.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I actually want to give a big rap to the ticket-in, ticket-out system. If you are genuinely concerned about harm minimisation, it really makes it easier for a gambler to set themselves a limit. If you go with a pocket full of cash, it is quite easy to knock it all off, whereas, if it was, ticket out, maybe our problem gamblers would have the option to play within their limit and then become recreational gamblers. I support the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendment. Again, given that we were belted last time, I think it is something we should keep in mind. I hope that the minister and his department will look at it seriously in the coming months.

We hear a lot about problem gamblers, and I think this is a genuinely sensible measure. I am sure the casino would like to see it implemented. Obviously, the casino has serious concerns about problem gambling, as does the Hotels Association. It is concerned about a viable industry. I am looking forward to seeing how this particular debate unfolds in the future. I am sure that we can do something well.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: There is a further amendment, which is new subclause 5(c), as proposed by the Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All of the remaining amendments I deem to be consequential on the test votes that we have already had, both through division and on the voices. I do not propose to proceed further with my amendments.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Clause 5, I believe, refers to the unusual situation we have of having gaming machine outlets on commonwealth land. The clause provides:

The government may, by regulation, apply provisions of this act, with or without modification, to a person who is not required to hold a gaming machine licence because of a commonwealth law as if the person holds a gaming machine licence.

Can the government outline precisely what restrictions the government's legal advice believes it will be able to implement by regulation?

We were advised in the briefings that codes of practice were to be applied. What is the extent of the government's legal advice, given that up until now we have been told that places like Roulettes and others that are on commonwealth land meant therefore that state gaming law did not apply to them?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I can provide some information. First, by way of background for the benefit of the committee, the commonwealth Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997 made under the Airports Act of 1996 generally prohibits gambling activities on airport land. Two gaming machine venues in South Australia continue to have the right to conduct gaming operations on airport land. Commonwealth regulations 138(2) and 139F require a person authorised to conduct gaming operations on airport land to comply with any law of the state or territory that applies to gambling activity, except licensing laws or laws that are inconsistent with the regulations.

Currently the responsible gambling provisions of the Gaming Machines Act 1992 attach to a gaming machine licence. As a result, those provisions do not currently apply to the two gaming machine venues operating on airport land because they are not required to be licensed. That is essentially what we are seeking to do. With the amendment we will be able to impose licence conditions without a licence, so one of the regulatory measures that will apply will be the responsible gambling code of practice and the advertising code of practice. They will be able to be imposed without the licence being in place.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Has the commonwealth government accepted the state government's intentions to regulate in this way, or is there some dispute from commonwealth representatives that the state has the power legally to impose these regulations?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that, if clause 5 is passed, a regulation will need to be prepared to identify which sections of the act would apply to airport gaming venues. This will be the subject of consultation with the venues affected and the Australian government. Part 2 of schedule 1 of this bill amends the Independent Gambling Authority Act to extend voluntary barring provisions to gaming venues operating on airport land. I guess the answer to the honourable member's question is that we will have to consult at the regulation stage, but clause 5 is the enabling provision in terms of regulations to be made.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand what the government is saying, there has been no consultation at all with the commonwealth in relation to this provision, so it is possible that the commonwealth position will be that on legal grounds it opposes the state's attempt to assert its right to regulate gaming machine establishments on commonwealth land when previously it had been accepted by most involved in this issue that the state did not have the power to regulate gaming machine establishments on commonwealth land.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that there have been discussions with the commonwealth. Obviously, the final consultation will depend on the form of regulation, but I am advised that there have been discussions. To reread what I said a moment ago, under those commonwealth regulations a person authorised to conduct gaming operations on airport land is required to comply with any law of the state or territory that applies to gambling activity, except licensing laws or laws that are inconsistent with the regulations.

In other words, providing that nothing is inconsistent with the commonwealth regulations and it does not interfere with licensing, then those commonwealth regulations require the operator of gaming machines to comply with state or territory law. There have been discussions, and my advice is that we would expect that the regulations that we draw up will be acceptable to the commonwealth.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Does the government believe that it has the power to regulate the hours of operation of gaming machines already on these establishments, or does it propose that under the new regulations it will gain the power to restrict the hours of operation of gaming machines on these establishments on commonwealth land?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that that would be part of the consultation that we would have if this clause is passed. That would be part of the formal consultation before regulations were introduced.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Does the state currently limit gaming machine hours in those establishments on commonwealth land?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I do not believe so.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister is outlining that the proposition is that they will be consulting with the commonwealth in an endeavour to limit the gaming machine hours on those premises on commonwealth land so that the intention of the regulations will be to restrict the hours of operation of the establishments on commonwealth land?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Just to reread what I said, if clause 5 is passed a regulation will need to be prepared to identify which sections of the act would apply to airport gaming venues, and that would be the subject of consultation. That would be a matter that would have to be discussed with the commonwealth and consultation with the venues as well, of course. So it will be consultation with both the venues affected and the Australian government. It will depend on those negotiations as to whether that will apply or not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that it depends on the negotiations and consultation. What I want to know is the state government's policy position. Is the state government going into those negotiations and consultation with the intention of trying to negotiate a restriction on the hours of operation of those premises on commonwealth land?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The objective would be to try to get as much uniformity as possible in relation to operations.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Which is to restrict, isn't it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In other words, those provisions of the act that apply to machines licensed under South Australian law would apply, as much as can be achieved, to those on commonwealth territory.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister outline the purpose of the government seeking the power of the commission to refer questions to the court? What has brought about the need for this particular legislative change?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The initiative reduces red tape for contentious matters. Currently, the commissioner must make a decision, even if it is a contentious matter that is likely to be appealed. This new power is similar to section 21 of the Liquor Licensing Act and will allow the commissioner to refer a matter to be considered by the court immediately rather than requiring an applicant to go through the appeals process after the decision has been made by the commissioner.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This issue has been quite controversial in some quarters, and this relates to the power to disclose information to certain authorities. Can the minister outline what is the problem that is sought to be resolved by this amendment, and which authorities will have information revealed to them that previously had been prevented by the existing legislation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that this is a technical amendment that addresses the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner's concerns that the powers currently in the act are too narrow. The new provision will allow the OLGC to release more information in a non-confidential form, for example, gaming statistics.

Clause 9 would allow the commissioner to release non-confidential information to researchers. This provides an increased level of government transparency. One way of releasing information in a non-confidential format is to combine venues in a geographic location, or over several geographic locations, if there are only a few venues in those locations.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My understanding is that that sort of non-identifying information has been released dating back over the last 10 or 12 years. That is, establishments have been grouped in either local government areas or post codes, or whatever it is, and, as long as there has been at least (I don't know what the number is) a minimum number of establishments so that you cannot identify the particular establishment, that sort of non-identifying information has been revealed for some time. Certainly, that sort of information was being released, I think, even when I was treasurer back in the period 1997 to 2002. If that is the case, why, then, do we need this particular change; and what further flexibility or capacity will it give the regulatory authorities to release information?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I cannot add much more to the answer that I just gave other than that the OLGC had some concerns in relation to the matter, that it may not have been releasing all it could do, and it wished to make the situation clearer. Essentially, clause 9 would allow the commissioner to release non-confidential information to researchers, and this clause simply clarifies the powers. There may have been information released but, clearly, the OLGC had concerns, and this addresses those concerns that they can release that level of information.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only brief comment I would make is that, if that is the government's answer, it would appear that, potentially, the commissioner may have been releasing information under the current arrangements when he did not have the legal authority to do so. If that is the case, we may well have a position where the commissioner has not had the legal authority to release information of a confidential nature in relation to various establishments, because, clearly, it has been occurring and now we are providing for it.

As I said, having asked the minister the question, the obvious conclusion would seem to be that the government has had some legal advice that there is some doubt about the legal authority of the commissioner to have done what he has been doing over a period of time. That obviously raises interesting legal issues for those who might have been impacted by release of information over the last few years. This power is certainly not retrospective and I do not intend to pursue it at this stage other than noting those comments.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the OLGC is not aware that it had released any information contravening legislation. However, as I said, it was concerned that this should be made clearer and that is why the amendment to the act is here, but it should not be taken to imply that they have released information that they should not have.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 6, after line 25 [inserted section 10A]—

After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1)(b), the social effect principles must include principles—

(a) requiring the socio-economic characteristics of the local community to be taken into account; and

(b) describing the level of social effect on a local community and, in particular, on problem gambling within a local community that is considered unacceptable.

This clause inserts new provisions in the act aimed at strengthening the social effect test. Under the changes the Independent Gambling Authority will have the power to prescribe the following: an inquiry process that must precede an application for a social effect certificate or, if required by the commissioner, a variation of a gaming machine licence; principles for assessing the social effect of the grant or variation of a gaming machine licence; and principles for assessing whether a game is likely to lead to an exacerbation of problem gambling. The Independent Gambling Authority will also have the power to prescribe the form of a responsible gambling agreement, as well as various codes of practice relating to advertising and responsible gambling.

The amendment deals with the first aspect of the new provisions relating to the social effect test. It seeks to incorporate some minimum benchmarks into the principles that may be prescribed by the Independent Gambling Authority. Those benchmarks will require the Independent Gambling Authority to include principles which require the socio-economic characteristics of the local community to be taken into account, and principles which describe the level of social effect on a local community and, in particular, on problem gambling within a local community that is considered unacceptable.

As I understand it, under the bill a gaming machine licence will not be granted unless the applicant holds a social effect certificate. In order to apply for and be granted a social effect certificate, an applicant will have to conduct a social effect inquiry. The social effect certificate will be granted only if the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner is satisfied that the grant of a gaming machine licence would not be contrary to public interest on the ground of the likely social effect on the local community and the likely effect on problem gambling within the local community.

The commissioner will consider the results of the inquiry undertaken by the application as part of the entire process involved in determining whether to grant the social effect certificate. There are, of course, a number of other factors that the commissioner will consider, as spelt out in clause 14 of the bill. Any social effect principles set by the Independent Gambling Authority must be applied by the commissioner in assessing the social effect of the grant of a licence, so the commissioner will have those in mind when making his determination.

The proposed amendments will result in the commissioner also taking into account principles set by the Independent Gambling Authority that relate specifically to the socio-economic characteristics of the local community and the level of social effect on that local community and, in particular, on problem gambling within that community, that is considered unacceptable. I believe that the proposed amendment further strengthens these good measures by ensuring that any adverse effects of problem gambling within a community are appropriately considered prior to granting a gaming machine licence. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I mentioned in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes this amendment. Parliament has given the Independent Gambling Authority functions and powers as specified in the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1995 and other gambling legislation. This includes the power to approve codes of practice and prepare guidelines that are disallowable in parliament. Section 11(2a)(a) of the Independent Gambling Authority Act specifies that the Independent Gambling Authority must have regard to:

the fostering of responsibility in gambling and, in particular, the minimising of harm caused by gambling, recognising the positive and negative impacts of gambling on communities;

This object will guide the Independent Gambling Authority when it undertakes consultation as required by measures in this bill to develop the social effects inquiry process and the social effects principles. These objects have guided the development of codes of practice across clubs, hotels, the casino, SA Lotteries and wagering. It is not necessary to complicate these processes by having additional specific details in the act.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I indicate that I agree with the government on this particular amendment. We will not be supporting it. It is clear that the IGA already prescribes these matters. We have no evidence or we have not heard any inclination for anything to be granted in a soft manner, so we do not see any need for it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We support the Hon. John Darley's amendments. They are sensible amendments. They are proactive amendments to assist in issues around problem gambling. I just remind colleagues that, by strengthening this legislation, we probably would have had a lot easier situation with respect to the Norwood Community Club (which is associated with the racing club) wanting to shift its gaming machines across the road from the Norwood Football Club to Richmond Road (to the west of the parliament), West Richmond, simply because it was targeting the socioeconomics of that area for its gain, not for the best interests of the community.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I indicate that I will also be supporting this amendment. I think that the Productivity Commission showed that, at the very beginning of their introduction, gaming machines were targeted at low-socioeconomic areas; and I think that it was Reverend Costello who brought that point to light. I have to say that, living out in the north, it is a concern for me to see so many people there really sucked into this because of the availability of poker machines out there.

You do see the impact of it every day, and, working in hotels out that way for quite some time, I can tell members that, in my experience in the hotels I worked in out there, very little consideration was given to whether people could afford to put a further $20 or $50 into those poker machines. It was all about revenue and it was all about making the bottom line more attractive.

I heard the Hon. Rob Lucas say before that gambling is an addiction and that the only way for people to overcome this is for families—those who are affected by the gambling—to be offered support and intervention. In one respect that is very true, but also there needs to be some sort of a social conscience from this place about what we are doing with poker machines.

I acknowledge also that, if you take away the poker machines, a gambling addict will probably go over to Keno, go to the TAB or find some other way to gamble their money because that is the nature of their addiction. However, we have got to understand that it is our responsibility to get in the way of these things as much as we can. We see with drug addiction that, when people get in the way and make life a little harder for an addict to be able to satisfy their addiction and they are not enabled and they are not rescued from it, they do find a way to make their life more manageable. I believe that this amendment by the Hon. John Darley emphasises the need for a social conscience.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens support the Hon. John Darley's amendments, and this one in particular. We do believe that socioeconomic factors are very important in any analysis of problem gaming and problem gambling in low-socioeconomic areas. We see people with little money, little spare cash—those least able to afford to lose that money but those most in need of the hope that that money can give them. We thank the Hon. John Darley for putting a lot of these other amendments on the agenda that we will be talking about today. As we will not be voting on all of them, I would like to thank the Hon. John Darley for all his work and the range of amendments he has put before us.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (8)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. (teller)
Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G.
NOES (13)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 7, line 31 [inserted section 10A(5)(a)]—After 'licensees' insert:

and to the advisory committee established under section 13

This amendment deals with enabling a consumer advisory committee, which would allow community service organisations to engage in policy debate and formulation to a similar level to that achieved currently by the gaming machine industry—in fact, possibly outflanked by the gaming machine industry, which has three representative bodies.

I understand that the government will be opposing this, saying that the current working group is sufficient, as it does have consumer representatives on it. However, it also has industry representatives, so I certainly support the calls that my office has had—and no doubt offices of other honourable members here—that there be more of a level playing field when it comes to consumer advocacy and for those working with people who are affected by problem gambling to have a stronger advocacy voice.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In my second reading closing speech, I stated that the government opposes the amendment. Regarding a consumer advocacy committee, we already have the Responsible Gambling Working Party, whose scope is much broader than that proposed by the amendments that have been tabled in response to this bill. The working party has eight members, including a chair, and was established in November 2006 by the then minister for gambling to report on strategies that could be implemented to support customers to make commitments about their level of gambling on electronic gaming machines. Members are directly appointed.

There are three community members who each represent a specific area: Mark Henley (advocacy), Eve Barratt (Gambling Help Service), and Rosemary Hambledon (Consumer Voice). The remaining representatives are from each of the industry gaming providers: the Casino, hotels and clubs, and the industry workers' union. The chair, Ms Cheryl Vardon, is CEO of the Australasian Gaming Council and is also from industry. Having Ms Vardon as the chair takes a neutral position and, importantly, brings a broader national overview to the working party.

As I said, the government opposes this amendment. I point out that the working party is respected by other jurisdictions as a model of how to inform and progress electronic gaming machine policy. The working party presented a panel discussion, the 2009 National Association of Gambling Studies conference, and received positive feedback about the members' demonstrated ability to work together and achieve outcomes regardless of the differing viewpoints. This is the major strength of the working party, as well as its ability to engage with and listen to other stakeholders. We believe that that is the appropriate approach.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: We agree with the government's position. We believe that the Responsible Gambling Working Party works well. I must say that I take advice on gambling matters from Mark Henley, certainly, who contacts me from time to time, and I am very keen to hear what he has to say. I listen to what the industry groups say and then we try to get a balance. We believe that this particular gambling working party works very well, so we do not see the need for yet another committee.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment. We heard the Hon. Rob Lucas say not so long ago that there has been absolutely no indication that any of the measures we have taken have reduced gambling. We hear that everything is working quite well; everything is working fine and we agree with the government on this. When we are consulting about a problem and referring to consumer advocacy groups, surely they are the ones best qualified to offer solutions to problems, not people with vested interests in the industry, and not these sorts of committees with representations of half of one and half of the other so that an agreement can never be reached on what would be a reasonable solution to a problem.

We have a national gambling problem, so we now have a national gaming oversight committee that is doing nothing and has achieved no outcomes—but it is all okay; it all works fine! The most frustrating thing about this place is that we can look at stuff that is not working and, when it suits us, we can ridicule and criticise it, depending on what side of the fence we are on. We will get an opposing view that it is all working fine after we have just had an hour and a half debate on how things have not changed since we have tried to get a handle on gambling. So, maybe trying something new for a change would be useful.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will respond from my part. I made it quite clear earlier that I believe that we need meaningful measures with regard to harm minimisation for gambling. We have this Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, and I am critical of the way the government administers that fund; nearly $6 million goes into that fund. I have made it quite clear that I believe that that fund should be administered by non-government organisations who would provide meaningful assistance, counselling and education over the sector. I am not saying that everything is perfect at all. That is my solution. That is where I would like to head. I just do not believe we need another committee; I just want to make that clear.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would just like to respond as well, and I am not going to have a debate about it.

The PRESIDENT: Well, that is very good, because I would not allow you to debate about it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I know you wouldn't, Mr President; that is why I am not going to. But I would just like to point out about harm minimisation. There are three prongs: reduce the harm, reduce the supply, reduce the demand. What do we talk about here when we debate any of these amendments? That is the official harm minimisation policy: demand, supply, reduce harm. Anything we debate in here about gambling has nothing to do with harm minimisation, nothing to do with those three prongs of harm minimisation.

The Hon. John Darley introduces amendments to try and restrict supply; we will see how that one gets up. The Hon. Tammy Franks introduces amendments about reducing harm: have an advisory group that knows the problems and would be able to pinpoint the solutions and we do away with that. It is like every other debate in this place: selective. We will use the term harm minimisation, but we will never actually apply the three-pronged approach in any solutions that we are trying to find.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas wants to enter what is not a debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, it is a committee stage of a bill. It is certainly my view that we should have reported progress at 6 o'clock. I think that is one of the problems the Hon. Ms Bressington has just highlighted, where some wish to apply the traditional harm minimisation approach that we apply to an illicit substance or product like drugs to what is a legal product. That is where I come to a significant parting of the ways. You can talk about reducing supply in relation to drugs because it is harmful. You cannot convince me, and I suspect you cannot convince the Hon. Ms Bressington, that drugs at any level for individuals are going to do any good.

That is a different approach to that. But we are not talking about drugs or illicit substances. We are actually talking about a service or product which, for 98 or 99 per cent of us, is not a problem. It is a recreation; we enjoy it. We are quite entitled to spend our money on a legal product however we wish, so long as we are not causing a problem for ourselves, our families or our acquaintances. It is a legal product, so to equate it in moral terms, as some do, with drugs harm minimisation or whatever is else it might happen to be, to me is the wrong way to approach it.

To apply the traditional harm minimisation approach of reduce supply—where we will get rid of the gaming machines or whatever is—in the end, if you want to go down that approach, you ban them. I think that is ridiculous because, as with any other product, as I said, you could do as much gambling and harm on your mobile phone these days, as I highlighted in the second reading debate. I will not repeat that. I do not think you can just say that this harm minimisation approach must apply and, therefore, we do not support various amendments which are consistent with the harm minimisation approach. I do not believe it works, and I accept that.

I prefer the proposition that the Hon. Mr Stevens has put, in terms of an approach where you actually provide direct assistance and more direct assistance, more money and more resources to the families and the problem gamblers directly, rather than all these things that we are talking about which, as I highlighted before, sound great but do nothing. In the end—in two years, five years or 10 years—we are still going to have one or two per cent of problem gamblers. Spend more than the $6 million a year directly on the problem gamblers and their families in direct assistance in counselling, education and support.

That will do more good than the countless hours that we debate in here, working out whether there should be an extra hour opening, or whether or not there should be 1,000 fewer machines or 500 more machines or whatever it is. It will not make a jot of difference. You will be having the same debate in five or 10 years; we will still have one or two per cent of problem gamblers and, until you actually increase the level of money and provide the direct support and assistance to those who need it, you will not make a jot of difference.

The CHAIR: The debate is finished. I intend to put the amendment. The Hon. Ms Franks has put her argument in persuasion, and it is her amendment, so I intend to put it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 7, line 42 [inserted section 10A(8)]—Delete '5' and substitute '2'

This amendment seeks to ensure that, in fact, we do not change the review period. The current structure is every two years; the new legislation we have before us extends that to every five years. There has been no great case put for moving from having reviews every two years to five years. I note that the codes of practice are still being developed. As we see changing gambling technologies—and we have talked ad nauseam in this debate about seeing technology change at an enormous pace—I think it is actually wise to keep two-yearly reviews.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Tammy Franks has proposed an amendment to the bill to retain the review period for codes of practice at two years rather than the five years proposed by the Gaming Machines (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. As I noted in my second reading closing speech, the government opposes the amendment.

The proposed change in the review period for codes of practice from two years to five years reflects practical experience from the Independent Gambling Authority. The process of reviewing codes of practice under all of the gambling regulation acts is a substantial piece of work that requires the authority to undertake extensive consultation at the early conceptual stage as well as when the revisions of the codes of practice are developed.

Consultation is undertaken with clubs, hotels, wagering operators, the casino and SA Lotteries. The concerned sector, including welfare agencies, also provides input into the process. All of these organisations put a substantial amount of work into a review of the codes of practice. It is important to acknowledge the work of stakeholders and to ensure that it is focused on changes that actually have an impact in terms of harm minimisation and not just going through the motions because it is required by the legislation.

The government considers that a two-year review period is too short to consider the impacts of changes to codes of practice. The government is keen for codes of practice to be assessed for their effectiveness and to be amended accordingly. This change from a two-year period to a five-year period supports this. It is important to note that the proposed new section does not prevent the authority from conducting reviews on a more frequent basis; in other words, it has the capacity to have these reviews more frequently if it considers it desirable to do so.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: We agree with the government's position. We will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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