Democrats Support Tighter Controls, Scrutiny, for Adelaide Casino

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
5 August 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Budget Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will make my contribution brief. On a number of occasions in this place I have made it quite plain that I am not opposed to gambling, but I have also made it plain that the level of scrutiny and regulation of gambling in this State is inadequate. The Government had made an informal approach to me about the privatisation of a number of gambling assets, including the TAB, the Lotteries Commission etc., and the response I gave at that stage was, `Look, on behalf of the Democrats, I am prepared to consider it, but I really do think it is about time the State bit the bullet and put a regulatory process in place first in relation to gambling right across the board.' The Government is already in a position to sell the Casino although, with the legislation as it stands, before the passage of this Bill, it would have some difficulty selling to a public company but it could sell relatively easily to a private buyer. The most likely private buyers will, I understand, most probably come out of Asia, and the economic meltdown that they have suffered has meant that interest from that sector has dropped away quite markedly at this point. There are a number of significant players among public companies that are likely to be interested.

So, while this is not a Bill about sale in a direct sense, I think indirectly it is because this really is the final facilitation for sale to a public company that is most likely to be the purchaser. In the absence of any sort of regulatory authority relating to gambling overall, I am concerned about the level of current regulation. I suppose that, so long as it is a publicly owned body, one can always seek to change the rules later, but it becomes increasingly difficult once we have privatised. So I would like to see things put right as much as possible now, rather than trying to tackle it again later on.

Many of my concerns have already been commented on by the Hon. Nick Xenophon. In particular, I am not happy with the concept of passing the legislation now and then having later an approved licensing agreement which may or may not give an adequate level of protection. The Casino Act in New South Wales by comparison has much more within the principal Act itself in terms of the way that a casino must behave.

I am keen for the Parliament to play a much greater role in setting the rules for the operation of a privately owned casino. In those circumstances, I indicate that the Democrats are supportive of the thrust of the amendments being moved by the Hon. Nick Xenophon and support the second reading.

(ca) that the Adelaide Casino is managed and operated so as to minimise, as far as practicable, the adverse personal effects of gambling on persons who gamble at the Casino and their families; and

This amendment adds to the object clauses of the Casino in clause 2A of the Bill. The existing object clauses have a number of basic clauses in relation to the proper management and operation of the Casino: that those involved in the control and management are suitable persons; that gambling in the Casino is conducted fairly and honestly; and also that the interests of the State in relation to taxation of gambling revenue arising from the operation of the Adelaide Casino are properly protected. It is important that we add a further object clause, namely, the object clause that is the basis of this amendment, and that is to ensure that the Adelaide Casino is managed and operated so as to minimise, as far as practicable, the adverse personal effects of gambling on persons who gamble at the Casino and on their families.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government's attitude to this and all remaining amendments is to vote against this as a matter of process at this stage on the basis that we have not yet had a opportunity to consider this as a Cabinet or in the Party room. If and when the honourable member brings this back by way of a private member's Bill in the next session we will obviously be in a position to consider it then, and I give an undertaking that the Government would not be setting about a process of unnecessarily delaying consideration of the honourable member's propositions during that period.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I indicate the Opposition's position on the three pages of amendments that the Hon. Mr Xenophon has on file. I congratulate Nick Xenophon on his diligence in these matters. I guess this Parliament needs an anti-gambling campaigner to keep us all honest on these issues.

The Opposition faces the same dilemma as the Government: these amendments have been produced only in about the past 24 hours and are quite comprehensive. As far as the ALP is concerned, a Caucus meeting would be necessary to determine whether or not these are matters of conscience.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have a question and proposition for the Treasurer before I proceed further in relation to this clause. It appears to me that, despite the fact that there might be some divisions within both Government and Opposition on a range of these issues, even if they decide to declare it a conscience vote, there may be some sections-and I refer to the very amendment before us at the moment-that should not cause problems, given even five minutes opportunity to reflect.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Just let me finish. I have seen decisions made in this place perhaps not on the spur of the moment (although I have seen that as well), but it is not unprecedented for us to report progress on a debate and return to it later in the day. Personally-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Look, you don't have Party meetings in relation to every amendment on every issue.

The Hon. P. Holloway: We have to determine whether it is a conscience issue.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It might not matter whether or not it is a conscience issue. I do not think any of these issues are particularly difficult, although I am prepared to accept that some people might find them to be contentious. I would have thought that, in terms of the very amendment before us right now, when you set up the objects of an Act for the Casino that, whilst within the objects we consider matters such as its being properly managed, with gambling being conducted fairly and honestly and gambling revenue and interest to the State through our taxation being protected, you would minimise as far as practical the adverse personal effects of gambling on persons who gamble at the Casino and their families.

That, I think, is not an unreasonable question and I do not think that the Parties, generally speaking, would have great difficulty tackling that, conscience issue or not, whilst I am prepared to accept that some of these other issues will be seen as being more contentious and that we can at least construct an argument that we might have needed more time to consider them.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Just for the record, I am not certain that when I was putting the proposition about delay until later I made plain that the Democrats do support this amendment.

(a) by inserting in subsection (3)( c) `and by a resolution of each House of Parliament' after `Authority';

These amendments seek to ensure that any approved licensing agreement is approved by each House of Parliament. Essentially, they ensure that each House of Parliament has a chance to scrutinise any approved licensing agreement. This is an important issue. Once the Casino is sold from public hands and an agreement has been struck it will have very significant long-term ramifications. Given the public policy considerations in relation to the social and economic impact of gambling and given that the Casino, in many respects, is our biggest gambling house in this State, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises the agreement. It really is an important pinnacle of accountability in the context of this Bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes the amendments for some of the reasons given before.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I indicate that the Democrats support this. Of course, it will not get up at this stage but I indicate to the Government that there are other ways of achieving the goal. If the important rules can be put into another instrument, either by being inserted into the legislation or inserted into some form of regulation, we could probably circumvent these problems in that way. I think that there are alternatives but, in the absence of any alternative being offered, the Democrats will support these amendments.

(i) a copy of the rules of a particular game to be made available for inspection by a casino patron at his or her request; and

(ii) a copy of a summary of those rules to be provided to a casino patron at his or her request and;

(b) require information about gaming rules, payment of winning wagers and the odds of winning for each wager to be prominently displayed in the casino; and

(i) a sign indicating permissible minimum and maximum wagers for each game to be prominently displayed at the table or location where the game is played; and

(ii) if a minimum wager is to be raised, a sign indicating the new minimum and the proposed time of change to be displayed at the table or location where the game is played at least 20 minutes before the change.

Essentially, this amendment is based on the New South Wales Casino Control Act. I know that just because it comes from New South Wales it does not mean that it is necessarily good, as the Treasurer has said, but it indicates that there is a comprehensive legislative regime in place in New South Wales, that there are no issues and that it does appear to be a comprehensive piece of legislation. It simply mirrors what has occurred there. I would have thought that if it is good enough for the Star City Casino it is good enough for the Adelaide Casino.

It is not an onerous provision. It effectively gives a bit of very basic information about approved games to consumers. Given that many of the games are unique to the Casino in terms of roulette and various card games, I think that it is appropriate that it be moved in the context of this Bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes it for the reasons we outlined earlier.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Democrats, I indicate support for this amendment. It is really about the notion of informed consent. It is something we use in many places-in stores where, for instance, for cigarettes there has to be a display indicating nicotine and tar levels, and those sorts of things-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Genetically modified foods; that's about to happen, too. In fact, there are a large number of products about which information is required to be provided, and the notion of informed consent makes this a very sensible amendment.

10A. The following division is inserted after division 5 of part 4 of the principal Act:

42A. (1) The licensee must not permit an intoxicated person to gamble in the Casino.

(2) If in fact an intoxicated person gambled in the Casino, it will be presumed in the proceedings for an offence against subsection (1) that the licensee permitted the intoxicated person to do so unless it is proved that the licensee took all reasonable steps to prevent supply of liquor to intoxicated persons in the Casino and to prevent gambling by intoxicated persons in the Casino.

This amendment relates to intoxication in the Casino, prescribing that a licensee must not permit an intoxicated person to gamble in the Casino.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes it for the reasons outlined earlier.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Democrats I indicate support for this amendment. As another member noted earlier in the debate, licensed premises already have to make judgments about whether or not a person is intoxicated in terms of serving drinks, which is part of this, anyway. It is a judgment that these premises already have to make about their patrons. I do not believe it is a more onerous requirement than the one that exists. It applies not just to serving drinks, which is partly incorporated within this, but also, if you like, to serving the gambling product. It is a similar judgment, and there is no question that there is a strong link-for some people at least- between losses made and levels of intoxication. I recall reports prepared in quite early days of the gaming machines which stressed the value of having gaming machines fairly close to the bar, and the service of liquor does facilitate gambling: there is no question about it. Informed consent becomes an important part of decision making regarding intoxication.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: For the reasons that I gave earlier, the Opposition does not support the amendment at this stage.

12A. Section 61 of the principal Act is amended by striking out from subsection (3)(b) `$100 000' and substituting `$1 million'.

The proposed new clause simply increases the maximum fine under section 61 of the principal act from $100 000 to $1 million. Given the amount of money involved at casinos, I would have thought that a maximum fine of $1 million would be more appropriate. The level of the fine is in keeping with other casino regulatory codes and Acts, and that is why I have moved it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes the new clause, for the reasons outlined earlier.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition opposes the new clause, for the reasons given earlier.

16. Section 72 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsection:

(a) impose restrictions on who may organise or promote inducements to individuals or groups of persons to take part in gambling at the casino;

(b) require the organiser or promoter of such inducements, or the licensee, to give the Authority advance notice and details of the proposed inducements;

(c) require contracts or agreements relating to such inducements to be in a form and contain provisions approved by the Authority;

(d) require the organiser or promoter of such inducements, or the licensee, to give participants or prospective participants specified information about the inducements;

The proposed new clause relates to junkets and inducements at the Casino. It simply allows for regulations to be made to impose restrictions on the types of junkets offered, to give advance notice of the details of proposed inducements and the like. Again, this is based on the New South Wales Casino Control Act and, in the circumstances, it seems to be an appropriate amendment in the context of a casino that could well be privatised in the near future.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes the new clause, for the reasons outlined earlier.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: SA First supports the new clause because of a concern that I have about the extraordinary lengths to which the Casino goes at times to attract people to its premises. I am not quite sure what the Hon. Nick Xenophon has in mind in relation to regulations but, as I understand it, the new clause would merely provide for such regulations to be in place. I support the new clause.

The CHAIRMAN: For those who have been diligently following, we have a slight problem. At the end of the list of amendments there is, because it is a money clause, a suggested amendment-new clause 11A'. We have obviously gone past that, so I will ask the Hon. Mr Xenophon to move his amendment.

11A. Section 51 of the principal Act is amended by striking out subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection:

(a) 3% or $500 000, whichever is the greater, of the duty (and interest and penalties) received from the licensee in each year into an account at the Treasury to be used for the purposes of assisting persons adversely affected by gambling; and

(b) the balance of the duty (and interest and penalties) into the Consolidated Account.

This proposed new clause allows for the Casino to contribute to gamblers' rehabilitation in this State. I think it is anomalous that the Casino, the Lotteries Commission and the TAB do not contribute towards gamblers' rehabilitation. It also ensures that there ought to be an amount paid: 3 per cent of duty payable or $500 000, whichever is the greater. That is the basis for the amendment. It is anomalous that the Casino does not contribute towards gamblers' rehabilitation when, clearly, the Casino impacts on the level of problem gambling in the State.

I have a question of the Treasurer in relation to this matter and I will put it to him now for him to consider. I note from the appropriation papers the amount that the Casino has been paying in recent years towards the budget. Is it envisaged in the context of any privatisation that, as part of any agreement, the amount of duty payable will be reduced significantly? In other words, will it be the case that we are capitalising a future income stream, which will mean that we can expect a much lower level of duty in years to come, or is it anticipated that in any privatised model of casino operation there will still be a similar level of duty payable?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government opposes the amendment, for the reasons outlined earlier. In response to the honourable member's question, my understanding is that the duty rate taxation regime is broadly the same as exists at the moment. I will have that checked, and if it is anything different to that I will correspond with the honourable member in the next couple of weeks.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Opposition does not support the amendment at this stage, for the reasons given earlier. I think the complexities of this proposed new clause indicate why we need to go away and look at the implications of provisions such as this. So, we do not support it.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Democrats support the proposed new clause. Quite clearly, all gambling codes should have an obligation to contribute moneys which would be directly devoted to assisting those persons adversely affected by gambling, and the Democrats would support amendments to all the various gambling codes to establish this sort of arrangement.