 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on second reading.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to speak to the second reading and explain why at this stage I am using that terminology rather than speaking for or against the second reading. It is worth noting that legislation does not appear to be necessary for proprietary racing to occur, but there are consequences of deciding not to legislate, as there are consequences of deciding to do so. I do not believe that simply rejecting the legislation as the Labor Party seems to be doing at this stage is a constructive thing to do either, because some issues deserve to be addressed through legislation, and the question is whether or not this bill is capable of doing so. I must say that the political aptitude of the people involved in this whole process has been pretty ordinary. While I had read a little about TeleTrak-
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not talking about politicians but the people involved in and promoting the industry. If I had not read a little in the Murray Pioneer and the South-East Times I would have known nothing about what was proposed for some 12 months. Newspapers were coming to me at least 12 months ago asking, `Are you going to support it or not?' I said, `Support what? No-one has been to see us; there's simply no information on the table.' Eventually, someone from the Wattle Range council must have got into TeleTrak's ear and said, `For goodness sake, at least go and start talking to the politicians.' They may have been talking to the government but until then they had not been talking to anyone else.
At that stage a version suggested that one company would own all the horses. Perhaps the horses would be bred separately, but they were all to be owned by the company and stabled, fed and trained on site. There was to be a pool of jockeys etc. that belonged only to TeleTrak. As described, the concept was for a straight line course and it was to be a product for the overseas market via the internet. That was the concept. There was not a whole lot more than concept, other than the suggestion that there were three sites, at Waikerie, Port Augusta and near Millicent.
Having been visited on one occasion, absolutely nothing appeared. Again, it disappeared off into the ether. From time to time some media person-particularly media from the South-East and the Riverland-would come to ask what I was going to do about it and my response was `Well, what's happening?' I was hearing absolutely nothing. It was not until nearly two weeks ago when I was speaking with representatives of the three racing codes in relation to other legislation in this place that they talked about the fact that they were getting involved with this racing in some way. In particular I discovered that the trotting and greyhound codes had both signed up to be involved in providing horses and the like, allowing their horses and dogs to run.
Members interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not know. That was the first I had heard that we had gone from the concept of ordinary horse racing moving over to trotters and greyhounds. In fact, at that stage SATRA had not come on board, and I have heard various rumours but nothing concrete as to whether or not it will get involved. Some people absolutely swear that SATRA will never get involved and others say that it will.
In further conversation with representatives of the Wattle Range council and the member for Chaffey, I discovered that in fact the TAB had already signed a contract with Cyber Raceways-another company that seemed to come out of left field. That intrigued me to start with, because I thought we had legislation in this place to sell the TAB, yet the TAB is signing what I guess you would have to describe as a blue sky contract at this stage. What its return (if any) might be is difficult to tell; it may be a major return or zero.
Here we are debating the possible sale of the TAB, yet it was getting involved in a significant new venture. I think the parliament deserves to have that put on the public record in this place, rather than just the coincidence that proprietary racing is being discussed at about the same time and having it filter through. I found it quite extraordinary that the TAB would be involved in something like that when we are talking about the TAB sale, yet the parliament and the public generally were not being informed.
I understand that, apart from those near the top, people in the racing codes generally still do not realise half of what is happening at this stage. I am not saying whether it is a good or bad thing; I am simply saying that the information is not out there, despite the fact that we have legislation in this place through which we are trying to sort our way. I do not know what other information has been brought forward at this stage but, before we have a final vote on this, I would hope that a lot more spelling out is done as to precisely where things are at this stage.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I think it would be useful in closing the second reading stage to provide at the very least a detailed explanation of this matter, which as I said certainly has not been on the public record, to my knowledge. I have spoken to people fairly high up in the racing codes who do not have knowledge of it. Clearly, the people at the very top have knowledge of it, but it has not filtered down very far. Certainly in this place if we are making decisions it should be on the basis of as much information as is possible.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Not at this stage. In fact, I am expecting to meet or have a telephone conversation with people from Cyber Raceways. They have made contact with me now. I expect to have a long conversation with them, and I hope that fills in many more gaps. I have made some comment as to how poorly that side of the lobbying is being done. All that aside, given that the government is involved and is introducing the legislation, it should have made sure that this high level of detail was put on the record. This significant change in form appears to be a late development, but it may have been developing out in the ether for quite some time. It has certainly been outside the public domain. I suppose there are issues of commercial confidentiality, but once you get to the point of debating legislation in parliament it is time for all that stuff to be on the record.
As the Hon. Terry Roberts noted, not only do we have that, but what I understood to be a separate proposal was in relation to quarter horses, and I was told that Arabian interests were involved and investing in that. I may have been told something different from what the Hon. Terry Roberts was told, but that is probably not surprising, as things stand.
The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: You reckon we might go to Monarto and get a few of Pryzalski's horses and race some of them. Other than the obvious need for a lot more information to go on the record very quickly, the issues for me at this stage include the implications on the TAB sale. It is a side issue in relation to this bill, but it certainly arises from what has become apparent as we consider this bill. When finally making my decision on whether to support the bill I will first take into account the probity issues.
I will want to be satisfied that there is a very high level of probity in relation to this legislation. That is one reason why I would want legislation to be passed. If this can operate without legislation, I cannot see how we are getting a very high level of probity, and the challenge for us is to ensure that we end up with legislation that addresses that issue. Whether we can do it in the limited sitting time with which the government has left us is another question.
Although it has been argued that the industry could continue without legislation, in the long term I do not believe that the people of South Australia will accept that the industry should continue without it. It would not be doing the industry a favour to allow them to set up and then bring in legislation later on. If they are setting up-
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Some argue that they have and some that they have not. It would be a nonsense for it to happen and in the long term the public would find it unacceptable.
Aside from the issue of probity, there is the issue of the expansion of gambling opportunity. For a number of years I have consistently argued that a comprehensive overall view of gambling is required and that some sort of gaming commission should be established. Whatever it is called, I want to see a body established which encompasses all forms of gambling and which has as consistent a set of rules as possible in relation to probity, licensing, etc.
With recent legislation, the government is starting to move in that direction-it has been bringing a few things under fewer umbrellas-but there is nothing like producing a comprehensive body with oversight. A separate body to oversee the impact of gambling may be required. It would not be a large organisation: as I see it, it would be a committee with a small secretariat with a responsibility to monitor the impact of gambling on the community and, on an annual basis, to report to the parliament and the appropriate minister in relation to the impacts of gambling and gambling trends. It would make recommendations regarding ways to minimise harm and perhaps keep a watching brief over the Gaming Commission itself, which carries out probity checks.
Anyone involved in a number of the industries associated with gambling will say that at the moment probity checks are not being carried out and that there is very little enforcement. If there is an independent body which is interested in harm caused by gaming and which can see where harm is occurring-and some of that relates to probity and the behaviour of some people in the gaming codes-it can bring that to the attention of the parliament and the minister. It will have a watchdog role to ensure that we take responsibility for the victims of gambling.
I have no problem with the state accepting that gambling occurs and the state regulating gambling. It is the approach I have taken in a number of areas in which, people acknowledge, there is the ability to create social harm. I do not believe that we should simply wash our hands of it and say, `We have allowed it; we have a set of rules and we are enforcing them.' We should also be constantly looking for where the harm is being created and endeavouring to minimise that harm.
We cannot keep putting it off. With this and other legislation relating to gambling, it is time the government bit the bullet. When approached by government members on a number of matters relating to gambling early last year, I said that we should not proceed further until the central question of gaming regulation has been tackled. The time is overdue; it is an issue that I want the government to address before we proceed further with this legislation. Hopefully, over the next week or so we can engage in useful discussion to find a resolution in that area.
There has been a significant move within the community and I have been involved in several meetings with representatives of a large number of churches that, through a range of bodies under their umbrella, pick up the pieces. They have made it clear- and I am sure that in the last couple of days all honourable members have received emails from them spelling out what they believe should happen- that they are absolutely committed to seeing some form of gaming commission, or similar, operating in this state and addressing the very real problems.
At this stage I will not oppose or support the legislation but I acknowledge there is a need for legislation. I am prepared to support legislation in this session provided I am satisfied that we have tackled issues of probity, gaming regulation and harm minimisation of gambling impacts.
The Hon. R.R. ROBERTS secured the adjournment of the debate
