Casino Misc Bill in Committee

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
17 November 2000

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Whilst the Democrats express support for this clause, I believe that `reasonable steps' are already being taken. Everyone who goes into the Casino is screened anyway, because each person who goes in passes employees at the door. So, the first reasonable step is that those employees are under instruction not to admit anyone who is apparently intoxicated.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: They enforce the dress code but, because of the very nature of the Casino's operations, everyone who goes in goes past Casino employees-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not suggesting that they will get people to blow into a bag to check whether they are .05 or .08, but if a person arrives at the door clearly legless-most people go to the Casino to gamble-I think it is reasonable to expect that they would screen a legless person and say, `I'm sorry, but you're not going in.'

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am saying that, if you have a clause like this in legislation and you seek to interpret it, what would be a reasonable step? I am not saying that people would have to blow into a bag, but if they arrive clearly legless they should not be going into the Casino. That is the first reasonable step.

My second point relates to people being served at a bar. There are already requirements in hotels about serving people who are intoxicated. That is the second reasonable step to be taken. If a person is clearly legless, the barman will not serve them with further liquor. As I said, my recollection of the Liquor Licensing Act is that that is supposed to happen now, anyway.

The third reasonable step is that a riding instruction is issued to Casino employees working at the tables or dispensing money. If the bill is passed in the form proposed by the Hon. Nick Xenophon, people will, fairly regularly, seek to change notes into coins. So, there are plenty of opportunities throughout the night to be seen by Casino employees, even if the customer is using the gaming machines.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, staff are still going around carrying out a range of duties, and all that, in my view, constitutes taking reasonable steps.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The honourable member commented about gamblers having interlock devices. One possibility is that, if they want to, people could use gambling cards. In a reverse licensing sense, that almost has the effect of an interlock device, not in relation to drunkenness, but, if people are both regular drunks and regular gamblers-unfortunately, that is not an unusual combination-that would probably help to cover all this, anyway. I am saying that, at this stage, there is no question that people who are heavily intoxicated are at much greater risk of sustaining substantial losses. I think we already accept that hotels have obligations in terms of serving people who are already very drunk; it is not unreasonable that similar sorts of obligations should apply to the Casino.

(a) that the licensee must adopt a code of practice approved by the authority providing for practices directed towards encouraging responsible gambling, including the provision of training to staff relating to responsible gambling and the services available to address problems associated with gambling; and

(b) that the licensee must ensure that operations under the licence conform with the code of practice approved under this section.

This clause provides that it is a condition of the Casino licence that the licensee must adopt a code of practice approved by the authority (that would be the Gaming Supervisory Authority) providing for practices directed towards encouraging responsible gambling including the provision of training of staff relating to responsible gambling and the services available to address problems associated with gambling and that the licensee must ensure that operations under the licence conform with the code of practice approved under the section.

This clause simply provides for there to be an obligation on the Casino licence that certain practices designed to minimise the harm associated with gambling form part of the conduct of the Casino. It is not a particularly onerous provision. It seeks to do what is similar to legislation that has been passed in the past few months in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, as I understand it. I am happy to provide honourable members with a copy of those relevant provisions in relation to that. I ask that members support this amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I indicate that I am supportive of the notion of codes of practice and would hope that eventually when we establish some gaming oversight bodies, in particular not just a body overseeing probity but another body that is involved in gambling related harm-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. However, I believe that the body looking at issues of gambling related harm should be in a position to produce draft codes of practice, which it can then recommend to the political process for adoption and enforcement by the agency which is in charge of probity, licensing and so on. I think it is important that we keep those two separate. In the interim, I am supportive of this amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I indicate that, in my view, the moneys currently being committed to gambling related harm are grossly inadequate. While it might be argued that government should make a decision on the amount, this parliament has made decisions on a number of occasions over the past couple of decades in terms of expanding gambling opportunity, but it has not at any stage so far picked up any responsibility, and although this clause may not be perfect and is certainly not ideal it is at least an expression by this parliament that the current levels of assistance to gambling related harm are inadequate. For that reason alone I will support the clause.