 |
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 |
|
PROPRIETARY RACING BILL
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This is important, and I am addressing the consequences. Last night it was made quite plain that the intention was that telephones would be covered. It was argued as to whether it was necessary to insert the word `telephone' but it was said that `telephone' was meant to be covered by `interactive device'. In fact, I was told that I was being petty but that it would be accepted anyway. Now we are being told that, in fact, it is intended that telephones not be included-the exact opposite to the advice I was given last night.
Adequate explanation has not been given as to what the problem is. When you look at the clause as it currently stands, before this proposed amendment, you see that it relates only to races being conducted under a proprietary racing licence. In other words, it only relates to races on the straight track. So, in terms of the TAB offering bets in relation to other racing operations, they will not be affected.
The Hon. A.J. Redford: They can't.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: They cannot be, because it is not doing that-
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: With respect, you have said that the best legal brains have said this, but what you have not gone into is the construction of the argument by which the TAB is captured with respect to races other than on the straight track. I am not arguing about who has the best legal brain: I am saying that you have not put an argument on the table other than saying, `The best legal brains have said that we have to change it.' I am asking you to put the argument as to why TAB operations in relation to conventional racing and telephone betting are captured by a clause which relates to races conducted under the licence, and it is a proprietary business licence.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It does not. The TAB may be involved in a proprietary racing business licence but that does not mean that everything it does is covered by that licence. The TAB will have other operations that do not relate to races conducted under a racing business licence. I think we have exposed that there is obviously an intention to have betting in South Australia on proprietary racing straight away, which is not what we were told last night.
For instance, even if we do not have a live broadcast of proprietary racing, we can watch it on the internet and then have a telephone bet. That is what you will be able to do: you will be able to watch it on the internet because it is not being beamed live into South Australia. The whole reason for this being moved-and it is the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning's amendment-is, in the first instance, to guarantee that no interactive gaming takes place in South Australia in relation to proprietary racing. That will be the result of this consequential amendment.
It was on the basis of this clause that I said I was prepared to support the bill. There has been an act of bad faith-an extreme act of bad faith-regardless of whether you think that proprietary racing is a good or bad thing, or whether or not you think that it should operate in South Australia. There is an act of bad faith in that we were told that a clause would do a particular thing, and then, having supported it, we are now told that it has a quite different effect. That is an act of extreme bad faith.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I can accept that the minister does not have direct carriage of this bill-she just has it in this place and is probably not fully in the loop as to what is going on. I am making the point that last night we were told that the effect of this amendment would ensure that there is no interactive gaming in South Australia on proprietary racing. That was important to the Democrats because we did not want an expansion of gambling and, therefore, increased gambling-related harm until there had been real action in terms of addressing those issues.
It appears to me that what the minister is now saying-still reading slightly between the lines-is that, clearly, whatever else these contracts contain, they have elements which involve the delivery of some form of interactive telephone betting on proprietary racing that is conducted here in South Australia. That information was not given to this place previously, and it obviously was not given to the minister. I have made that point before that not a lot of information about this issue has been placed on the table. The Hon. Angus Redford said that we would be back here in the new year amending this; well, it has happened within 24 hours-
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In less than 24 hours-it is more like 12 hours-we are back here trying to patch up something which, in this case, it appears even the government got wrong, and perhaps that has occurred because it was not getting all the information. It is simply not acceptable for parliament to be making decisions on the basis of inadequate information. I do not know who is responsible for it, but it is not acceptable that we are being kept in the dark while we are being asked to vote on something as significant as this.
