Gaming Machines Amendment Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 29 October 2008.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [12.36 p.m.]: I am pleased to lead for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill 2008. I indicate at the outset that the Coalition will not oppose the bill. The bill comprises a large number of particular items in relation to gaming machines and really follows on from a number of reviews. The most recent review seeks to make amendments, some of which are aimed at harm minimisation, others at administration and administrative reform, and others at planning laws and other matters. First, the bill seeks to formalise the reduction in the poker machines entitlement in New South Wales from 104,000 to 99,000. That simply formalises the current number of the effective poker machine cap, which has been reduced by virtue of the natural attrition provided in legislation, whereby forfeiture occurs each time a poker machine is traded between venues.

The one-for-three rule—whereby one poker machine entitlement is forfeited for every three that are traded, and therefore two are transferred—has resulted in about 5,000 fewer poker machine entitlements in New South Wales. That natural attrition will continue and no doubt a future government will be able to formalise further reductions to poker machine entitlements. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that New South Wales has by far the largest absolute and per capita gaming machine entitlement of any State in Australia, and it is very much at the forefront of the world league. By comparison, the number of poker machine entitlements in Victoria, with a similar population to New South Wales, is 25,000 to 27,000. The bill provides a cap of 99,000 poker machiness—almost 100,000—for New South Wales.

The bill also seeks to introduce bands based on local government areas for the purposes of consideration of poker machine entitlement transfers, whereby band 1 would be areas of low-density poker machines and band 3 would be the highest density areas. The implication of this arrangement is that transferring entitlements and/or increasing the number of poker machines would be administratively more simple in band 1 local government areas than in band 3 areas, where transfer and/or increase would be considerably more difficult both in the application process and administratively.

Local impact assessments [LIA] are to replace the social impact assessment [SIA] regime, which has in many respects become such a slow process as to make it almost not feasible to make applications under the former SIA process compared to the new LIA process. I point out one aspect that arises from our admittedly brief experience of the similar style of assessment in the Liquor Act, give that social impact assessments have been replaced by local impact assessments. The applicant, prior to the lodgement of the application, conducts the required investigation of an application. As a result the application process is much shorter.

The length of time gained by this process more or less mirrors the length of time of the social impact process. That is happening under the Liquor Act and I dare say it will be replicated under the Gaming Machines Act. Time will tell. It does not surprise me, using the Liquor Act as an analogy, that very few applications have come forward to fruition—I think none have come forward—but at least three are currently before the new authority. Therefore, it will not surprise me if this process becomes more administratively efficient from the departmental point onwards, but prior to that it will be just as complicated if not more difficult from the applicant's perspective.

I refer now to credit card ATM transactions. The bill seeks to prohibit the presence of ATM or EFTPOS services that dispense cash from credit card accounts in venues where there are gaming machines. This is aimed at reducing access to credit funds for problem gamblers. The number of problem gamblers is now accredited at 1 per cent of gamblers rather than the previous 2 per cent. I would like to compliment the hotels and clubs as well as the casinos and other gambling outlets. Something has been working with the myriad harm minimisation measures in place. There has been a noticeable reduction in the level of accredited problem gamblers. This is not my percentage and it is not the Minister's percentage; it is a generally accepted figure that has been estimated independently. That is pleasing and we should take this opportunity to point it out. We commend the industry and the legislation that has enabled this change over more than a decade.

I am not saying that we do not have a problem or that it is only a very minor problem. It is a major and very significant problem for the families of problem gamblers and for their communities. Reduction of these facilities in venues will create considerable hardship and inconvenience for venue patrons and especially in small communities and rural communities where the hotel or the club might well be the only venue where an ATM is located or can be located for use by the community. There will be additional problems for smaller communities. Venue patrons, and the communities that rely on ATMs in the venues, will be inconvenienced.

Practically, this measure will not alter the incidence of a problem gambler's access to cash, but it will boost the business of any convenience store near a major venue. There will be a considerable increase in the number of people accessing its ATMs. Another problem is that problem gamblers will have to acquire their cash before reaching a venue and will be on the streets with a considerable amount of cash in their pockets as they approach the venue.. I think there are a number of dangers associated with that. Please do not misunderstand the view of the Opposition. I am not trying to find ways to make it more convenient for a problem gambler, but these events will be possible consequences of the measure. That is the point I am making. I am sure the Government must have thought about this and is prepared to accept these risks. It is our duty as an Opposition to point out what we view as the risks or the features that will emerge following the removal of ATMs and EFTPOS facilities as envisaged by the legislation.

Next I turn to the removal of the threshold of 450 poker machine entitlements for registered clubs. We support this measure because it provides clubs with greater ability to respond to conditions in the community and to other legislative requirements such as provisions about smoking. It enables clubs to amalgamate, which otherwise would have been restricted by the threshold. The Opposition welcomes the measure, and I think the detail of it is so self-evident as to not require further discussion.

I notice also that multi-terminal gaming machines will be restricted to 50 per cent of the overall gaming machines in a club. While clubs may regard that as a severe restriction, I think we should proceed with it and see how it goes. I note that this legislation will be reviewed in future years, and whatever adjustments might be necessary can be made at that time. The bill also permits registered clubs to undertake further commercial developments, such as real estate development or shopping centre investment, so that clubs can diversify their income stream and be less dependent on gaming for their existence.

The harm minimisation provisions will remain. No poker machines will be permitted inside shopping centres. That is a welcome development because it gives clubs an opportunity to diversify their business and income streams. The bill also repeals the lessor-lessee disputes that have been occurring over poker machine entitlements in the hotel industry. The Minister advised me in a briefing that very few of these disputes remain. If anything, the majority of them have already been decided. It is time for this measure to be passed. Effectively, that is what this provision does and the Opposition supports it.

A myriad of smaller measures do not warrant specific mention other than to say that the Opposition supports them. It is an ongoing battle for legislators to keep ahead of technology in relation to poker machine gambling and entitlements, to be aware of community needs, and to anticipate and carefully assess the required balance between providing entertainment and community-focused activities at social venues and ensuring harm minimisation. I acknowledge the significant contribution by this industry to employment and to the gross State product. Over the two decades that I have been a member of Parliament, the progress that has been made on these issues has created a much better and more efficient industry. I urge the Government to continue in that direction with care and balance. The Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.52 p.m.]: I support the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill 2008, which implements the recommendations in the report on a five-year statutory review of the Gaming Machines Act 2001, tabled in the House on 7 December 2007. Importantly, the reforms in this bill will enhance the operation of the Act by simplifying certain legislative processes, to reduce red tape and increase business certainty and compliance. New responsible gambling measures will further assist problem gamblers and strengthen the Act in relation to gambling harm minimisation, while other measures will increase the integrity of gaming provision in licensed venues.

A key reform in this bill is the introduction of the new local impact assessment process. This reform will address industry concerns about the existing social impact assessment process, which was criticised for being too costly, complex and time consuming The local impact assessment process will be much simpler and less costly than the social impact assessment process and will provide a sensible and balanced approach to assessing the impact of additional poker machines. The objective of the local impact assessment process is to facilitate the consideration by the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority of the impact of additional poker machines in a local government area and the potential benefits provided to local communities by venues that acquire additional poker machines.

It does this by providing a process that allows a venue to demonstrate that it will conduct activities to make a positive contribution to the local community to justify the proposed increase. The authority can make an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposal through its own investigation before deciding whether or not the proposed increase is appropriate. One aim of the local impact assessment process is to restrict poker machine increases in local government areas that already have a higher than average density of poker machines and to make it easier for venues in low density local government areas to acquire additional poker machines. It does this by introducing a new method of classifying local government areas to provide a reasonable snapshot of the current level of risk that might be associated with an increase in poker machine numbers in a local government area.

Local government areas will be classified as band 1, 2 or 3, and this will be based on a ranking system that will take into account the current density of poker machines in a local government area, expenditure or player loss, and the most recent social and economic index ranking for the area, its SEIFA ranking. A table containing this data and the classification of each local government area will be maintained on the website of the New South Wales Office of Liquor and Gaming. Every three months the table will be updated to take account of the changes associated with the trading of poker machine entitlements as well as periodic changes to the expenditure and SEIFA data.

Venues will need to be aware of the current classification of the local government area when applying for additional poker machines, as the classification and the number of additional poker machines being sought will determine the process and level of assessment that is required. Generally, band 3 local government areas will exhibit a higher than average density of poker machines, high expenditure or player loss, or poor SEIFA ranking. Local government areas that are expected to be classified as band 3 include Fairfield, Canterbury, Marrickville, Newcastle, Albury, Wyong, Wollongong, Kogarah and Penrith. Venues in band 3 local government areas will find it difficult to acquire additional poker machines and will be required to complete the more rigorous class two local impact assessment and demonstrate that the proposed increase will have an overall positive impact on the local community.

Generally, band 2 local government areas will exhibit a medium density of poker machines, medium expenditure or player loss, and an average SEIFA ranking. Depending on the number of additional machines being sought by a venue in a band 2 local government area, the venue will be required to complete a class one local impact assessment if the proposed increase is small, or class two local impact assessment if the proposed increase is high. Band 1 local government areas will exhibit a low density of poker machines, low expenditure player loss and a high SEIFA ranking. Local government areas with these characteristics will be considered to be of less risk in absorbing additional poker machines and the process requiring additional machines will be easier. For instance, venues in band 1 local government areas will not be required to complete a local impact assessment unless the number of additional poker machines being sought exceeds 20 in any 12-month period.

Essentially, the new classification process acknowledges that communities within certain local government areas do not need or want any more poker machines. The Government believes that this approach is both sensible and rational and that as a whole this new process will provide greater benefit to industry, the community and government. The Government listened carefully to industry and community concerns and has come up with a process that will significantly reduce time, cost, complexity and red tape while maintaining the need to assess properly the impact of additional poker machines in an area. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.57 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Upper Hunter who led for the Opposition in debate on the Gaming Machines Amendment Bill 2008 and clearly stated our position. Today I would like to raise two issues: first, the prohibition of cash dispensing facilities and, second, poker machine entitlements. I am concerned about the provisions in proposed section 47C, which states:

47C Prohibition of certain cash dispensing facilitiesC Prohibition of certain cash dispensing facilities

(1) A hotelier or registered club must not permit a cash dispensing facility to be installed or located in any part of the hotel or club premises if the facility is capable of providing cash from a credit card account.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

(2) In this section, cash dispensing facility means a facility (such as an ATM or EFTPOS terminal) for the withdrawal of cash from a bank or authorised deposit-taking institution.

As I understand it, ATMs will remain in pubs and clubs, but people will no longer be able to withdraw cash using a Mastercard or Visa card. I imagine that will be done through the use of technology. However, there seems to be some confusion about how that will operate. I think I am right in suggesting that the terminals will remain in pubs and clubs. If those terminals were removed, which is the way in which some people have interpreted the legislation, it would cause difficulties for some communities, in particular, small towns that have only one club and no corner stores. For example, Humula has a small registered club that is able to dispense cash but there are no other terminals in that little village.

I would hate to see small communities disadvantaged. I believe I have interpreted this legislation correctly. I am concerned that all members need to have that issue addressed by the Minister so that it makes the intention of this legislation absolutely clear. I refer now to correspondence I have received regarding efforts to make representations to the previous and current Ministers regarding poker machine entitlements. On 28 March 2008 I received correspondence from WDF Professionals, Accounting and Financial Advisers, which states:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your recent assistance in relation to the proposed transfer of Poker Machine Entitlements from the Turvey Tavern.

In view of further developments in the Supreme Court, we now seek your further assistance with timing of the New South Wales Government's new legislation. It would save a considerable waste of resources in the Supreme Court and the Liquor Administration Board if the legislation could become law as rapidly as possible, and that the inevitability of the new law became very clear to the parties involved.

We emphasise that action continues in defiance of the Government's announced freeze on transfers of PMEs.

Since we last spoke, our client the Lessor has applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the LAB from approving the transfer of PME's. The Supreme Court, at behest of the Lessee has now scheduled an expedited full hearing of the matter on this Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 11.00am. Each side has engaged Senior Counsel to appear at great expense. It is quite possible that judgement will occur on this same day.

The LAB is itself free to determine the application on that same day, Tuesday 1 April and our legal adviser suggests that it is likely to proceed in accordance with the existing law despite full knowledge of foreshadowed changes. A copy of our submission to the LAB will follow when available; you may wish to pass it on to the Minister.

Could you please intervene with the Minister and with Manager of Government Business and endeavour to have the legislation listed for debate as early as possible.

On 25 July further correspondence addressed to then Minister West stated:

Dear Sir

LEASED HOTELS AND POKER MACHINE ENTITLEMENTS
REFERENCE FOR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE; EA1291884

We confirm that we act for Turvern Pty Ltd. the Lessor of the Turvey Tavern in Wagga Wagga.

We refer to previous correspondence, being our letters of 18 March 2008 and 14 April 2008, and were pleased when the Gaming Machines Amendment (Temporary Freeze) Bill was enacted.

Hence we are most alarmed to learn that you propose to make further changes by way of Regulation and without any consultation with affected parties such as our client. We understand that you have met several times with representatives of the AHA.

1. In the interests of equity could you please:

2. Advise wording of the proposed Regulation; and

Suggest a time that we could meet with you to put a case for our client prior to such Regulation becoming effective. We will travel to Sydney to meet with you. Our position paper will be a very short one page document.

We add comments as follows:

Any representations made by the AHA as representing the hotel industry are misleading. Owners of hotels such as our client, are not eligible for membership of the AHA.

When the current Lessee of the Turvey Tavern acquired the lease, there were fifteen poker machines already in place. Hence the Lessee has made no contribution whatsoever towards the existence of Poker Machine Entitlements at that hotel.

They regularly made it clear that they intended to strip the hotel of all its PMEs before expiration of the lease in June 2011.

They refused several offers of commercial settlement.

They had made no application for transfer of PMEs before 7 December 2007 when you announced the freeze.

They then waited until 11 March 2008 before lodging an application. The LAB and subsequently the Supreme Court proceeded to hear the matter despite the imminent passing of the amendments.

After legislation was passed, with effect of reversing transfers approved since 7 December 2007, they proceeded to withdraw their application altogether.

Our client incurred costs of $114,000 in fighting their various legal ploys, all to no avail in the end as the Lessee withdrew.

Our client is a group of eight local families, who twelve years ago looked to this investment to provide them with rental income in their future retirement. Most are now at retirement and are very upset at any prospect that their carefully planned income might be substantially diminished.

We look forward to meeting with you urgently.

On 20 August correspondence from the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing stated:

[OLGR] will be collating the responses received on this matter during September. This letter is part of an administrative process being run by the OLGR to ensure that the database for entitlement disputes is up to date. However, it is anticipated that this information may assist in the broader review of section 19 of the Gaming Machines Act.

It is anticipated that if a decision is made to make any amendment to section 19 as a result of the review, this will be progressed in the Spring Session of Parliament 2008.

It is not intended to notify each individual who has responded to this letter of the outcome of the review. Key stakeholder groups such as the AHA(NSW) are being consulted as part of the review, and it may be appropriate that any comments your clients have in regard to this issue be either provided to the AHA or be put in writing to OLGR or the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

On 2 September WDF Professionals, Accountants and Financial Advisers wrote to Minister West as follows:

Dear Sir

TURVEY TAVERN WAGGA WAGGA—LICENCE NUMBER 121229TURVEY TAVERN WAGGA WAGGA—LICENCE NUMBER 121229
REVIEW OF SECTION 19 OF GAMING MACHINES ACT

It is with alarm that we respond to the email dated 20 August 2008 from NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing to our client's solicitor Mr Don McDougall. Copy of email is attached.

While Mr McDougall has responded today on our behalf, we wish to emphasise the degree of concern that we feel about the consultation process, or lack of it, as indicated by the email's final paragraph.

We also note that we have previously written to your office on more than one occasion (5 May 2008 via Mr Daryl Maguire MP; and 25 July 2008 direct to the Minister), and while a substantive answer was promised as long ago as 14 May 2008 no response has been received.

In the light of no response, and then in view of the email's final paragraph, our client is rightly alarmed that the consultation process is seriously flawed.

Could you please:

1. Acknowledge receipt by return.

2. Ensure that OLGR responds in a substantive manner to Mr McDougall's email of today's date which was addressed to Ms Lucy Brotherton of their office.

3. Note carefully Mr McDougall's Statement that the AHA (NSW) does not speak for hotel Lessors and hence is in no way representative of all key stakeholders in the industry.

4. Provide stakeholders such as our client with equal opportunity to participate in the review.

On 16 September WDF wrote the following:

Dear Ms Glozier

I refer to Anne Holland's conversation this morning with Nikki Wardman of this office, concerning a proposed meeting with the previous Minister, and now trying to meet with the new Minister.

As requested, I am attaching copy of correspondence which includes a brief history of the matter.

We wish to attend with our solicitor Mr Don McDougall of Sydney, and have been trying to fit in with both the Minister's schedule and Mr McDougall's impending absence. After this week he will be unavailable until Monday 13 October.

On 24 October WDF wrote:

Dear Daryl, please see below.

We have tried and tried and tried to get in front of the Minister to no avail.

I smell a rat!

The latest from the Minister's office this morning is that we will get a response from the Department "shortly". When asked what this means in relation to a meeting with the Minister, his staff is unable to respond.

On 29 October WDF wrote:

Dear Daryl

I now have a copy of the bill from our solicitor. We are still digesting.

It appears to take us back to the rules as they were before the freeze, which the Supreme Court held as authorising a lessee to sell off the PMEs even when the lessee did nothing to obtain them. It appears to also go further and make it difficult for affected owners to reinstate PMEs when the lease ends.

The principle of reducing PMEs may be admirable, but why provide a windfall benefit to lessees in the process? And at the cost of hotel owners who have leased their hotel in good faith, expecting it to be returned to them in its entirety?

Obviously we would like to protest as strongly as possible.

How do we get to put our case?

I note the Minister's press release yesterday concludes with "[the bill] has been developed in close consultation with industry participants".

This is laughable and dishonest—we have been trying for months to get to see the Minister without any success. He and the previous Minister can check their office phone logs.

Can you find out who he thinks has represented the interests of hotel owners in these "close consultations"?

On 5 November 2008 WDF wrote:

Any news? Despite more attempts for a response from the Minister's office, we are getting nowhere—just a promise of a letter from the Director of OLGR which was sent last Thursday, but hasn't arrived.

On 7 November 2008 WDF wrote:

Daryl

Please see the response from Director of OLGR attached.

It is hardly surprising that people become so cynical with government

held us off for three months with promises of a meeting, but nothing substantive

presumably consulted only with the privileged insiders

claim to have taken our views into account anyway

we are not aware of any other lessor having been consulted

now "the Minister is unable to meet with you" = "runaway, you just don't matter".

This whole saga is absolutely scandalous.

Is there any way to get a hearing anywhere?

[Extension of time agreed to.]

I refer to correspondence received from the New South Wales Department of Arts, Sport and Recreation:

Dear Mr Friedlieb

I refer to your request to meet with the Minister for Gaming and Racing, to discuss the transfer of poker machine entitlements by the lessees of the Turvey Tavern. I have been asked to respond to you on the Minister's behalf.

Unfortunately the Minister is unable to meet with you to discuss this matter.

I can inform you however, that your views, and that of the individual lessors in a similar position to that of your clients, have been taken into consideration during the review of the Gaming Machines Act 2001.

As a result of the review process amendments to Section 19 of the Act, which concern the transfer of poker machine entitlements, will be introduced to Parliament this session. These amendments repeal the changes made to Section 19 by the Gaming Machines Amendment (Temporary Freeze) Act 2008. The amendments provide a reasonable framework for determining the relevant consents that are required for entitlement transfers.

I trust that this information is of assistance to you.

The letter is signed on behalf of the director general. On 11 November I received more correspondence from Mr Friedlieb:

Dear Daryl

I have only now seen the Minister's Agreement in Principle speech.

Some comments below on the relevant sections.

Can he actually believe what he is saying?

I again emphasise that he and/or his staff have refused to allow us to be heard, how can they then claim to have "consulted with the hotel industry"?

Daryl, please go to the top on this one. It is confiscation of property by legislation, which if it was to benefit the public interest might be sometimes acceptable, but this Bill again provides million dollar financial windfalls to lessees (even if only 17) who are at most temporary custodians of the assets. The cost of achieving government policy is borne by 17 lessors - where is the fairness or justice in that?

"Another amendment in the bill is to repeal amendments made relating to the transfer of hotel poker machine entitlements. The policy intention of this provision is to revert to the position existing immediately prior to the Gaming Machines (Temporary Freeze) Act amendments in 2008. Various judicial decisions considered the application of the laws, as they existed prior to the amendments. On reversion to the former provisions, these decisions should again provide guidance on the interpretation of the provisions as they existed prior to the 2008 amendments. [Note: This attempts to justify reverting to bad laws simply because the court has clarified it. The law remains bad law as it authorizes conversion of PMEs from lessors to lessees without compensation, i.e. it encourages lessees to sell assets which they are leasing by providing financial incentive] The five-year review report recommended that the legislation be amended to ensure that the licence owner be able to object to the transfer of entitlements from a leased hotel in all cases [my underlining] but that the issue should be kept under review. The New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing has held extensive consultation with the hotel industry [presumably the AHA - not with lessors to our knowledge, certainly not with us, despite our repeated requests] over this matter and has concluded that the original legislation provides a reasonable framework to allow lessors to object [not any more] and that the amendments are not required. [In other words the Government is rejecting the recommendation of the five-year review report]

The hotel industry has advised that only a very small number of disputes remain unresolved—only 17—and that any legislative amendments would only disrupt a precedent set by court decisions. [If legislation is stated clearly then there would be no need to go to court at all] The unresolved agreements are private financial arrangements between the parties. These are matters best dealt with between the parties and, if necessary, with recourse to the court system. There is no role for government to interfere in these private disputes. This is the way all private disputes are determined in this State and it is appropriate that these disputes are determined in the same way. [a self serving copout]. The Act will continue to allow lessors with a relevant financial interest in a hotel to continue to be able to object to the transfer of poker machine entitlements by a lessee by making a submission to the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority. [This is a furphy. The court has already decided that lessors such as the Turvern have no relevant financial interest, hence there is nothing left to negotiate, except to buy the lessee out in some form - in other words buy back the lessors' own assets].

I would love to see some principle shown on this.

Best wishes

David Friedlieb

As I do regularly in relation to each Minister for Gaming and Racing, I wrote to the current Minister in an attempt to provide correspondence and seek an appointment. I last wrote on 11 November and stated:

I write on behalf of a constituent, Mr David Friedlieb of WDF Professional Peter Street, Wagga Wagga, in relation to poker machine entitlements.

Attached is a copy of an email from Mr Friedlieb.

Mr Friedlieb has sought a meeting with you regarding his concerns and I write to support his request for that meeting.

I look forward to your response.

Sadly, no response has been received; nor has the meeting eventuated. I have stated the concerns expressed by Mr Friedlieb on behalf of the people he represents. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately during his reply.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [1.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Upper Hunter in his role as the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Camden, who contributed to the debate. In December 2007 the report of the review of the Gaming Machines Act 2001 proposed a reduction in gaming machine numbers and the introduction of new harm minimisation measures to protect local communities from problem gambling. The proposed amendments to the Act will continue to implement appropriate harm minimisation and responsible gambling requirements while also allowing for the balanced development and integrity of the gaming industry.

Many of the amendments in the bill will enhance the operation of the Act and further improve the regulatory environment of gaming machine operation in New South Wales. This includes reducing the statewide cap on poker machines by 5,000, cutting red tape to further encourage poker machine forfeitures, and introducing a new local impact assessment process to restrict poker machine increases in high-density gaming areas. I will respond briefly to a couple of points made by members during the debate. First, I concur with and support the comments made by the shadow Minister relating to the reduction of problem gambling in recent years. That has been achieved not only through the efforts of legislators but also through the efforts of those involved in the gambling industry, particularly the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs New South Wales.

The shadow Minister expressed concerns relating to a prohibition on the use of credit cards. I refer him to the contribution made by the member for Wagga Wagga, which clearly explains the position. The only restriction that will be applied is designed to prevent people from obtaining cash advances by credit in hotels and clubs. The aim of the provisions is to prevent people from betting on credit. I assure the shadow Minister that the provisions are not intended to prevent people from accessing their own funds from automatic teller machines. I particularly note the concerns expressed by the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Upper Hunter because in some smaller communities the only safe access that people have to their funds through EFTPOS facilities is from automatic teller machines that are located securely and safety within hotels and clubs. The aim of the legislation is to confirm that the Government does not want people betting on credit by obtaining cash advances on credit. I trust that the reasons for the restriction have now been sufficiently clarified.

I turn now to address the points raised by the member for Wagga Wagga relating to one part of the legislation. These matters also were clarified by the contribution to the debate made by the member for Upper Hunter who referred to section 19 of the Act. The only additional comments I make will reinforce points already made in correspondence that has been sent to both the member and his constituent, so I will not deal with those matters in detail. Suffice it to say the reality is there was extensive and wide consultation on all aspects of the legislation with Clubs New South Wales, the Australian Hotels Association and representatives of both lessors and lessees. As outlined by the member for Wagga Wagga, only 17 disputes remain unresolved. Furthermore, the courts have clarified the matter and extensive correspondence has also been directed towards addressing the issues. While I accept that the constituent of the member for Wagga Wagga may not be happy with the content of the correspondence provided, it clearly outlines the situation and it is not necessary for me to go over that in further detail. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. I thank the Opposition for—

Mr George Souris: For not opposing it.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: "For not opposing it" is the term used by the member for Upper Hunter. I also thank members opposite for their support.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.