- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 19 October 2005
Gaming Machines Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 46 of 57
| Next Item »
Page: 18858
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.04 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 28:
[7] Section 45 Regulation of promotional prizes and player reward schemes
Insert after section 45 (5):
(5A) A hotelier or registered club is not authorised to charge a fee:
(a) for persons to participate in any such player reward scheme, or
(b) for providing a player activity statement to any person.
This amendment will discourage hoteliers from charging a fee for persons to participate in a reward scheme or for providing a player activity statement. Such a fee is just another charge to people, which we would like to discourage. Effectively, there would be a charge on what would otherwise be a reward scheme, with the hotelier charging an administration fee, thus adding to those incentives the enthusiasm with which a hotelier or club owner might want to have such incentive schemes, which of course entices people to gamble further. I commend the amendment.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.06 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. In response to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] report on responsible gambling the Minister for Gaming and Racing announced that the Government is committed to pop-up measures on gaming machines and that research on appropriate messaging will be conducted as part of the signage review to be undertaken by the New South Wales Government.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.07 p.m.]: Whilst the Opposition appreciates the Australian Democrats resolve to stop people from gambling, we believe that people have the right to gamble if they so choose. We believe also that in that regard appropriate controls are in place. The Opposition does not support the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.08 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert before line 29:
[7] Section 45A
Insert after section 45:
45A Gaming machines must be located in non-smoking areas of hotels and clubs
(1) A hotelier or registered club must not keep an approved gaming machine that is available to be operated unless the gaming machine is located in a non-smoking area of the hotel or club premises.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.
(2) A person must not smoke in a non-smoking area of a hotel or premises of a registered club in which approved gaming machines are located.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(3) In this section:
non-smoking area of a hotel or the premises of a registered club means a part of the hotel or premises that is, by the use of signs, designated by the hotelier or club as an area in which smoking is not permitted.
This amendment proposes that gaming machines must be located in non-smoking areas of hotels and clubs. There is a good deal of research evidence to suggest that people who take risks in one area of their lives tend to take them in others. Smokers tend to gamble more and gamblers tend to smoke more. The most smoke-filled room in any pub or club is the gaming room. Therefore, the idea is that if people wish to stop gambling or if they have a gambling problem the best thing they can do is withdraw from the gambling area and, in a sense, take a breath, look at the situation and see how much money they have lost. In other words, they need to take a break from the machines.
When the blood nicotine level in a smoker starts to fall he or she will suffer withdrawal symptoms. That is perhaps part of the pleasure of smoking: when smokers feel stressed because their nicotine level falls they have a cigarette to increase their nicotine level and they then feel less stressed. Consequently, they claim that smoking relieves stress.
Non-smokers will become very stressed if they have a cigarette because of the poison they ingest, but as a smoker's nicotine level falls he or she feels the need to smoke. If smokers have to leave a gaming machine area to go outside for a smoke they might be surprised to see that it is a nice day, realise how slim their wallet has become and stop gambling. Anti-gambling groups are aware of the connection between smoking and gambling, and smoking groups are aware that smoking and gambling go together. A gambling environment is bad for the health of smokers and bad for their wallets.
The amendment proposes that gaming machines be located in a non-smoking area so that smokers will have to leave the area to have a cigarette. This measure will help problem gamblers and will improve the health of smokers, who will no longer smoke while gambling. It is a win-win situation for gamblers. Indeed, this will result in a lower incidence of disease, and this will be a win for the State and Federal governments, which have to pick up the tab for ruined lives. This amendment is progressive. It should be noted that highly qualified psychologists have produced a report for the pubs and clubs industry advising the industry how it can deal with the loss of revenue caused by people leaving gaming areas to smoke. Poker machine operators expect a drop in revenue because of this and have strategies in place, which were suggested by the report, to keep people gambling. This report was leaked to some health authorities.
The amendment is designed to benefit gamblers and if the industry believes in "responsible gaming"—although I believe that is a slogan rather than the reality—it would support the amendment. The industry likes to suggest that people gamble, not because they are addicted but because they choose to gamble and if they have $10, for instance, they may decide to continue gambling, and, further, if they gamble sensibly, they can make the choice to stop gambling. This sound amendment will help gamblers and I commend it to the Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.12 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports this practical amendment, which will not put any pressure on clubs because already they have set up areas, almost like verandas or balconies on the periphery of buildings, for smokers. The areas are not suitable to accommodate poker machines as they have little security: they are merely for smokers. This is a good amendment and we support it.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.13 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. Smoking policy rests with the health portfolio. The Government has legislation in place that will see smoking banned in enclosed areas within licensed premises by 2007.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.13 p.m.]: The Opposition is not in a position to support the amendment. Although I understand the pure intentions of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, with respect to non-smoking areas for gambling I make the point that people have the right to make choices in life, and if people make a choice to smoke and gamble they do so of their own free will. The Opposition does not support the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.14 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrat amendments Nos 3 and 4 in globo:
No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 35:
[8] Section 47 Responsible conduct in relation to gaming machines
Insert after section 47 (2) (h):
(i) requiring warnings about gambling to be displayed on the screens of approved gaming machines at regular intervals.
No. 4 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 10:
[9] Section 49A
Insert after section 49:
49A Requirement to display on-screen gambling warning messages
(1) A hotelier or registered club must ensure that gambling warning messages are, in accordance with the regulations, displayed on the screen of each approved gaming machine that is kept in the hotel or on the club premises.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.
(2) The gambling warning messages required to be displayed under subsection (1) are to include such other gambling harm minimisation information as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may make provision with respect to the content, frequency and duration of the gambling warning messages and other information required to be displayed on approved gaming machines.
(4) The gambling warning messages required to be displayed on approved gaming machines are, to such extent as is practicable, to be developed by independent experts and researchers in the area of problem gambling.
(5) A hotelier or registered club does not commit an offence under this section until after the period of 2 years immediately following the commencement of this section.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to make it obligatory for on-screen warnings to be displayed at regular intervals on gaming machines. Amendment No. 4 seeks to impose an obligation on the hotel or registered club to ensure that such messages are displayed and, further, that harm minimisation information is displayed. The regulations must make provision for those warnings. Indeed, for many years it was a requirement that cigarette packets carry a warning that "Smoking is a health hazard". But after some time that became ineffective and, as a result, rotating warnings were placed on packets for greater impact. Subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 49A allow for those messages to be developed and tested by independent experts, and subsection (5) provides a phase-in period of two years. These sensible amendments seek to provide warnings on screen, where they are needed, and include a generous phase-in period.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.17 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The Government is committed to pop-up messages on gaming machines. The Minister for Gaming and Racing has already announced this in his response to the report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] on responsible gambling. Research and appropriate messaging will be conducted as part of the signage review to be undertaken by the Government, as outlined as part of the Government's response to the IPART report.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports these amendments. This concept has been raised in debates over many years and we have now reached the point where action should be taken to provide on-screen messages to warn gamblers and to try to break the hypnotic effect that causes gamblers to lose track of time and how much money they have put into the machines. These are positive amendments designed to assist gamblers.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.18 p.m.]: I am very disappointed that although the Government is effectively supporting a concept I have espoused for some time and which has now been embraced by IPART, the Minister is only paying lip-service to that concept. I wonder why he will not include it in the legislation, rather than claim it as an independent Government initiative, which presumably will require legislation. I ask three questions of the Minister: first, why will he not include the concept in the legislation given that effectively he agrees with it; second, will he put it in legislation; and, third, when?
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.19 p.m.]: I move:
No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 10:
[9] Section 49A
Insert after section 49:
49A Prohibition on gaming machines in outdoor areas
(1) A hotelier or registered club must not install a gaming machine, or permit a gaming machine to be used, in an outdoor area of the hotel or club.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.
(2) In this section, outdoor area of a hotel or club means any part of the hotel or club that is not enclosed (within the meaning of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000).
It is crunch time for the Government and the Opposition. I have made considerable representations to both the Government and the Opposition. This amendment would prohibit gaming machines being located in outdoor areas. It might be noted that currently there are no gaming machines in outdoor areas. The amendment states that a hotelier or registered club must not install a gaming machine or permit a gaming machine to be used in an outdoor area of the hotel or club. In this section an "outdoor area of a hotel or club" means any part of the hotel or club that is not enclosed within the meaning of the Smoke-free Environment Act. As I said on the amendment which would have required gaming machines to be in smoke-free areas, currently all gaming machines are indoors, generally in the smoking areas of hotels, because when the nicotine level of smokers goes down they tend to leave their machines and that lessens poker machine turnover.
The Government has delayed the implementation of smoke-free pubs. Pubs in Ireland went smoke free in three months. It has taken more than two years for this Government to introduce smoke-free pubs and clubs. Indeed, pubs will not finally be smoke free as defined until July 2007. When other countries can introduce smoke-free pubs and clubs within a couple of months, one might ask why this Government has provided a phase-in period of 2½ years. The answer is that pubs and clubs will have 2½ years in which to provide outdoor spaces for smokers. Pubs and clubs would like an outdoor space to be defined as 25 per cent of the combined area of the ceiling and the walls being open. In other words, 75 per cent is enclosed and 25 per cent is unenclosed. This allows for linked umbrellas and sections of wall and will be deficient. Basically, it will be a covered area that is considered to be an outdoor area. Effectively, it is an indoor area with plenty of ventilation or some ventilation depending on the winds—a large area in the beer garden or another area where people can smoke.
This is about the hotels, pubs and clubs retaining their status as a mecca for smokers. That will have immense public health effects. Instead of pubs and clubs going smoke free they will still have smoking areas. It is disgraceful that the Government deliberately provided a phase-in period of 2½ years, despite smoking having been shown to cause lung cancer some 55 years ago, in November 1950. The Government has given the pubs and clubs another 2½ years in which to develop outdoor smoking areas. The psychologist's report on how to keep people gambling when hotels and clubs go smoke free shows that the object is to keep the smokers and gambling machines together. As I said, at the moment gambling machines are located in rooms that are likely to be smoking areas or at least partially smoking areas so that smokers can stay close to the gambling machines.
In America—it is always entrepreneurial and keen to give all people the maximum opportunity to lose their money—gambling machine manufacturers are making an outdoor poker machine that can go out in the weather and still take people's money. Of course, areas that are 75 per cent enclosed could easily have poker machines in them. At the moment they do not because it is unnecessary. So under this bill the Government is not taking anything from the hotels and clubs that they have at present. Effectively, this assumes that pubs and clubs will move their poker machines into the outdoor areas once they are constructed in order to keep smokers smoking and gamblers gambling, and keeping the two things together.
This is my assertion of what will happen. This amendment is my preventive mechanism to try to stop gambling and smoking going together basically forever. That is not the current situation because poker machines are not located outside, and the Government can stop them from being put outside in the future. I put it to the Government that each time a haven is provided for smokers, whether it be in discotheques where pretty girls can hand out cigarettes or specially designed outdoor or indoor areas for gambling machines, all are forms of nidus for smoking and for the ill health caused by smoking to continue. There is a lot of evidence that the Government pays a fortune through the hospital system for diseases caused by smoking. Of course, all the money now goes to Canberra and does not come back.
This amendment provides the Government with a golden opportunity. I have given the Government plenty of notice and explained the situation. I hope that the Government will finally stand up to the hotels. When I put the amendment about existing smoking areas the Government did not have the courage to say that gambling machines should go in non-smoking areas, because presumably that would have caused a loss in gambling revenue between now and 2007. Basically, my amendment refers to the situation after 2007, when pubs and clubs may move poker machines into artificial outdoor areas in order to maximise revenue from smokers who cannot stop smoking or gambling. So I commend the amendment to the Government. I believe it is important in terms of lessening gambling and the harm caused by tobacco, including the harm to smokers, the unpleasantness caused to non-smokers and the damage to the health system in the costs generated. I commend this important amendment to the Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.27 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. Again, we believe that a prohibition on gaming machines in outdoor areas is a positive step. It is anticipated that there may be problems in the future, and that is why it is important to include this amendment in the bill.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.28 p.m.]: The Minister for Gaming and Racing advises that he is not currently aware of any approved gaming machines in New South Wales suitable for use in unenclosed areas. Further, the current regulations would make it difficult for a hotel to place its gaming room in such a location. The Minister for Gaming and Racing understands the concern expressed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, and wants to ensure that an effective smoking ban in enclosed areas is introduced. The Minister has given an undertaking to continue to monitor the issue raised. He advises that should this issue arise in the future, based on a real situation, he will consider the issue in conjunction with his colleague the Minister for Health.
Currently the Minister for Gaming and Racing has the authority to prepare a regulation that could prescribe the location of gaming machines in a venue should it become warranted. However, the Government is not prepared to act on hypotheticals at this time. If it becomes a problem in the future then action can and will be taken.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.29 p.m.]: For the very reasons the Minister highlighted, that there is no outside gambling area, the Opposition is disinclined to support the Australian Democrats amendment.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.29 p.m.]: The whole point of the amendment is that this problem has not arisen. Once pubs go totally smoke-free there will be a huge incentive for clubs and pubs to move their poker machines into the smoking areas. Once they have done so they will be reluctant to take them back. Currently there is no reason why they should. Of course, the Government will have to get them to do that when it is in danger of suffering a loss of revenue. They will fight hard and the Minister will have to show a lot more courage than this Government has ever shown to the clubs and pubs to do anything about it. I am extremely disappointed with this response from the Government. It is pathetic. The fact that the poor old Opposition could not make a decision is also pathetic.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 7
 | Mr Breen
Mr Cohen
Ms Hale
Mr Jenkins
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Reverend Nile | |
Noes, 16
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Mrs Forsythe | Ms Griffin
Mr Kelly
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe | Mr Tsang
Mr West
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mr Primrose |
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.37 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:
Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 19:
[25] Section 204A
Insert after section 204:
204A Director-General required to publish information about hotel and club gaming machine profits
(1) In relation to each financial year ending 30 June, the Director-General is required to publish and make publicly available, within 3 months of the end of that financial year:
(a) a complete list of registered clubs ranked in accordance with total gaming machine profits for clubs during that financial year, and
(b) a complete list of hotels ranked in accordance with total gaming machine profits for hotels during that financial year.
(2) Each such list must include the following information in respect of each venue specified in the list:
(a) the name and location of the venue,
(b) the total number of gaming machines kept in the venue,
(c) the total profits made by the venue from those gaming machines during that year,
(d) the tax payable by the venue under the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001 for that year,
(e) the venue's ranking on the basis of its profits per gaming machine,
(f) the venue's ranking for the previous financial year and an indication of its positional change.
(3) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other law.
The Greens amendment would require the director general, three months after the end of each financial year, to publish and make publicly available a list of registered clubs and hotels ranked in accordance with total gaming machine profits for that year. The list would include the name and location of the venue, the number of gaming machines kept, the profits made by the venue from those gaming machines, the tax payable, the venue's ranking on the basis of its profits per gaming machine, the venue's ranking for the previous financial year and an indication of its positional change.
We believe this information should be free of charge and accessible to all. It should not cost $1,870 a quarter, as it currently does. The Greens are concerned to make this requirement a legislative one because one cannot rely on the Government to keep providing this information. Honourable members know how hard it is to get information from this Government. Time and again we hear the adjective "secretive" to describe this Government. In the late 1990s the Government stopped publicly releasing quarterly and annual financial data about levels of gaming in the State's registered clubs and hotels. It was only through a court action that the Daily Telegraph won against the Government in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, disputing the department's refusal to release information after a freedom of information request was made by the newspaper, that the Government has again been publishing this information.
But it comes at a very high cost. This amendment will ensure that the information will always be provided and the Government will not hide it away again. These financial statistics, published on a locational basis, have been an important source of information for gambling researchers trying to unravel problem gambling and looking for solutions to these social ills.
For example, we know that in New South Wales gaming machines are more densely located in lower-income areas. Given that the primary impact of gambling is lost money, people with relatively low household income—and, by implication, relatively less disposable income—are much less able to afford to gamble. Data analysis can help paint this picture, but only if researchers have access to the data. In the Parliamentary Library I looked at some of the huge tomes once regularly put out by the department. The data allowed the public and the media to examine how much was being made through gambling by what pubs and clubs and in what geographical area. So the amendment is not that unusual, and it should not be hard for the Government and Opposition to accept.
Refusing the community easy access to this material is designed to avoid scrutiny of the industry. The systematic and free release of this kind of financial data is supported by organisations such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Gambling Impact Society. The society points out that 38 per cent of all income from gaming machines is drawn from people who have significant problems. It says that the public needs to be better informed on these issues and that more research is needed. The society also suggests that limiting the information in any way is quite contrary to notions of transparency. The Greens would agree.
The argument put by the Government and the Opposition that information published about an unusually high amount of money that a pub or club hauls in on a particular night puts hoteliers in danger from a robbery is pretty lame. This information was for many years put out by the Department of Gaming and Racing. So that really does not rate as an excuse. The sky did not fall in when this information was made available previously. And since that time the ability of pubs to secure their buildings from theft has become much more sophisticated. If these venues are willing to reap the great monetary rewards from poker machines they should also be able to bear the costs of protecting the earnings. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.43 p.m.]: I support the amendment. It is extremely important that data on poker machine losses—I call them poker machine losses because they are losses from the community to the owners of the poker machines—should be available to those who want to research what the losses are in the communities in which they occur, the demographics thereof, so that they can work out programs to help gamblers. The information is already collected: the turnovers, the tax levels and so on are all collected. I presume that the information is collected electronically, and it would be no trouble to have that information formatted to a common level. I have no doubt that it already is. So it is merely a question of writing a program to put the data into an available form.
Huge amounts of money and research are spent on how to get people to gamble more. There are advertisements all over the place, on television and so on pushing the idea that gambling is glamorous and people are going to win, which of course is a fantasy. Much of the research on gambling is funded by the gambling industry, which means that it has a lot of control over what is done, how effectively, and what information and what conclusions. It is like the tobacco industry funding tobacco research. It is much better if researchers can work independent of the industry. The least the industry can do is to contribute the figures from which the research comes. That would not fund the research: researchers need to live, for starters. They need computer programs and so on to do their work. The least the industry could do is provide the figures, the raw material, for the research that they are doing. They have to get the material from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, cross correlate and so on and then try to work out what can be done. But this is a first step, and it ought to be mandatory. I support the amendment and urge the Committee to do the same.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.45 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment, which will require the director general to publish information about hotel and club gaming machine profits. There was some reticence about providing the information. The Daily Telegraph got the information under freedom of information provisions but I think it should be generally available. In a recent speech on a gaming bill I made the point that venues in the western suburbs made large profits from gaming machines. That is the sort of information that we need and that the Government needs if it is serious about introducing harm prevention programs to reduce the impact of gambling, especially on those addicted to it. It is very important information that should be made available, and it will be if the amendment is carried.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.46 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. In the recent Government response to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal report a clear direction was to have ongoing dialogue to create a policy framework. The department has already commenced the policy process with working groups with community and industry representation formed to consider policies such as gaming machine design and self-exclusion. The Government is committed to this consultative approach. The Minister in the other place indicated a need to provide greater information to the community on gambling. That is accepted by the Government. The concept is reflected in this bill. Details should not be developed here in isolation to the development by government of a policy framework on responsible gambling. This will be undertaken in consultation with the community, government agencies and the proposed Responsible Gambling Fund trustees. Matters such as provision of information can be discussed in this context and will continue as part of the Government's continued participation in the Ministerial Council on Gaming. As I said, the Government opposes the amendment.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.47 p.m.]: The Opposition believes that there are sufficient legislative requirements for clubs to—
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: You are just going with the Government, aren't you?
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: No, I am going with the small clubs that do not have the time and the manpower to find out what every poker machine is earning in every club, whether it is the Bellingen Golf Club or the Dorrigo RSL club or the Cooma RSL club. They do not have the manpower and resources to fulfil the requirements of the amendment, and we do not support it.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.48 p.m.]: The comments of the Hon. Melinda Pavey, apart from the way they were delivered, were rather offensive and, again, totally off the mark. This information is available. All we are talking about is whether it is publicly released. Let us remember that the bulk of it has been released. Speakers from the major parties are compromised, as their parties are compromised in this whole debate, because of the massive donations that their parties have taken.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Oh, get off!
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Hear! Hear!
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I was not compromised.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You are not offensive at all, are you!
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjections.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Which ones do you acknowledge? Do you acknowledge the one from the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I acknowledge the interjections from this side and the other side.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Where do you get your donations from?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: From very hard work.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Are you going to acknowledge that?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. It is all on my web site. We are very proud of it. You can see it there. What we certainly do not do is get all the money from Star City, Tattersall's, Crown Ltd and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. Let me just go through some of them. It is not surprising that those opposite are squawking tonight! It is not merely because it is after 8.00 p.m. The Federal Labor Party from 1998 to 2004 took $197,300 from the gaming industry.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Where do your preferences go?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: You have got such a hang-up. Then we have New South Wales Labor—
The Hon. Don Harwin: If you are really serious, if you are not being a complete hypocrite then surely the only thing you can do is exhaust at the next elections and not give preferences. Otherwise you are a complete hypocrite, aren't you?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: You know that we do a great deal of exhausting. New South Wales Labor—$394,917.
Mr Ian Cohen: It is a very convincing argument she has put forward!
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the comments of my colleague. The $394,917 was for Labor New South Wales over the same time period. Then we move on to the Federal Liberals. There are just a few here, which is interesting. There is a huge amount—way up there with Labor—but they are not picking up the small donations. They are getting the big donations, with eight separate donations—Tabcorp Holdings, nearly all Tabcorp actually. Only TAB Limited, Tabcorp Holdings and Tattersalls Holdings come in at $332,000, about $70,000 behind New South Wales Labor.
The Hon. Rick Colless: What odds did they get on that?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not a gambling man, actually, so I will have to leave that to you, Mr Colless. Then we have the Liberals in New South Wales for the same period, 1998 to 2004—$239,546—and about $60,000 coming in from Star City. I imagine they would have been disappointed with that, but every dollar counts when you are running these big election campaigns! The Nationals, do you want to hear what you got? But did you get it? Did you actually use it? At a Federal level you got $31,000 and The Nationals New South Wales got $50,500 from Arrowfield Group, Emirates Park and Star City. Those dollars are the reason the amendments that have been proposed tonight will not be accepted. These political parties are deeply compromised. You do not know the suffering you are causing.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.52 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon posed a question when she began her contribution by saying, "We certainly do not get all our money from" and then listed off a number of organisations. I would therefore pose a question to her: Where do you get your money from? Where does it come from? You said, "We certainly do not get all our money from" and you listed some sources. There is an implication that you get some of your money from gambling sources. They were your own words; I have just repeated them to you. Since you have made the issue of donations to political parties the basis upon which you are making a judgement tonight, I am merely asking you: Where do you get your money from?
Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.53 p.m.]: The implication that the Greens take money from the gaming sector is way off the mark. If the honourable member looks at the Australian Electoral Commission web site she will—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So you get none from gambling?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, we get none from gambling, so that is way off the mark.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: You actually said, "We don't get all our money from there", indicating that some of it came from there but not all.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Where do you get it from? Tell us where you get it from.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: We get it basically from hard work.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Three months of chook raffles!
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, because people get out there and do the hard yards. Again, your agitation reflects your embarrassment. Our donations are on the Australian Electoral Commission's web site and they are also collated on the democracy4sale web site, so you can come into this House and read out our donations. We are very proud of them. We are the ones who highlight our donations, not like the system you run. It is your party in Federal Parliament at the moment that is trying to do over the whole electoral system. The whole system of donations will be rorted so that companies can give a donation—
The Hon. Don Harwin: What nonsense! It is the same level it is in Canada, the same level it is in New Zealand, and the same level it is in half of western Europe.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is not so at all. The system you want to bring in seeks to raise the bar to $10,000 so that companies can give those donations and nobody will know. That is where you are heading.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of Order: Madam Chair, I do not think this really has much to do with the clause.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:19 : Update this page