Roche Denise: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call on this part of the bill—Part 2 “Miscellaneous matters”. But what I want to address my comments to is clause 18 which amends section 371. I have a Supplementary Order Paper that essentially deletes this clause. As the previous speaker explained this is the clause that deals with and allows for commission-based payments for venues. I would be interested in hearing a response from the Minister about why this clause is here given that there has been such strong opposition to it for so many years. It was explicitly prohibited in previous legislation. I am really keen to know why there has been a change and why allowing commission-based payments is going to be a part of this legislation when really it did not come out of anywhere or from any evidence.The arguments that we heard from the Minister at the time that this bill was introduced were around the fact that the payment for venues was complicated. Without a doubt the payment for venues is very complicated—there is a very strict equation—but it is for venue operators receiving payments for having pokie machines on their premises that they be paid actual reasonable and necessary costs. That is the exact wording: “actual reasonable and necessary costs”. Yes even though it is complicated there has been an enormous amount of work done by the Department of Internal Affairsover several years working with venue operators to try to ensure that they are able to claim what they are meant to claim for. In the past there had been other rorts perpetrated by venue operators for things like claiming for wages and for premises upgrades which were above and beyond reasonable. This is where we come to “reasonable”. There had been court cases about that.So the complexity of the regulations has been the subject of much discussion and much education actually with the Department of Internal Affairs and with the venue operators. In fact in 2009 the department began working with gambling societies to standardise venue cost schedules and it encouraged gambling societies and hosts—the venue operators—to participate in what it called the Venue Costs Resubmission Project. That was to get venues to put in their submissions so that they could work with them to make sure that they were getting it right. The Department of Internal Affairs did a report on this in September 2013. That was after 4 years of work. The department reported on the project. It was called the Venue Costs Resubmission Project. It included a series of recommendations about the calculations for venue payments including for a full review and to initially adjust some of the limits to cover where there had been increases in inflation and for example wages.This is not unreasonable. This is good practice. This is the regulator operating with the industry in a very responsible manner and the industry responding in a very responsible manner. But nowhere in the report with these recommendations did it recommend introducing a commission-based payment system for venues. So my question to the Minister is: where did this come from? Who put this forward? It did not come from the Department of Internal Affairs. The only submissions that supported this part of the bill were from the industry from venue operators themselves and from gambling societies. In fact the opposition to this part of the bill came from everyone else—the people who have been harmed by problem gambling the people who have been problem gamblers themselves and their families. They went into great detail when describing how problem gambling had impacted on their lives.If you think about who benefits from commission-based payments it is the venue operators. Who does not benefit from that? That is what is not clear to me. I do not believe that there has been a relevant cost-benefit analysis of commission-based payments to venues because surely they have not—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to ask the member to resume her seat. I remind her that we are now on Part 2 of the bill which is a very very narrow area. The member—and she has not been the only one speaking on this part—has strayed well past it.DENISE ROCHE: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like an explanation. Clause 18 refers specifically to commission-based payments. If you look over the page to subparagraph (iii) that is where commission-based payments are. I am referring to the submissions that we have received on this aspect of the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to remind the member that we had a substantive discussion on that areain an earlier part. The main new part—the new thing in this—is around the review of the secretary’s decision. That is really the substantive part of it and the schedule. There is quite a lot of room in the schedule but both in the second reading and in Part 1 the principle that the member is now discussing very widely was already accepted by the Committee.DENISE ROCHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I will confine my comments basically to clause 18 and to Supplementary Order Paper 120 that I have in my name which states: “In clause 18 delete new section 371(1)(dd) and (de) (page 15 line 32 to page 16 line 7).” I will probably discuss this more in the next part in the schedules because I also have a Supplementary Order Paper pretty much along the same lines to that one. I do want to know from the Minister though the justification for this clause for venues to receive commission-based payments.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sorry and I do not know whether or not I should be coaching you from the Chair but we are actually discussing the schedule now. If the member waits until after the vote on this bit then she will be too late.DENISE ROCHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I think I have probably said enough. I actually want to thank you for your assistance in this matter. I appreciate the coaching.