Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Casino Control Amendment bill 2009 contains a range of straight forward amendments to the Casino Control Act 1992. These amendments seek to achieve a number of aims:

To extend the casino licence review period from 3 years to 5 years

To extend the licence period for casino special employees from 3 years to 5 years

Implement better regulation principles to reduce the regulatory burden on Star City casino and the administrative burden on the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority (the Authority) while ensuring that the effective regulation of Star City is maintained and

Remove barriers inhibiting the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority the Authority from implementing better and more efficient ways of achieving its objectives.

This bill represents the first of two tranches of reforms that the Government intends to implement regarding the regulation of the Sydney casino.

The second tranche of reforms will be introduced later this year.

It is not the Government's intent or desire to change the 'single casino' arrangement approved by the Parliament.

Let me be clear also it is the Government's aim that the Casino Control Act and its enforcement will continue to ensure that the casino remains free from criminal influence or exploitation that gaming in the casino is conducted honestly and that the potential of the casino to cause harm to the public interest and to individuals and families is contained.

New South Wales has now had a legal operational casino since September 1995. The legislative and related licence arrangements have been successful in achieving the aims of the Government.

This does not however mean the law does not have to be refined and updated from time-to-time. A thorough review of the Act conducted jointly by the Authority and the casino operator has identified a range of amendments to the Act. These are needed to ensure New South Wales has current best practice for casino regulation and does not contain redundant administrative requirements.

Members should therefore note that the changes to the Act contained in the bill before them are refinements to the law. They do not constitute a major new regulatory regime.

The proposed changes will not have a significant impact on individuals the community or any specific sector of the community.

They will not have a significant impact on business by imposing large compliance costs. In fact it is intended that the proposals will result in a significant reduction in compliance costs.

They will not impose any greater material restriction on competition.

And finally they will result in a significant reduction of cost to Government and therefore taxpayers.

An important change introduced by this bill is to change the casino licence review period from every three years to a maximum of every five years.

Under section 31 of the Act, the Authority must investigate and form an opinion as to whether or not the casino operator is suitable to continue to give effect to the casino licence and the Act and it is in the public interest that the casino licence should continue in force.

These statutory investigations examine inter alia corporate structures associates and financial resources. They also involve the conduct of extensive checks with various law enforcement agencies and external regulatory bodies not only in New South Wales but interstate and internationally.

The last two such reviews conducted by the Authority in 2003 and 2006 found that Star City Pty Ltd the licensee has operated in a responsible manner consistent with the objectives of the Act.

These statutory reviews are extremely thorough but they are also extremely resource intensive for both the Authority and the casino operator. Therefore conducting reviews more often than necessary is an unjustifiable regulatory burden on both parties.

Given the Authority's long experience with these reviews and its continuous assessment of the casino's operations the Authority has advised the Government that extending the statutory licence review period from three to a maximum of every five years will not in any way compromise the objectives of the Act or reduce the degree of oversight of the casino's operations.

The Authority's inspectors maintain an on-site presence at the casino on a 24 hour 7 days a week basis. They ensure that the Authority has under constant review all matters connected with the casino.

The licensing by the Authority of "special employees" in the casino is another important facet of the casino's operational oversight. These "special employees" are identified under the Act as those who perform functions such as making decisions with respect to the casino's operations or engage in activities related to the conduct of gaming. Special employees may be involved in the movement of money or chips or the operation or maintenance of the casino's gaming equipment or security systems.

This bill seeks to extend the special employee licence renewal period from three years to five years.

Here again the Authority's long experience in licensing the casino's "special employees" indicates that any risk in extending the licence period is adequately covered by the mechanisms in place to monitor the ongoing suitability of licensed individuals. Such mechanisms include the requirement for the licensed employee to report specified changes in circumstance and flagging on the police database to alert the Authority of criminal charges brought against any licensed casino special employee.

The advantages of increasing the renewal period are:

Reducing the resources required for the processing of renewals

Maintaining the ability to determine whether the licensee continues to meet suitability requirements including financial stability

Continuing to enable the Authority to State with some assurance that its objective of keeping the casino free from criminal influence is being met through the casino employee licensing process

A five-year licence period for the casino's special employees, given the Authority's experience will still enable the Authority to State with assurance that a licensee continues to meet the requirements of the Act.

Members should note that the Act already provides for the automatic revocation of a licence when a special employee ceases to be employed by the casino thereby providing systematic security and certainty for the licensing system.

With respect to the licensing of special employees, as it relates to the operation, maintenance, construction or repair of gaming equipment, this bill will see licensing focussed on special employees activities concerning "approved" gaming equipment. With this change the casino operator will avoid having to licence persons who repair non-critical gaming equipment, for example gaming furniture, which does not have any relevance to gaming integrity. A considerable saving in time and effort for the employees affected the casino operator and the Authority.

Together the proposed changes to the casino licence review and special employee licence period represent substantial reductions in administrative costs for both the casino operator and the Authority without, in any way, reducing the already high standard of regulatory oversight of the casino.

A goal of this bill is 'future proofing' the casino legislation drafting it to accommodate unforseen change and innovation in the commercial and technical environment.

To this end the Government is proposing a number of changes to the Act.

The first of these is to re-define "chips" the main 'currency' on the gaming tables so as to make it clear that it includes virtual chips or any other representation of chips in addition to physical tokens for the purpose of gaming.

Looking at the future development of gaming it is envisaged that players could buy an electronic or stored value card and so use 'virtual' chips at any gaming point whether it be at a table game or gaming machine or to purchase food. Patrons could in this way move their money around the casino without needing to keep changing back to physical cash.

This bill will future-proof the Act with regard to the advent of new technology. For example new technology may make closed circuit television obsolete. The proposed changes in this bill will allow this to happen without the need to amend the Act further.

This bill proposes additional amendments to remove red tape and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the Casino Control Act.

The casino's internal layout needs to change to accommodate gaming trends and changes in surveillance technology. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act so as to simplify and clarify the approval process by making minor amendments to Section 65 of the Act.

The bill contains amendments that will allow the Authority to provide for more flexible layouts. Minor changes to the position of a table or machine will be able to occur without having to process the approval of a complete new layout.

It will also bring certain requirements up to date for example catwalks are no longer a feature of modern casinos.

With respect to the approval of casino layouts it is also proposed to remove a technical anomaly in the current legislation, which prevents the casino operator from applying to change the casino's internal layout. Currently a change can only occur with the approval that is the direction of the Authority. Clearly this is not sensible.

As I indicated in my opening remarks this bill removes some administrative anomalies and introduces efficiencies in relation to the regulation of the casino.

This bill updates the method of changing the casino's boundary so as to be consistent with the process for changing a condition of the casino licence. The proposed amendment gives the casino operator the opportunity to make a submission before an adverse change is imposed by the Authority. It is unfair and unreasonable to continue to allow a situation in which the Authority may reduce or increase the size of the casino on its own accord particularly given the capital investment required by the casino in extensions to the casino.

This bill also introduces amendments that bring the regulation of the casino into line with the other jurisdictions with respect to banking procedures and facilities and internal accounting controls.

Firstly the bill removes the restriction on the casino operator using banking institutions outside New South Wales thereby bringing New South Wales into line with Queensland. Having accounts with banks in other countries can be a competitive point of difference for international high rollers and the Sydney casino needs to be able to compete on an equal footing. Furthermore, this will enable Tabcorp Star City's parent company to operate more effectively in managing its banking arrangements as it is based in Victoria.

The second amendment changes the timeframe for banking cheques where the drawee bank is located outside Australia from within 20 days to within 30 working days. It brings New South Wales into line with Queensland legislation.

An example of the impact of this change can be seen in relation to Tabcorp which operates casinos in Queensland. Without making the proposed change the premium players and junket groups that Tabcorp attracts to Australia are likely to be more attracted to the Queensland casinos than to Star City due to the greater flexibility in their banking requirements in place in Queensland.

This change will also allow the New South Wales casino to remain competitive with Crown Casino in Victoria as there is an extremely competitive market for international gaming business.

It is also proposed to bring the regulation of the casino with respect to the advertising of gaming machines, and penalties for allowing access by minors and penalty notices generally into line with the Gaming Machines Act and Liquor Act respectively.

This bill will allow the casino operator to use more contemporary means of providing information on games played at the casino to its patrons. For example the casino operator will be able to print out a document when requested or display the information at a computer terminal or an electronic kiosk.

Amending the Act to increase penalties for offences concerning minors accessing the casino under section 93 and section 97 from 10 to 20 penalty units bring the laws governing the casino into line with the similar provisions under the Liquor Act 2007.

Finally this bill makes machinery amendments to the Act to clarify matters with respect to the functions of the Authority. This minor amendment removes any blurring the distinction between the Authority's role in regulating the casino and the casino operator's role in managing it. This blurring of responsibilities has at times been problematic.

In conclusion there is strong evidence to suggest that the Casino Control Act is achieving its objectives. The review of the Act conducted by the Authority in conjunction with Star City casino has identified ways in which the regulation of the casino can be made contemporary and more efficient and effective.

The Government believes that this bill makes fundamental improvements to the regulation of the casino to the benefit of its operator the Government and the wider community.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.25 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009. On 30 October 2007 the Government agreed to conduct a review of the Casino Control Act and, as part of the negotiations, to extend the exclusivity period for a further 12 years, including changes to tax structures, et cetera. The review was conducted by the Casino Control Authority in conjunction with Star City. The proposed refinements do not establish a new regulatory regime; these remain in place. The objects of this bill are to extend the statutory review period from three to five years; to extend the casino special employee licence period from three to five years and to limit their range of activities to operations, the repair of gaming equipment, and to change the notification period for commencing or terminating employees; to refine the process of changing the casino boundary and internal layout; and to update the means of providing casino player information.

The bill will also allow the casino operator to maintain bank accounts in any jurisdiction, including overseas; will increase penalties concerning minors to mirror penalties contained in the Liquor Act; and will make numerous machinery amendments such as a redefinition of "chips", a clarification of the role of the new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, including the process of publication of gaming rules, and repeal of the list of internal controls and administration needing approval.

The Casino Control Act 1992 provided for the operation of a legal casino from September 1995. It has been argued that the Act has worked well and that the last two reviews in 2003 and 2006 were straightforward and found that Star City, the licensee, has operated in a responsible manner consistent with the objectives of the Act. The statutory reviews are extremely thorough and very resource consuming of both the authority and the casino. It is considered that holding reviews in three-yearly intervals is unjustified, given the authority's inspectors maintain a 24-hour, seven-day presence at the casino. Given that, currently, reviews are carried out every three years and it takes 12 months to do the review and 12 months to assess it and then it is time to do the review again, the casinos are in the situation of being in a continual period of review rather than having infrequent reviews, as should be the case. The Coalition supports the expansion from three to five years.

The other amendments are considered minor in nature and non-controversial. Some media commentators may seek to make more of this than is the reality. However, there is no diminution of any harm-minimisation measure or control. The bill is not about smoking, problem gamblers and so on. Consultation beyond the casino and the department was not considered necessary. The Coalition will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not oppose the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009, although we oppose casinos in principle. We expressed our opposition to casinos prior to their introduction in New South Wales and our opposition has not changed. In fact, events connected with the casino only confirm our original opposition to the casino. There are still reports of people laundering money through the casino. The casino attracts undesirable persons and people from the criminal world such as those involved in drug trafficking or prostitution. There have also been some tragic cases involving violence at the casino.

This bill does not deal with those events. It is a technical bill dealing with administrative matters. It does not relate to the problems of gambling or harm minimisation, or the other issue that I am concerned about and have raised previously—our State legislation that provides exemptions from the controls on smoking for the casino. The argument is that if we do not provide those exemptions we will miss out on the high rollers who come from interstate or overseas because they want to smoke while they are playing. Again, that is not part of this legislation, but I place it on the record.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It extends the casino licence review period from three years to five years and extends the period that a casino employee licence remains in force from three years to five years. One strange aspect of the legislation is that it does require the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority to publish on its website rather than in the Government Gazette orders approving the games that may be played in the casino and the rules of those games. I am not against that information being on the website but I believe it is important information and should be published in the Government Gazette.

I think the Government Gazette gave it the imprimatur of being closely monitored and controlled by the State Government, and important matters go in the Government Gazette. I would prefer that that continue. The Government may like to give further thought to having the information published both on the website and in the Government Gazette. Websites are not permanent; they can be hacked, whereas the Government Gazette is printed. I know it may be old fashioned to have something printed in black and white, but I believe the orders approving the games that may be played at the casino and the rules of those games should be required to be published in the Government Gazette.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.32 p.m.]: The question of support for the Casino Control Amendment Bill needs to be considered in the context of the corrupting influence of political donations. Star City has won big gains in recent times and once again in the legislation we are considering tonight. The loosening of the regulations under which it operates provides opportunities for the casino's owners to boost its profits. Under this legislation the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority loses its function of directly supervising the casino. I was interested in the comments by Reverend Fred Nile, speaking about his usual objections to gambling but not to this bill.

The Casino Gaming Authority at least had some semblance of running the casino and working to minimise the problems that accompany casinos around the world, but in this legislation the authority is being stripped of its powers and functions. The casino will now be subject to a comprehensive operational review every five years, not every three years. It can now use virtual chips and bank internationally, not just in New South Wales, to better attract international high rollers. Star City and its parent company, Tabcorp, have donated nearly half a million dollars to the New South Wales Labor Party over the past decade. Now we see this substantial move to reduce regulation of Star City. Does this suggest an unhealthy relationship between the New South Wales Labor Party and two of its biggest donors?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection. I do not know how Amanda Fazio is able to state that she knows there is definitely no unsavoury relationship. I was about to say I do not know, but I do not see how she can be absolutely confident that everything is okay and that there is a proper relationship when we consider how much money changes hands and the decisions that have to be made. Casinos in the gaming industry are generous corporate donors to political parties. The Australian Casino Association, which lobbies for the combined interests of the 13 casinos in Australia, has been a regular donor to both major parties. Since 2002 it has donated $13,500 to the Federal Labor Party and $30,650 to the Federal Liberal Party. In New South Wales the Australian Casino Association has given more money to the New South Wales Liberal Party than it has to Labor.

Since 2003 the New South Wales Liberals have accepted 12 donations totalling $17,300. In the same period New South Wales Labor accepted four donations totalling $13,850. Star City and Tabcorp have donated a staggering $448,827 to the New South Wales Labor Party in the past decade. If this were happening in a low-income country or a Third World country, people would say that was corrupt. It would be clearly and simply called that. It is staggering that we have a casino that is clearly associated with criminal activities, which has been documented time and again, and the operators of the casino are handing out money to political parties that then determine the laws governing how that casino operates. And those laws are getting weaker and weaker.

The Greens' donations project Democracy4sale shows that in 2008 the casino donated $110,000 to the New South Wales Labor Government two months before it was granted approval for a $344 million expansion. Again, I have no idea whether there is a connection but that is the conclusion many people draw. In 2007 the casino donated $112,200 to New South Wales Labor just months before it began negotiations over its monopoly casino licence. These massive donations made Star City one of New South Wales Labor's biggest fundraising corporate partners in 2007 and 2008. Again, we do not know whether deals are done but I do not think anyone can deny that the perception of unsavoury deals goes hand in hand with these political donations. This is an ugly story of money and politics and it does not stop at Labor's door.

Coalition party members cannot point the finger. They have also accepted hefty donations from casinos and will be in the same position as Labor if they win government. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, over the past 10 years the New South Wales Liberal Party have accepted $109,000 from Star City and the New South Wales Nationals have picked up $19,500. The New South Wales Liberal Party has taken a further $70,000 in donations from Tabcorp, taking the total donations from the casino to the Coalition to $197,500. At a Federal level, the Liberal Party has accepted $236,000 in donations from Tabcorp since 1999.

The Labor Government has sunk to a new low in delivering for its major donors, punching big holes in what should be a tight regulatory scheme governing New South Wales' only casino. Generous donations from Tabcorp and Star City to the Government and escalating tax revenue are very much the background to this bill, which significantly reduces scrutiny of the casino's operations. This bill risks an escalation in problem gambling, organised crime, money laundering, prostitution, drug dealing and loan sharks. That is what goes hand in hand with casinos. We all know that has been documented time and again.

When the Casino Control Amendment Bill was introduced by gaming Minister Kevin Greene he flagged that a "second tranche of reforms will be introduced later this year". I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to outline in her reply what the second stage of this legislation will entail. This is the opportunity to get it on the record so that we do not have a last minute rush of legislation with little chance for proper scrutiny. I do not believe that that is too much to ask.

Minister Greene also stated that this legislation was a refinement of the legislation following a "thorough review" of the Act conducted by the Casino Control Authority and the casino operator. However, when my staff tried to track down a copy of this thorough government review from the Parliamentary Library, they were told by the authority that there was no formal review, or no report, as such, and that it was more an ongoing review process. This is becoming a common approach to reviews. When one starts to delve into it, it appears that not much more than a few chats have occurred. I wonder what that review process entails. Does the Minister ask the Star City operator how business is going, perhaps at one of the fundraising lunches? It is extraordinary that the "thorough review" that the Minister referred to does not exist.

Bret Walker, SC, was given the job by the Casino Control Authority of regularly reviewing the casino's operations as required by this legislation every three years. His most recent 100-page report was tabled in December 2006. Another report is due in 2009. I wonder if this report, which must be nearing completion, will ever see the light of day now. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could also include in her answer what the "ongoing review process" entails and if the report due in December 2009 will be released.

To explain why the Greens oppose the extension of the three-yearly review of the casino's operation to a five-yearly review, I will outline some problems that the Greens have raised previously about the review process. The 2006 Bret Walker report revealed clear deficiencies in managing problem gambling at the casino. That is worrying. It should have set off alarm bells for everyone, not only Reverend Fred Nile. The 2006 report identified worrying evidence of failures in the responsible service of alcohol, patrons being allowed to gamble for excessive periods and holes in the process of excluding problem gamblers or criminals. Those failures are extremely serious but they have not been addressed; they appear to have vaporised.

Despite these and other concerns, the report recommended that Star City was a "suitable person" to continue to give effect to the casino licence and that it was in the public interest that the casino licence continue in force. I would say it is "business as usual", but it is probably more accurate to say that the usual business involves relaxing the regulations to make business easier. There has been very little effective external accountability when it comes to the casino's operations, with the Casino Control Authority keeping a low profile. These amendments will reduce that accountability even further.

This stands in sharp contrast to the much more interventionist approach taken in New Zealand. For example, late last year the New Zealand Gambling Commission suspended operations at the Dunedin Casino after it was found to have allowed a problem gambler to gamble $6.6 million over three years. It is hard to imagine the New South Wales Government suspending operations at the Star City because of the problems identified in the Bret Walker report with problem gambling, irresponsible service of alcohol and so on. It is worth putting on the record because that is how the system should operate in the State.

The Labor Government could have used its negotiations with the Star City as leverage to reduce problem gambling in the community and in the process won some brownie points. It would not have reduced the casino's profits. Why did the Government not act? The 2006 review of the casino's operations revealed that while gambling for excessive periods of time is recognised as a common characteristic of problem gambling, staff were unclear about when they should step in. Various staff surveyed thought it acceptable to allow patrons to gamble for anything up to 24 hours straight before intervening. The report states:

For VIP services staff, some thought a patron playing for eight or more hours warranted intervention; for another it was the presence of a patron over two shifts, for the VIP Manager it was sixteen to eighteen hours. For a dealer, four hours was enough for her to intervene, a games supervisor believed that eighteen hours at a table did not warrant his concern, an electronic gaming supervisor thought 24 hours deserved her attention. A surveillance operator thought ten hours was a problem and a security duty manager who has been appointed a responsible gambling liaison manager said four or five hours. For others it depended on whether the patron was a local or not.

A casino duty manager recalled that about ten incident reports about patrons gambling for lengthy periods of time had been completed over the past twenty months.

With regard to the irresponsible service of alcohol, Bret Walker notes:

Responsible service of alcohol is of utmost importance in an environment where people gamble. Impaired judgement as a result of alcohol consumption can have disastrous consequences within a casino.

Yet he goes on to observe that at the casino:

The interrelationship between gambling and intoxication was not always well understood.

Star City cannot permit a person to become intoxicated within the gaming area. It is an offence if it or its staff allow this to occur, with penalties of up to $11,000. It is also an offence for the casino to permit an intoxicated person to gamble in the casino. The report notes that Star City is considered by the NSW Police Force to be one of the top 10 venues for alcohol-related incidents in the City Central Local Area Command. A 2004 survey revealed that 40 per cent of surveyed staff were unsure or thought it acceptable for patrons to gamble while intoxicated, and about one-quarter were unsure or thought it acceptable for patrons to fall asleep at an electronic gaming machine. A March 2005 review showed a large number of young patrons gambling while affected by alcohol. An April 2006 review concluded that "standards of policing responsible services of alcohol by staff has lessened". Bret Walker's report concludes:

No disciplinary action has been taken against Star City since 2003 for infringements of its liquor licence.

Yet still he says:

We are satisfied that Star City has in place appropriate procedures to fulfil their obligations in relation to RSA [Responsible Service of Alcohol].

This is extraordinary. How does Star City get away with this? What does it have going for it that makes the Government roll over and have its tummy tickled? The casino is getting away with an amazing laxity in relation to gambling and responsible service of alcohol. This situation does not warrant any loosening up of regulation of the casino's operations. That is the clear message in the reviews. It is simply scandalous that this Government is reducing regulation of the casino. It appears that the Christian Democratic Party, The Nationals and the Liberal Party are signing off on this legislation with the Labor Government. I remind members that the corporate donations are being made and the flow of money is increasing.

The exclusions of problem gamblers and criminals is another serious problem. The report showed that between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2006, Star City excluded 91 people at the direction of the police commissioner. That is about double the number excluded in the previous there years. In the same period, Star City excluded 661 patrons. That is roughly a 7 per cent drop in the number of patrons being excluded by the casino for problem gambling and criminal behaviour since 2000-03.

The Casino Control Authority failed to exclude any patrons between 2003 and 2006. As I have stated, that is in sharp contrast to the much more interventionist approach of New Zealand to gambling generally, and casinos in particular. In November 2006 the Dunedin Casino reportedly closed its doors for two consecutive days as punishment for failing to take adequate action over a problem gambler. I have already referred to that example. New Zealand's official gambling watchdog, the Gambling Commission, handed out a two-day licence suspension to the casino after it was found to have let a woman gamble $6.6 million over a three-year period.

New South Wales should be moving towards tougher restrictions on casinos, not relaxing our laws. This bill not only makes life easier for the casino but also introduces changes that worsen the casino's impact on problem gambling. The bill redefines chips, the main currency on the gaming tables, to include virtual chips or any other representation of chips, in addition to physical tokens for the purpose of gaming. I think all members know where that is going. Players can buy an electronic or stored value card and use those virtual chips at any gaming point, whether it is at a table game or a gaming machine, or to purchase food. People can move their money around the casino with ease without the need to keep changing back to physical cash. Who will that benefit? Profits will go through the roof.

The Gambling Impact Society has advised me that national and international research supporting the introduction of smart technology to create safer gambling activities is yet to be taken on board by the New South Wales Government. In the absence of that, any easing of the notion of cash access, whether virtual or real, should be considered in relation to harm minimisation and consumer protection. Concern has been expressed about the proposition to create virtual money as problem gamblers have dissociative disorders during the act of gambling. They need to take reality checks in the form of interacting with staff or taking a break from their gambling activity, even if it is only to find new funds.

Of relevance to this story is that if they saw a bit of daylight coming through the windows or they saw a clock on the wall it would help them to break their gambling obsession. However, as we know, those two factors are missing from casinos. The proposition to create virtual money is a matter of major concern. The Greens are strongly opposed to that measure. We need to put in place technical protections to assist consumers to make better-informed decisions about their gambling and use technology to set personal limits on their behaviour. Physical cash is a link to reality. Obviously there are still enormous problems when people gamble. However, when they have to go and get some cash they have an opportunity to register that they have gambled away a lot of money and that perhaps they should take the remaining money home and use it to pay the bills. If that link is removed they are much less likely to think those thoughts.

Physical cash assists people to stay in control, which is supposed to be the basic tenet of the New South Wales Government's policy of creating a culture of responsible gambling. These new measures are totally inconsistent with that policy. The Government should scrap this proposal and maintain consistency with its own stated aims. It would be clear to all members that the Greens oppose the bill. It makes a mockery of the hard work being done in our community to redress the social harm and the social costs of problem gambling. Who undertakes that work? Organisations that are underfunded do the hard yards and they try to support people who end up gambling and losing so much.

The beneficiaries of these new laws are the Government, through increased gaming revenue, the casino, and some high rollers, with the clear losers being problem gamblers, most visitors to the casino and the whole justice system. The only plausible explanation for the Government moving to further loosen casino regulation in New South Wales could well be the contributions from Star City to Labor's war chest. This is one more example of why donations reform is needed urgently in this State.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009. I will respond to a couple of issues that were raised in debate. The issues raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon, while fairly typical of the Greens, were not particularly helpful to legislation. The member also raised issues relating to the statutory review period. A review conducted under section 31 of the Casino Control Act requires the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Authority to investigate and form an opinion as to whether the casino operator is a suitable person to continue to give effect to the casino licence and this Act, and it is in the public interest that the casino licence should continue in force.

A full statutory investigation under section 31 examines, inter alia, corporate structures, associates, financial resources, and conducts extensive checks with various law enforcement agencies and external regulatory bodies not only in New South Wales but interstate and internationally. The 2003 and 2006 section 31 statutory reviews, effectively spanning the period from 2000, acknowledge that Star City has been operating in a responsible manner. The casino has been shown to be operating in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Act. The authority supports the statutory review process with a regime of ongoing assessment of the casino's operations. In March 2004 the authority established the Casino Licence Oversight Committee to assess the implementation of statutory review recommendations; review internal controls, processes and staff training to examine any deterioration in standards or any systemic failure; and review compliance with contractual obligations. Given the satisfactory assessment of the licensee in previous section 31 reviews, the ongoing assessment process, and the authority's power to investigate the operator and associates, extending the frequency of reviews from three years to five years will not in any way diminish the effective regulatory oversight of the casino's operations.

Ms Lee Rhiannon asked why the Government was introducing the bill in two stages. Later in the year the Government will introduce additional reforms to the Casino Control Act that include achieving legislative consistency for civil and criminal liabilities regarding patron exclusions, and patron exclusions more generally; consistency with the Commonwealth's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 in relation to the conduct of gambling; removal of a number of anomalies that have arisen from technological developments; and modernising the regulatory framework for the training of the casino's special employees. There are some legislative complexities associated with these reforms. The Government wants to get them right. As such, it will take the time needed to ensure that the legislation is drafted properly before submitting it to the Parliament. There is no conspiracy; we simply want to get it right. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: I wish to make it clear that I am going to vote against the bill in view of the threat by Ms Lee Rhiannon accusing me of voting in favour of gambling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of clarification—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will please take her seat. There was no point of order. I remind members that a member may, subject to the standing orders, make a statement during debate on the third reading of the bill.

Mr Ajaka Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Ms Fazio Ms Ficarra Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Mason-Cox Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Ms Robertson

Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Ms Hale Reverend Nile Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair does not claim to be clairvoyant. However, I remind members that presidents Johnson and Willis ruled that the prime purpose of a third reading of a bill is to ensure a last opportunity to oppose the legislation. The debate on the third reading of a bill should be confined to that question.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.06 p.m.]: On a point of clarification—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: There is no such thing.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are not in the chair.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting. Ms Lee Rhiannon may continue.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Continue speaking or continue asking a question?

The PRESIDENT: I ask you to address the third reading of the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There was a clear need to reject the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009 at each stage of the debate. It is a bill that sets back overcoming problem gambling. That case was set out clearly. I put on record that I am deeply concerned that Reverend Fred Nile made a statement that I had issued a threat against him, and I ask for that statement to be withdrawn. That is part of the debate and should be considered. I have the right to ask for that statement to be withdrawn. It is a most serious allegation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a complicated matter. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile took a point of order and made a statement as part of his point of order. I ruled that there was no point of order. Accordingly, I do not regard the statement made by the member to be a statement to the House. The member took a point of order and I ruled it out of order.

Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.