Gaming Control Amendment (Future Gaming Market) Bill 2021

Third Reading Speech 24 November 2021   

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – I am mindful of the strictures of speeches.  I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief remarks.  Members would be aware that I did not vote for this bill to go into the Committee stage.  However, I participated thoroughly in that Committee stage.  On that basis, I wanted to explain my third reading vote. 

Certainly, as has been noted, our Committee stage was extensive and many of the amendments and the new clauses considered were brought by me.  I put on the record here my deep gratitude for the opportunity for us to undertake that process, and to particularly thank members who have engaged with that.  When I reflect on our role here, that is key to it.  We are here for scrutiny and review, and it is important that we are able to engage with that process.  I greatly appreciated the level of engagement from many of the members here.  I was very pleased to see that, on many matters brought forward for consideration, there were high levels of agreement amongst many members, which is reflective of community sentiment. 

We know this bill has been the result of an opportunity for significant reform, presented to our state.  It delivers particularly significant reform in this area and it warranted careful assessment here.  The key questions for us were, is this a bill we can support because it is robust and meets its objectives and the objects of the act?  Does it deliver the best deal we could look for?  Does it deliver the best outcomes for our communities? 

I was disappointed that many of the matters brought forward did not find support and we were not able to add things to this bill that I believe did not disrupt the structural reforms that it presented and were complementary to the objects of the act.  I took the trouble to engage deeply with the bill and to bring those matters forward – as is our role in this place – with the intention of making improvements and doing that review and scrutiny for our community.  My intent was not to disrupt this reform and this bill, knowing that was not supported.  I sought a way to improve it, and to do so in a way that allowed for the structural changes. 

I am disappointed, particularly on measures such as harm minimisation.  I know the community had a high expectation to see those measures.  We had that opportunity to put measures in place with no disruption to the structural reform, and we did not do that.  We had some governance matters; we did not pick those up and add those in for improvement.  We had matters to do with carefully considering further reviews and investigations; we did not pick some of those up. 

I am very pleased about some of the things that have been picked up.  While some of them may seem minor, they are also significant.  I celebrate some of the things that this Chamber resolved to support in this bill.  In particular, the one that I would point to that I am very pleased about – and will be happy to report back to my community – is that we have preserved a set point in time in the future when there will be another opportunity for reform.  Under the initial iteration of this bill, this would have been gone, lost forever, with a staggering of individual venue licence end dates that inevitably would have occurred over time. 

Through the amendments, we have achieved the preservation of that moment‑in‑time opportunity.  For me, on the one hand, it is cold comfort against the things that we were not able to also include but it is a very positive opportunity for the future.  I am glad that we, as a Chamber, were able to deliver that together.  I thank members for their support of that.

It has been noted by others and it was probably an unusual thing to be mentioned on the parliamentary record at the conclusion of our debate last night when a tally was provided of Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) time that was given to various aspects of the amendments and new clauses to the bill – particularly because it was noted that a rather substantial amount of time, it would probably be deemed by many – 69 hours of OPC time was provided to me to put together the set of amendments. 

I think I had about 44 amendments and 14 new clauses.  I express my heartfelt thanks for the opportunity to access OPC services and for the sterling work that was undertaken by OPC in assisting me with that work.  I think it was outstanding.  For me, that meant I can be assured that I have done my job to the best of my ability here in this process.  I am grateful for the opportunity to access the resources to do that. 

I am uncomfortable that we might set a precedent for tallying up resources that have been utilised on bills in this way.

Mrs HISCUTT – Point of order again, Mr President.  New and compelling evidence is usually what is delivered in the third reading, plus we are also bordering on Standing Order 100 again. 

Mr PRESIDENT – I would ask the member to contain it to the provisions of the bill and your reason to not support, or support, and not to allude to other aspects.  I understand the line that you are trying to take, if we can just keep that tight.  You can make the allusion but not to any great detail. 

Ms WEBB – Thank you for that, Mr President.  I will not go into further detail.  I simply wanted to note that I hope that was not something that may come to pass as a regular occurrence or we would need to be clear about why it might.

Mrs Hiscutt – By way of personal explanation, Mr President, I just wanted members to know that, as a government, we do not curtail OPC’s activities.  We try to assist.  It was an extraordinary amount of time and I thought it should have been noted in a positive manner.

Mr PRESIDENT – Thank you for that. 

Ms WEBB – May I respond briefly to that?

Mr PRESIDENT – We cannot allow debate so that point will be recorded from the Leader, as will your comments, but we cannot debate in the third reading contribution. 

Ms WEBB – Thank you for that.  I am certainly happy, as I have done, for my appreciation for the OPC access to be recorded.  That was not the intent of my other comments for noting. 

To return to the other matters, I wanted to reflect on the bill and where my vote has landed, having not supported into the second reading stage but participated fully, to the best of my ability, to attempt to find a way to support this bill.  From my perspective, I believe we have been left with numerous gaps in information that, unfortunately, could not be filled through answering of questions or information requested.  We have a lot of doubt as to the ultimate impact of this bill still remaining for us.  I do not believe we are in a position to say that this bill is robust and credible to the extent that we would need it to be to pass this place.  I believe that we are not able to answer the question, is this in the best interests of our communities, confidently in the affirmative.

This process is a matter of public record and will be reflected on later.  This is an indelible process that becomes part of the story of our state and I certainly wanted to make sure I exercised that process to the greatest extent possible.  I am absolutely proud of the way we have deliberated and the way we have dealt with this bill across the time we have had and I am pleased it has taken this long because it should.  It has great consequence, financial, but more importantly, social, for our community and our health and wellbeing in this state. 

While we have not achieved many of the changes, I am going to remain optimistic for the future opportunities that we have, particularly those where we have held the door open and allowed for future change for decision‑makers.  All our names will be attached to the debate on this bill in numerous ways.  I will leave here pleased with the way mine is attached to it and I hope other members will feel the same way.