Dr Crean - It might be an advantage for you in this debate.

Mr DEAN - It may well be. After having heard your attack on some of the other members, it may well be an advantage, Mr Treasurer.

Dr Crean - Well, one other member. Let's get it straight. One member.

Mr DEAN - Mr President, this bill is not unlike the Relationships Bill in fact, when we take into consideration public opinion, and this is where I intend to commence my debate; on those issues that I have found to be of the greatest concern to the members of the public and particularly the constituents in Windermere. I want to refer to the cap first of all. It is very clear that Tasmanians want fewer and not more poker machines, and that has come out very strongly right throughout this debate.

Mr Parkinson - Just like politicians; they want fewer and not more.

Mr DEAN - You are right. You are absolutely right, quality members and members who will be prepared to support the constituents and not a party. You are right.

Mr Parkinson - If you ask them how many they have got they don't know.

Mr DEAN - They want members who will support them and not a party position. That is exactly what they want and that came out in the last election; it was made very clear.

Members interjecting.

Dr Crean - Is that why we have a government of independents?

Mr Fletcher - That is the second time you have had your head knocked off this morning.

Dr Crean - We are not a Labor government, we are a government of independents.

Mr DEAN - My position is one of ensuring that there is some independence retained in this House and that is why I stood, to ensure that happens, and if it does not, we become a rubber stamp for the Government.

Dr Crean - Good on you. But do not say that people just want independents.

Mr DEAN - The Anglicare pokie survey of August 2003 has been discussed where 1 002 people in Tasmania were surveyed. Eighty-one per cent, as I understand, from that survey said they wanted fewer machines and about 1 per cent wanted more.

Mr Parkinson - But they weren't asked how many did they want.

Mr DEAN - That is a significant position, I would suggest, against additional poker machines coming into this State.

Mr Parkinson - Why weren't they asked how many poker machines they want?

Mr DEAN - If I continue to answer these interjections I will never finish. This is not the only evidence available identifying the public position of no increase in poker machines.

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. The honourable member is entitled to pursue his speech in the way that he wishes.

Mr DEAN - There is an abundance of press clippings and other information articulated in journals, media releases, reports, books and letters that is consistent with all of those views. There is a plethora of information out there to support that position.

The Government talks about the cap in such a way, in my view, that it has controlled the further negotiation concerning the new deal with Federal. It has taken a priority position in relation to it. The cap, as I understand it, is that we will have a total of 3 680 machines in the State, 287 more than the current number. I accept that that position forms part of the original contract with Federal but since that time a lot of water has gone under the bridge and therefore I raise the question: irrespective of the contract, does this State require more poker machines? What further research has occurred and if it has occurred what were the findings? As I have said already, the evidence out there suggests that we do not need more. It is the perception of many people - and 'perception' was given a bit of a grilling yesterday when I used the word, but let us understand this word. Perception to the perceiver is reality. People really believe this to be the situation. So it is the perception of many people, and this has been publicised on numerous occasions, that the income for the State Government from those machines and the expected income is paramount to the Government's position and that they are now so dependent on it they are not prepared to listen to any contrary views.

The Government's current position is that we need a new contract to ensure that the current cap is accepted and those numbers are not exceeded. This is said to be good for Tasmania. I am not so sure about that and with the appropriate inquiry and research I question the Government's position. I am not the only one to question that position; the greater majority of Tasmanians from that survey that was conducted query that also.

Dr Crean - Which survey was that?

Mr DEAN - The one carried out by Anglicare that I previously referred to. To cap poker machines at current numbers until the proper research is concluded is the public's preferred position. Very clearly that is the preferred position of the public.

I read with interest the report of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, some parts of it at least. This report amongst many other findings found that the only way the Government could legally cap the number of poker machines in Tasmania before the year 2009 was to enter into this new deal with Federal Hotels.

I could be cynical here and say the Government always could have used the similar tactics on Federal Hotels as used by that establishment on this House; use a veiled threat, for instance, to have the cap enforced, something like, 'The contract will not be renewed in 2009 unless the cap occurs as of this date'.

Dr Crean - This is scandalous, Mr President. So you are saying that Federal threatened this House.

Mr DEAN - The role and function of the Government is to ensure good governance by means of good legislation and from time to time to amend legislation. I never said that they had threatened this House; I did not like the context in which it was stated.

Dr Crean - So there is a perception that they threatened this House.

Mr DEAN - Good governance entails providing controls over and placing limitations on certain activities and in this instance the number of poker machines available in this State. It is absolutely clear that gambling is identified as a major issue of concern in this State. While not receiving the same level of public contact as with the relationships legislation, I have received consistent contact throughout. Media reporting has been consistent; almost all is negative. The greater majority of the publicity has been negative when referring to the number of machines in the State. I really have not caught onto a lot of positive reporting when we look at the increase in the number of poker machines currently existing in this State - very little positive reporting.

I now want to turn to problem gambling. I should imagine that this will raise some eyebrows as well. I find it amusing that the Government - the Treasurer to the Public Accounts Committee, this is - should say that the percentage of problem gamblers is relatively small compared to other States. I ask the question: was that statement made on a per head of population basis or simply the number of crimes committed, or was some other criteria used when making that statement? I ask that question because on 24 June 2003 in this House I asked the following questions of government, and those questions were asked on notice. The first question was: 'In terms of gaming-related fraud how many cases have there been over the calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002?'

Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Mr President, at the time of the luncheon suspension, I was talking in relation to the area of problem gamblers and I had reached the stage where I was making reference to a number of questions that I asked of the Leader of the Government in this House. I will go back to the beginning of those questions.

The questions that I asked in this House were, firstly, in terms of gaming-related fraud, how many cases have there been over the calendar year 2000-01 and 2001-02? Secondly, can the Leader provide any explanation for the increase/decrease and give details of any support services introduced by the Government for persons convicted of fraud-related offences? Thirdly, how many people have been incarcerated as a consequence of fraud offences related specifically to gaming machines? Those were the questions that were asked.

The response from the Leader for the Government was that these records were not being maintained. While I accepted the response, I was quite perplexed because statistical data is available on almost every other statute that is in existence so we have heaps of statistical information available but surprisingly that detail I want in relation to gaming fraud offences was not available. Therefore, how do we know the percentage of problem gamblers is relatively small when we do not even bother to record this information? It rather perplexes me.

Dr Crean - This is fraud.

Mr DEAN - This is a big part of it, though. A lot of those problem gamblers finish up by committing offences which are taken through to court so that is a big part of it; it is not the whole of it, identifying problem gamblers, but it is a big part of it.

Mr Harriss - The Institute of Criminology reinforces that.

Mr DEAN - Yes, it is a big part of the process. Mr President, in this situation I think it is a stab in the dark to try to identify problem gamblers and in my view it is not good enough. We do need to have all of the statistical data available to identify with that position. As I said, the fraud and offences that come before the court very clearly are a big part of what problem gamblers are about.

I continually make the statement that for every problem gambler, the family of a gambler are also victims along with the corporations involved, the individuals, the businesses and whoever or whatever is the source of the money that is used for gambling. They all really become victims, at the end of the day. I am more convinced now than I ever was that an independent, social and economic impact study is needed on the effects of pokies and problem gamblers before the rollout continues and further deals are done; that is my strong belief in this instance.

I accept that these decisions are not available and this was confirmed by the Commissioner of Police to me a couple of weeks ago. He did say that in the circumstances he believed also that these decisions should now be available and he indicated that the necessary changes would be made to ensure that that data is available and will be available in the future.

I have little doubt that the number of problem gamblers is probably increasing. In the past three to four weeks - and there has been some mention already made that the media have printed several separate cases of stealing and fraud related to poker machines - and these are the ones who have actually fallen down and committed a crime, not the others, and I could be a sceptic I suppose and believe that if decreases were being experienced, all of the factual information and figures might be available.

Ms Thorp - You sound like you're arguing to ban poker machines.

Mr DEAN - No, I am not arguing for that at all. It is a fait accompli. I am arguing for the cap on and I made it very clear here today that it should be capped at the current level and there ought not be any further rollout of these machines. One might say, 'Why do we have problem gamblers?' and there would be a myriad of answers to this question very clearly, Mr President. I do not intend to go through them in their entirety, however I will refer to some of them.

I might say that this is never likely to occur to me. Whilst you have to battle your way through billowing smoke and then breathe in copious amounts of smoke while you are in there, I do not think I am ever likely to fall foul of these machines.

The glitter, the sound of small amounts of money rattling into return trays, the advertising of a very occasional large winner, cheaper meals, complimentary drinks and a positive spin put on gambling by this Government and Federal Hotels all assist, in my opinion, in creating problem gamblers.

Interestingly I am really yet to speak to a loser. I read about quite a few of them in the papers but you do not really speak to too many of them. Most people are winners at the end of the day or they will tell you that, but we know very well that that is not the case.

I want to refer to a matter that was reported on the Today Tonight program on Monday night on Southern Cross. Some of you here may well have watched that program. A South Australian member of the Legislative Council was talking on the gimmicks used to increase gambling and to get people in there and continue gambling who might otherwise not gamble to the extent that they do. I understand from that program that some pokies are now fitted with perfume dispensers which give off different aromas at differing intervals. A firm involved in this is the firm Excite and the firm producing it said that in the studies that they did, the dispensing of aromas increased revenue on those machines by 45 per cent.

Ms Thorp - By the smells?

Mr DEAN - All different types of smells and aromas and fragrances and so on, I do not know. It was an interesting thing but what I am saying is that those sort of gimmicks do worry me and I am just hopeful that they will never ever be introduced into this State.

We need to take a responsible attitude to machine and table gambling. While I am not opposed to it - the member over here needs to know that - I do have concerns about the way it is promoted and the fact that many people are taken in by that promotion.

Ms Thorp - How do you feel about horse racing and the Melbourne Cup? That is promoted.

Mr DEAN - This, Mr President, really cannot be related and I do not think that is a good analogy because you have an abundance of poker machines, you can play them at any time you want, you need no expertise at all, you do not need to know the name of a horse or whatever it might be running at or its weight; you simply throw money into a machine and get a return. So really it is a fairly poor analogy, in my view, to compare poker machines with horse racing.

Ms Thorp - So that's more scientific?

Mr DEAN - Let the true details be known. Pokies, for instance, are set to ensure that owners and not the gamblers are always the winner. Amongst consistent pokie gamblers there are no winners - owners only, Federal Hotels and the Government, so I guess those three parties are always assured of winning.

Ms Thorp - I thought there was a legislated amount that had to go back to the player.

Mr DEAN - They win small amounts and they continue playing and when they lose that amount at the end of the night they will probably come out as being losers. There are small amounts of winnings made. I am talking about consistent gamblers who consistently use these machines. They would be very, very few if probably any winning.

It has been said that the Government is now so dependent on the return from pokies and the tables - and a lot of this information is information of detail that has come to me through my constituents in Windermere and this is why I relate to a lot of these factors - that it is blinded by that windfall and therefore not likely to introduce any contractual arrangements -

Ms Thorp - Who said that?

Mr DEAN - or legislation likely to interfere with the windfall. I do not intend to identify the person who brought that to my attention; I do not feel that I have the need to do that.

The sad thing is that many of the people losing money can ill afford it and families are suffering. I accept in saying that that some support is given to these people. I do not believe there is enough support and I believe that we ought to be looking at that more closely and that we ought to be giving them greater assistance, and the families and all of those people closely around them.

As I said, it is not realistic that this form of gambling should stop but we do need to ensure that the proper controls are in place, that we administer it properly and to those who do fall down we should give necessary support to at least make some form of recovery and particularly the family dependent on them. I keep harking back to the families because this is a matter which was made clear to me and very strongly throughout my electorate by the people talking to me about picking up that there are other people who are dependent upon the problem gamblers.

I just want to mention now hotels and clubs. I have received submissions from hoteliers in regard to this aspect of the gaming bill to the effect that it is now felt unfair that clubs be given this trading benefit - that is, a maximum of 40 machines, whereas a hotel can only get 30 machines. I want to quote from one of those submissions, if I can, and this is from a constituent of mine:

'The differentiation between the number of gaming machines allowed in clubs and hotels is considered unjust. Since the recent changes to the Liquor and Accommodation Act that allows clubs greater freedom on who they are allowed to admit, the need for this distinction is no longer considered valid. Further to this, licensed clubs in Australia are ostensibly tax free, that is provided they donate $2 500 to a bona fide charity they are exempt from all income taxation.'

Does that distinction now need to be there or should we be seeking to level that playing field? I ask that question and that certainly seemed to be the position of a number of hoteliers. They feel it is quite uneven and perhaps it ought not be as uneven as it currently is.

I will just touch briefly on the agreement deed. I am not anti-Federal at all. I admire what they have done for this State and I need to make that very clear. They are a great corporation, in my opinion, and that has been espoused here today. I concur with those comments. They have done wonderful things for Tasmania and will continue to do great things for Tasmania. However, I find it quite unpalatable the way in which Federal has gone about the new deed and the way in which the Government, in my opinion, appears to have capitulated somewhat. Having said that, I suppose one would have to say that the hard line taken by Federal in reaching the position that they have is in the best interests of their future in this State, and I do not think anyone could argue with that, not necessarily the best interests of the people, the public and particularly not those who continue to lose large sums of money and those who become addicted. I have difficulty identifying the winners, as I have said, other than the owners and the Government.

Federal made it clear they would not enter into the new deed unless it was non-competitive. Again I refer to a comment from a submission I received, and this is in relation to a comment made through the Public Accounts Committee:

'Federal Hotels said that it would not have agreed to enter into negotiations with the Government to develop the 2003 deed if the process had been on anything other than a non-competitive basis.'

This is the comment made to me by a constituent:

'This is clearly a standover tactic on the part of Federal Hotels. It is also an admission that the process was overtly non-competitive. The Government has an obligation to the community to negotiate with a party(ies) that is prepared to be competitive.'

That is the comment of a constituent. This position of Federal, of course, was not unlike their attitude towards this House. Either accept it without amendment or we will not build the luxury hotel ?

Mr Aird - That is not true.

Mr DEAN - If the Treasurer would let me finish my statement, Mr President ?

Mr Aird - I'm not the Treasurer.

Dr Crean - I'm the Treasurer but if you want me to interject I will.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - At least, there will be a significant downgrading of those premises.

Mr Aird - It was done because of the basis of their business. It wasn't a threat. It's a nonsense.

Mr DEAN - Some might see it as not a threat. I see it as being a situation that to me ?

Mr Aird - Is that about you or them?

Mr DEAN - No, me.

Mr Aird - Yes, it's about you.

Mr DEAN - I have said that. I find it unpalatable.

Mr Aird - Do you understand? Have you read the PAC report which talks about why they would have to spend less money on that development?

Mr DEAN - I believe there was a better way for Federal to put that. I think the way they did it was rather difficult for some members of this House to accept in those terms. It certainly had an impact on me. I will always remain objective and it is not likely those sorts of statements will impact on me in any way.

The Government is aware of the concerns of the community about the number of machines and I, like many others, see the new deed as an opportunity to cap machines at present numbers with no further rollout, at least until the impact study is completed.

Independent appeals mechanism: I just want to go into this because I did have a number of constituents talk to me, Mr President, in relation to this aspect of the bill and the deed. I received many submissions and comments. Federal Hotels are involved in this game. They have poker machines, they are poker machine operators, not only in the two casinos but also in hotels around the State. They are competing with other private operators. For Federal to determine where these machines will be placed and without any reasonable appeal rights to an independent body in my view is unacceptable and is unacceptable to those people who have spoken to me in relation to this matter - and they are hoteliers. It is undemocratic and seen by many as grossly unfair. It is not said that Federal has administered the distribution improperly or unfairly; it is not saying that they have done that. However, the public perception is that the only way for this to be administered with transparency, equity and fairness is through an independent authority at the end of the day.

Mr President, if there is no independent appeal process, what we need in order to ensure transparency, fairness and equitable treatment is an independent body in the first instance to determine where those poker machines will be placed. So maybe the independence could be introduced at that level, rather than taking it to an appeal; maybe an appeal process is then not necessary if that were to happen. There are two opportunities there, in my view. I would prefer, at the end of the day, an independent appeal mechanism at the end of the chain. In fact, I did raise this with Mr Farrell and I believe - and I think I have his position right from a conversation I had with him - he was not absolutely opposed to an independent appeal process.

A constituent of mine was refused machines - and this has been referred to previously by the honourable member for Huon. He said that it occurred after originally being told that he would be favourably considered. He became extremely frustrated and aggrieved because he had nowhere to turn for an independent reviewing of the decision. He was refused machines after having been told - this is what he says - that he would get them. He then had no place to turn to have an independent body look at that. This matter went on for a long period, with much heartache, and could have been resolved quickly, in my opinion and in his opinion, had an independent appeal body been in place. I accept that Network are there and I accept that they can look at these issues but very clearly they are not independent and that is not the sort of independence we are looking for.

I want to quote from the Public Accounts Committee report. This was in answer to the Standing Committee of Public Accounts and I quote the comments as made by the submission from Young and Davis:

'After having had our venue assessed as being suitable for gaming machines and then being refused we have found it extremely frustrating that there are absolutely no avenues of appeal open to us. There is no independent body, Government or otherwise, to look into our concerns. We have not been provided with any reason specific to our business as to why we are deemed an unsuitable venue. We have not been able to obtain any information re criteria which needs to be addressed. The only explanation offered to others who have investigated this matter on our behalf is that allowing us to operate gaming machines might impact negatively upon the viability of neighbouring venues.'

Following an approach from myself in relation to the matter of Mr Young, Federal agreed to in fact review that case - and I am extremely thankful to Federal for undertaking that course of action - and a written position was then provided. That review was conducted quite thoroughly, in my view, and I did not find fault with it at all; I thought it was fairly done. However, the constituent, while feeling more at ease when I related some of the circumstances of that review to him, was still quite sceptical with regards the process because of, as he sees, the failed independence of that body. One of the explanations provided to Mr Young on this occasion was the close proximity of his premises to other premises around him and the indication that he was drawing on people that these other premises were now dependent on - the Newstead Hotel for instance, the hotel and a club at Ravenswood - that he would be drawing on those people.

I find this interesting, as he does, if we go to Devonport in relation to this whole thing. There are about seven venues in Devonport, if I have got it right. I will go through them: the Formby, the Alexander, the Ellimatta, the RSL, Irish Murphy's, the Gateway Inn and there are probably others, all within - and I will use the term as we are still in that season - a drop punt of one another and very clearly drawing on the people that are going into these other premises as well.

So he finds that an interesting issue as to why he believes that he was singled out in that way. He says in his opinion it is just not consistent. Once again, had the appeal mechanism been there he would have felt much more comfortable with the whole thing. As I said, these feelings can be fixed simply and with little cost. I do not know of too many other areas out there where an independent appeal process is not in place and particularly where the decision-makers in this case are also in that same business and in fact are competitors.

We can look at the footballers. The footballers have appeal rights to independent bodies. Just ask Anthony Rocca; he will tell you that. He was not successful but at least he had the opportunity to go to an independent body. That is the point I am making: independence.

Mr Fletcher - Who is this fellow you're talking about?

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I do not support the team and I prefer not to mention his name.

I will now just briefly go on to the community support levy. Are we sure that all this money is going towards assisting those people who have fallen down and those charitable organisations and so on? The setting up of the right professional bodies and the infrastructure to carry these people and those families - again I harp on the question of the people surrounding those problem gamblers, who have been brought to their knees as the result of problem gambling. Or is a percentage of that money also spent on the salaries, the administration and the other infrastructure that is necessary to set up this body? We are told, I believe if my view is right on this, that none of that money does go into the salaries, does go into the infrastructure that is necessary to set up that fund and I hope that is the case. I would like the honourable Treasurer to comment on that. I would like a guarantee, as people out there would like, that all of that money is spent other than on salaries and the infrastructure and so on that is necessary to set up that organisation because that would bite into that amount in a tremendous way.

I just briefly want to talk on the monopoly. Originally I had concerns with regard to the monopoly deal. I still do with regard to the 15 years, which in effect becomes about 21 years when we look at the commencement of this deed from 2009. I think I am right in saying it commences from that period. That is an incredibly long period when we look at the speed at which changes are now occurring within our society. We heard yesterday at the briefing and it was mentioned to me by other people that that is the life of about five governments. That is about five governing periods that that period will run for. It is an excessively long period of time in my view, particularly when one looks at the change and the way that it is progressing at this present time - extremely rapidly. It is very difficult to even look or plan probably five years ahead. People find that difficult right at this present time.

I think competition in the market at this time could see practices arising likely to create additional difficulties to those currently experienced. I make no bones about saying that. In time competition may well occur. I do not think that it will occur in my lifetime but I am satisfied that the current monopoly position will be there at this present time. Those restrictions are, in my opinion, in the public's interest. However, that is not the way that all constituents see it and I will just quote one of my constituents here again, a comment that he made on that point. I think it reasonable that I do that:

'The introduction of competition would not mean an increase in machine numbers. Existing venues would be able to choose who they were going to use as a network operator and take their licence and obtain the services of the alternate operator. Maybe this could be summed up as "The Tasmanian way of doing business"! The purpose of the original exclusive deal in 1970 was to provide a form of underwriting to Federal Hotels for the extensive construction work undertaken at the Wrest Point site. The purpose of extracting a similar deal in the current climate is a question worthy of note.'

As I said, I am content with the position of the one operator but, as I said, I have difficulty in accepting the long period of time of that contract. I would have preferred to have seen a shorter period.

Mr President, the cap, the appeal rights and the failure to maintain statistical data on offenders and offences that we know of are the major concerns that I hold in relation to this bill at this time. I would ask the Government to take these issues on board and have a look to see what we can do in relation to them. I envisage in the immediate future that I will be presenting a private member's bill relative to what I see as necessary amendments and additions to the Gaming Control Act 1993, amendments and additions that do impact on the bill we are debating today but do not form part of the bill. I believe there are some matters there that need to be looked at and I will probably be introducing that in the very near future.