Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 23 November 2010. I move government amendments (1) to (33):

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 30), omit “(in relation to civil uses of the airport and in accordance with regulations, if any, made for the purpose of this paragraph)”, substitute “in relation to civil uses of the airport and”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (line 27), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (line 19), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (line 22), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (line 23), omit “An incompatible”, substitute “A sensitive”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 23 to 25), omit “the development of, or the redevelopment of, any of the following facilities in a way that increases the capacity of the facility”, substitute “the development of, or a redevelopment that increases the capacity of, any of the following”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 26 and 27), omit “(except accommodation for students studying at an aviation educational facility at the airport)”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (line 31), omit “(except an aviation educational facility)”.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 32 to 34), omit “(except a facility with the primary purpose of providing emergency medical treatment to persons at the airport and which does not have in-patient facilities)”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (after line 34), after subsection 71A(2), insert:

     (2A)    A sensitive development does not include the following:

             (a)    an aviation educational facility;

             (b)    accommodation for students studying at an aviation educational facility at the airport;

             (c)    a facility with the primary purpose of providing emergency medical treatment and which does not have in-patient facilities;

             (d)    a facility with the primary purpose of providing in-house training to staff of an organisation conducting operations at the airport.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 30 and 31), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 33), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 39, page 14 (line 21), omit “Incompatible”, substitute “Sensitive”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 40, page 14 (lines 25 and 26), omit “, including altering a runway in any way that changes”, substitute “(other than in the course of maintenance works) in any way that significantly changes”.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 26), omit subparagraph 89(5)(b)(i).

(16)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 3), omit “Incompatible”, substitute “Sensitive”.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 4), omit “Incompatible”, substitute “Sensitive”.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 7), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 9), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 12), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (lines 23 to 25), omit “matters in paragraphs (1)(c) and (d)”, substitute “approval of the Minister mentioned in subsection (1)”.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (line 29), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 17 (line 1), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 17 (line 5), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 46, page 17 (line 11), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(26)  Schedule 1, item 48, page 17 (line 29), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 48, page 17 (line 31), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 54, page 19 (line 8), omit “an incompatible”, substitute “a sensitive”.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 54, page 19 (line 11), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 54, page 19 (line 13), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 54, page 19 (line 16), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(32)  Schedule 1, item 75, page 23 (line 2), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

(33)  Schedule 1, item 75, page 23 (line 4), omit “incompatible”, substitute “sensitive”.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is appropriate at this time to get a few questions on the record. Minister, would it be the case that, through the bill that we are currently dealing with, there would be the possibility to move on this? I note the concern of Senator Xenophon that there should be the capacity to deal with issues such as gambling, especially the use of poker machines, at federal airports.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you repeat the question, please, Senator Joyce?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I have a choice! I think it is important to get this on the record. Is there the capacity with bills such as these, especially this bill now that it is open for debate, for us to deal with Senator Xenophon’s concern about poker machines? So do we have the capacity to deal with it in bills such as this in a decisive way so as to not allow them?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing, as the opposition would know, that is in the act directly relating to that. But there is the potential that it can be dealt with by regulation, so it can be dealt with within the framework of the legislation.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it in the capacity of the oversight of the minister to have specific preclusions on the operation of certain businesses within federal airports?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is yes.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your envisaged program in the future with regard to dealing with the concerns brought here, well and ably, by Senator Xenophon?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you will recall, I indicated that we would come back to Senator Xenophon in relation to that matter, so we might have to wait for the process to run its course.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously we would have to open up the act in some way, shape or form. Do you envisage such a process as something likely to be before the parliament in the near future, so we can deal with such an issue? Otherwise this issue today would be the area to deal with it, wouldn’t it?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a rather circular argument that is now being put. It is hypothetical in two respects: (1) it seeks to ask questions about something which has not yet occurred and (2) it seeks to elicit information about something that has still not occurred. I talked about this clearly in the beginning. It is probably worth going back to it so there is no confusion about this. Senator Xenophon had raised concerns about the use of airport land for gambling. The opposition similarly have that concern, judging by the questions that are being asked by the opposition. The government has undertaken to ensure that ongoing reforms are strengthened and reformed gaming laws include consideration of airport land. We will come back to that. That is, again, a future process.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you had any representations from people who may be involved in commercial interests involved in gambling to have an involvement at federal airports, possibly airports in the northern part of our nation?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not that I am aware of, but if that advice changes I can advise the Senate accordingly.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If an amendment that precluded gambling at airports were moved and passed today, that would solve that problem, wouldn’t it? It would solve the issue of not allowing gambling at airports.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gambling, of course, is already prohibited under regulations, except for grandfathering arrangements that are in place.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am genuinely grateful for Senator Joyce’s line of questioning in relation to this—because it is important to raise this issue—and for the minister’s responses. The concern I have—and I have raised it with the state Minister for Gambling in South Australia, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis—is the extent to which state laws apply on federal land. There are some grandfathered clauses, and the minister is quite right in terms of regulations prohibiting any more gambling venues, but I am concerned about the extent to which state regulations would apply to protect problem gamblers. My complaint has always been that I think state regulations nationally should go much further. That is why I think it is important that there is a federal approach in relation to this. But the fact that the government is actively looking at this to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the applicability of current state laws in relation to the protection of problem gamblers on federal land is welcome. I think at the moment that the approach is to the extent possible, but I think that ambiguity should be removed in the context of airport land. I am genuinely grateful to Senator Joyce for raising this issue. As I understand it, within about two months—by February at least—the minister’s office will be able to report back on this. I am quite happy with that undertaking. In a more relevant sense in terms of process, as I understand it the ministerial council, at a COAG level, is looking at this issue as well. So it is just a case of getting an update and ensuring that this is still very much on the agenda.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to reiterate what I had said earlier, Senator Xenophon has gone to the issues that we have given an undertaking to explore further.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.