View of proposed premises and other relevant locations

1. Before I discuss the Applicant's case before the delegate, her decision, and the evidence and submissions advanced on review, I should record that at the commencement of the hearing before this Court a view was conducted in the presence of the parties of the site of the proposed premises, parts of the locality, and specified places outside of the locality.
2. The view commenced at the site of the proposed premises. In driving to that site, the Court passed through Davoren Park. It is a little more than two kilometres south of the proposed premises and it appeared to be a relatively poor suburb.
3. The site of the proposed premises comprised of the whole of a long, thin, rectangular block, on the corner of Peachey Road and The Parkway, Munno Para. Peachey Road, at this point, runs approximately from north to south and the Parkway from east to west.
4. To the immediate south of the site is Elan Lane, which is a narrow road that separates the site from the Playford Shopping Centre. Immediately to the west is Market Street.
5. The Playford Shopping Centre appeared to be a typical suburban shopping centre anchored by a Woolworths Supermarket. It contains about 20 specialist stores. Of note, at the western end, is a BWS bottle shop, and to the east, fronting Peachey Road, is a Cash Converters store. The points of entry to the shopping centre are from the western end, facing Market Street, and from the eastern end, facing Peachey Road.
6. Opposite the site, to the north‑east, is the Stretton Centre, which is a building that provides support for businesses by making available spaces for workshops and training. Adjacent to that building to the west, is a skate part and playground, known as the Playford Alive Town Park.
7. In the area to the west of Market Street there is a new housing development comprising of attractive houses on relatively small blocks, not unlike those seen by this Court in its view of Mount Barker South in connection with the recent case before this Court in respect of proposed premises to be known as the Heysen Hotel.[4] As that case will feature prominently in these reasons I will refer to it as Heysen Hotel.
8. Further to the north‑west of the proposed premises is an area of open land that has clearly been set aside for further housing development.
9. Opposite the site, on the eastern side of Peachey Road, was a sign stating, "Retail Precinct". This area appeared to be set aside for future retail development. There are already some commercial facilities to the south‑east of that precinct.
10. We then inspected the Smithfield Hotel Motel on the corner of Main North Road and Anderson Walk, at the edge of the locality, about two kilometres to the north‑east of the proposed premises. The hotel was separated into three sections. One was a large room containing multiple pool tables, a bar, Keno, TAB and sports on big screens. It looked somewhat dated. There was a separate section that had rooms for rent. The third section comprised of a gaming room that appeared to have a full complement of machines.
11. We then viewed the Playford Alive East development adjacent to the new Munno Para Railway Station, about two kilometres to the east of the proposed premises. Substantial areas of land appear to have been set aside in connection with significant residential development.
12. Next, we inspected the Mark Oliphant College (MOC) on the corner of Douglas Drive and Newton Boulevard, about six hundred metres or so to the north of the proposed premises. It appeared to be a relatively attractive new school. It is surrounded by multiple attractive and relatively new residential houses.
13. We then inspected the proposed development around Stebonheath Road. This was the area mentioned above, several kilometres north‑west of the proposed premises. Substantial areas of land appear to have been set aside in connection with significant residential development.
14. We then drove through the suburb of Andrews Farm to the south‑west of the proposed premises. This comprised of attractive houses that were slightly older, perhaps built in the 1990's.
15. Next was the Angle Vale Tavern about three kilometres or so to the north‑west of the proposed premises. En route there we passed through Tudor Vale, which is a new residential development. In the tavern, we walked through an outdoor area into a larger room that contained a bar with pool tables, TAB and large screen televisions. We then proceeded to a large attractive dining room before entering a large gaming room that appeared to have a full complement of machines. It was noticeably more modern and attractive than the Smithfield Hotel Motel.
16. We then went to the Playford Tavern, on the corner of Peachey Road and Petherton Road, just over two kilometres to the south of the proposed premises. This hotel was separated into three rooms: a sports bar, a dining room, and a gaming room. It appeared to be an attractive hotel, perhaps slightly older than the Angle Vale Tavern, but noticeably more attractive than the Smithfield Hotel Motel. The gaming room appeared to have a full complement of machines.
17. Finally, we inspected the Midway Tavern, on the corner of Yorktown Road and Midway Road, about four kilometres to the south‑east of the proposed premises. This hotel was separated into three rooms: a sports bar, a dining room. and a gaming room. It appeared to be not dissimilar to the Playford Hotel, but perhaps slightly more attractive. The gaming room appeared to have a full complement of machines.

1. Because of the proximity of the proposed premises to the Playford Shopping Centre, an issue that assumed some significance before the delegate and before this Court on review, is the jurisdictional bar created by s 15A of the Gaming Act. That provision limits where gaming venues can be located by preventing the grant of a gaming machine licence in respect of premises "under the same roof as a shop" or "anywhere within the boundaries of a shopping complex". The terms of s 15A of the Gaming Act are as follows:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Commissioner cannot after the commencement of this section grant an application for a gaming machine licence in respect of licensed premises, or grant any other application under this Act in respect of licensed premises that are subject to a gaming machine licence, if to do so would result in the licensed premises, or the whole or part of a gaming area of the licensed premises, being located -

(a) under the same roof as a shop, whether or not on the same level or floor as the shop; or

(b) anywhere within the boundaries of a shopping complex.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only in respect of an application made after the commencement of this section (and any grant by the Commissioner of such an application will be taken to be void and of no effect).

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the shop -

(a) is a part of the licensed premises set aside for the purpose of selling liquor in bottles to the public; or

(b) is intended primarily for the use of guests staying on the licensed premises.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (1), licensed premises will be regarded as falling within the boundaries of a shopping complex if the land on which the premises are situated -

(a) formed part of the complex immediately prior to the granting of the development authorisation (or the first such authorisation if more than one) for the establishment of the licensed premises on the land; or

(b) shares a common boundary with the complex and the licensed premises are, in the opinion of the Commissioner, so linked to or integrated with the complex that they may properly be regarded as forming part of the complex.

(5) In this section -

shop means a shop at which goods are sold to the public by retail;

shopping centre means a cluster of premises where -

(a) at least one of the premises is a shop; and

(b) the premises are located in the one building or in 2 or more buildings that are adjoining or are separated only by the grounds of the centre; and

(c) the cluster of premises is promoted as, or generally regarded as constituting, a shopping centre, shopping mall, shopping court or shopping arcade;

shopping complex means a shop, or shopping centre, together with all parking and other areas adjacent and ancillary to, and intended primarily for the use of persons attending, the shop or shopping centre.

1. Returning to the application itself, pursuant to s 17A(2) of the Gaming Act, to get to first base, the Applicant needed to comply with the Guidelines.
2. The Guidelines specify that an applicant has the onus of satisfying the Commissioner that the grant of the application is in the community interest, supported by relevant evidence and submissions.
3. It directs an applicant to identify the Net Gambling Revenue (NGR) for the premises in comparison to the local council area and the State, and to consider whether the application has the potential to increase gambling related harm in the locality.
4. It directs an applicant to identify the socio-economic profile of the locality, and to consider whether there any factors which might increase gambling harm, such as higher unemployment or social disadvantage. In connection with this, the Guidelines make specific reference to the Socio‑Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) scores that are produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
5. It directs an applicant to identify whether there are any 'at-risk' groups or sub-communities within the locality and, if so, how it is intended to minimise potential harm to these 'at‑risk' groups or sub‑communities.
6. It directs an applicant to identify whether there are any community buildings, facilities or areas of interest or concern within the locality, and if so, it requires details such as an address or a map of where these buildings, facilities, or areas are in relation to the premises or proposed premises. It identifies these as including schools and educational institutions, childcare centres, hospitals, drug and alcohol treatment centres, accommodation or refuges for young, vulnerable or disadvantaged people, recreational areas, pawn brokers or credit providers, and any other area where young, vulnerable, or disadvantaged people may congregate or be attracted to. It requires details as to how the grant of this application may impact on persons using those buildings, facilities, or areas.
7. It requires details of the policies and procedures that an applicant has or will implement to minimise the harm that might be caused by gambling in the locality. In respect of this, it directs an applicant to have regard to arrangements for the identification of persons who may be experiencing gambling harm in the premises, providing information to customers and their families of, and facilitating their access to barring (exclusion) arrangements, and enforcement and compliance with those arrangements; and the design and location of the gaming area, or proposed gaming area, so it would not be an attraction to minors.
8. It directs an applicant to address whether the grant of the application will provide any economic benefits or employment opportunities and cultural, recreational or tourism benefits to the locality or broader community.
9. It directs an applicant to address details of the social impact the grant of the application may have on the locality, including any potential increase in crime and anti‑social behaviour; how the grant of this application will impact the amenity of the locality, being the pleasantness, attractiveness, desirability or utility of the locality, or the character of the premises or locality; how the non‑gaming related features of the proposed premises will contribute positively to the community, such as providing a family friendly environment or community meeting place; and any steps that will be taken to address any negative social impact or negative impact on the amenity of the locality.
10. It asks whether the community has concerns about the proposed premises. In connection with this it suggests things such as petitions, customer surveys or letters of support from potential customers and local businesses. It also suggests the provision of evidence of consultation with relevant authorities, community organisations and local community, and cultural and residential groups, and where appropriate, the provision of details about what measures will be implemented to address or mitigate any concerns that have been expressed.
11. With a view to meeting these requirements the Applicant's application was supported by a covering letter, written submissions, and a Community Impact Report prepared by the specialist planning firm, Future Urban (the Report).[5]
12. The Report contended that the proposed premises would comprise of a "high quality building" which will "blend well with the adjoining commercial buildings", that would contain a gaming lounge focussed on gaming machines staffed by a dedicated team delivering high‑quality service to ensure patrons can enjoy the space safely. It stated that the proposed premises would not include a TAB, pool table, dartboard or sports bar facilities, and that this aligned with its aim to provide a "modern, family‑friendly, community‑orientated" facility.
13. Included in these materials placed before the delegate were plans of the proposed premises. They show that immediately adjacent to Elan Lane there will be a kitchen in the south‑east corner, then further to the west, a back of house area, and further west again, a covered loading bay area. Next to the kitchen area, about eight metres or so from Elan Lane, there will be an entry point, facing Peachey Road. To the north of that, roughly hugging the corner of Peachey Road and The Parkway, there will be an outdoor dining area. Further west of this, there will be a bistro area which will open into a lounge. Further west again, will be the proposed gaming area. In the area between the lounge and the gaming area there will be a passage and entrance area that opens onto The Parkway. To the east of this will be an outdoor seating area, and to the west of this there will be a covered entry forecourt. Thus, the predominant point of entry and orientation of the proposed premises will face north into The Parkway, but there will also be an entry point about twenty metres to the north of the north‑eastern corner of the Playford Shopping Centre, facing Peachey Road.
14. The Report noted that in the general vicinity of the proposed premises what was, either completed, or planned, a 1,000‑hectare development offering a range of new amenities, including three new schools, a library, a medical centre, new residential lots, renovations of public house dwellings, a Playford Uniting Church, a railway station, wetlands, parklands, and a $250 million town centre, featuring various commercial and retail establishments.
15. The Report explained how the proposed premises would align with the Community Themes outlined by Playford's Strategic Plan 2020‑2024. Those themes comprised of improving safety and accessibility; lifting city appearance; connecting with the community and each other; supporting business and local employment opportunities; and using money wisely.
16. The Report submitted that the proposed premises' central location would contribute to public safety and passive surveillance; its high quality architecture would enhance the city's appearance; the establishment of a hotel would facilitate connection with the community which was fortified by the positive feedback that the application had secured; the additional employment that the proposed premises would generate would foster local economic growth and support; and as the proposed premises would require no Council investment, issues around spending money wisely would not arise.
17. Having identified a number of other licensed facilities within the locality, the Report submitted that the proposed premises, being a family friendly hotel, would operate very differently to them.
18. The Report set out its findings as to the demographic characteristics of those living in the locality based upon the 2021 Census data.
19. Based on this data it identified that compared to Greater Adelaide and the State as a whole, the locality has a greater proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, greater population growth, a higher proportion of young adults, a lower proportion of older adults, a much lower proportion of home ownership, a higher proportion of home ownership with a mortgage, a higher proportion of rented houses and a lower average annual income:

1. The Report also provided an analysis of the SEIFA scores for the suburbs within the locality. The lower the score, the more disadvantaged the area:

1. Having acknowledged that these scores revealed a greater level of disadvantage than elsewhere in Greater Adelaide and the State as a whole, the Report submitted that consideration needed to be given to the younger population demographic of the locality, the major regeneration and renewal of Playford, and the expectation that the level of disadvantage will decrease as that development progresses.
2. As to the relatively higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Report submitted that this group was considered during the community consultation, and no objection was expressed on their account.
3. The Report set out its findings as to the crime statistics of the proposed premises' main trading area and having noted that they were higher when compared to Greater Adelaide and the State as a whole; 8.56% compared to 1.04% and 5.53%, it stated that the statistics did not identify what proportion of crime was linked to the consumption of alcohol.
4. Having noted the proximity of the Cash Converters store to the proposed premises, the Report submitted that this should not be of concern because that store is regulated by legislation, and is subject to strict identification requirements, and the proposed premises will be designed to minimise potential risks. The Report added that the Applicant is a very experienced licensee, having been involved with many licensed premises over a long period of time, and that it has developed a suite of policies to mitigate any potential for gambling related harm, including its commitment to abide by the Gaming Machines Code of Practice and to partner with Gaming Care, an organisation established by the Australian Hotels Association to provide support to hotels to address the adverse consequences of the use of gaming machines.
5. In highlighting the differences between the proposed premises and the Smithfield Hotel Motel, the Applicant noted that hotel's trading hours are:

• ­ Midnight to 2:00am; and
  • ­ 8:00am to Midnight; and

• ­ Midnight to 3:00am; and
  • ­ 9:00am to Midnight.

6. The Report reviewed Gaming Machine Licence data to determine licence density. That analysis reveals that South Australia has a population of 1,781,516 persons and 13,647 electronic gaming machines (EGMs) in the State, which equates to a density of 7.66 gaming machines per 1000 residents for South Australia as a whole.
7. The Report noted that the number of persons living in the locality was 26,782 residents who currently have access to 40 gaming machines, which equates to a density of 1.493 EGMs per 1000 residents. It noted that if this application was granted the number of gaming machines in the area would increase to 80, but even so the density would remain low at 2.986 EGMs per 1000 residents compared to a State‑wide density of 7.66 EGMs per 1000 residents.
8. The Report noted that Playford has an NGR average for the 2023/2024 financial year, of $148,393.68 per gaming machine, compared to the State average of $81,691.99, and that Playford ranks fifth highest out of all 48 council areas in terms of the average NGR.
9. Whilst the Applicant acknowledged the relevance of these figures in relation to the potential risk of harm associated with the gaming application, it contended that any perceived risk must be balanced against the following:
   • the estimated NGR data for the proposed premises cannot yet be determined as it has not been constructed, nor has the number of gaming machines been confirmed;
   • ten gaming venues operate within the Playford council area, whereas there is only one other gaming venue within the locality;
   • the Applicant is not proposing to operate all 40 machines, and in any event will not be able to operate any gaming machines until they are purchased through the approved trading round;
   • the approved trading round requires other licensees to sell their existing entitlements which ultimately results in the number of entitlements decreasing in accordance with the policy objective; and
   • the Applicant's extensive policies and procedures, staff training, induction processes, the support it will be provided with from Gaming Care, and its longstanding history of compliance with gaming regulatory requirements puts it in a strong position to be able to manage and mitigate any harm related to the grant of the application.
10. The Applicant added that there was no evidence that granting the application would negatively impact any community buildings or facilities in the locality; that it would result in an increase of alcohol or gambling related harm; or that it would negatively impact the defined 'at‑risk' groups.
11. In conformity with a requirement of the Guidelines, the Applicant commissioned a survey to gauge support for the proposed premises.
12. The survey was in the following terms:
    • Q1a: Firstly, which of the following age groups do you fall into?
    • Q1b: What gender do you identify with?
    • Q2: What is the postcode where you reside?
    • Q3: There is a proposal to establish a new hotel known as the Parkway Tavern at the corner of The Parkway and Peachey Road, Munno Para SA 5115. The proposed site is situated opposite the Playford Shopping Centre on Peachey Road and is currently vacant. The proposed hotel will be a modern, attractive, family‑friendly development comprising a bistro, lounge bar, verandah, dining area, outdoor dining area, outdoor roof deck, gaming room, kitchen, and on‑site car parking facilities. There will be no takeaway bottle shop as part of the hotel nor any TAB/Sports bar facilities. The proposed hotel development has recently received planning approval from the local council. Do you support or oppose the proposed development?
    • Q4: Why do you support or oppose the proposed development?
    • Q5: Do you consider that the proposed development is in the community interest (e.g. improve amenity of a currently vacant site, new community facility, employment opportunities)?
    • Q6: Would you like to make any further comments regarding the new hotel development?
13. The survey consisted of 202 participants over the age of 18 who reside in the locality. Of these, 86% supported the proposed hotel development, 7% expressed no opinion, and 6% expressed their disapproval.
14. In conformity with its obligation to conduct community consultation, the Applicant wrote to 76 potential stakeholders and interest groups, advising them of its intention to apply for a gaming licence and inviting these groups to provide feedback.
15. Gaming Care provided a letter of support in favour of the proposed premises and specifically made mention of the Applicant's understanding of harm minimisation, early intervention, and of its commitment to meeting its regulatory requirements.
16. Renewal SA provided a letter of support, noting that the plans for the proposed premises were in line with its urban design guidelines, and made mention of the Applicant's long experience in the hospitality industry, its commitment to train and employ people from the local area, its understanding of the value of developing strong local networks, and its commitment to give back to the community via sponsorships.
17. Renewal SA is a State Government enterprise that collaborates with the private sector to facilitate housing development.
18. The Governing Council of MOC expressed concerns about having a gaming venue in a low socio‑economic area, the proximity of the Cash Converters store, potential congestion from increased traffic, and the potential for public intoxication, disorderly behaviour, and loitering. It also acknowledged that the proposed premises would provide much needed employment opportunities and its appreciation of the Applicant's charitable fund and sponsorship of local organisations, charities and sporting groups.
19. The Applicant responded to this by outlining its comprehensive policies and procedures, advising that traffic impacts had been carefully assessed by an expert traffic engineer, and of its commitment to providing a safe and enjoyable family‑friendly facility that would be free from unsafe, illegal or unacceptable behaviour.
20. Pastor Riggs from the Playford Uniting Church contacted the Applicant and advised of the church's association with Hope Street Services, and its special interest in the Skate Park opposite to the proposed premises. He expressed his approval of the fact that the proposed premises did not intend to have a bottle shop. He discussed training opportunities and stated that he thought that having a high‑quality facility of the type proposed was a positive thing.
21. The Statewide Gambling Therapy Service (SGTS) responded and drew attention to a recent study on late night gambling.[6] It noted that gaming machine gamblers using gaming machines between 12:00am and 8:00am, made up 11.6% of all such gamblers, and that the later into the early hours of the morning (i.e. 2:00am, and after 4:00am), the higher the problem gambling risks became.
22. SGTS acknowledged that the proposed premises would not remain open after 2:00am and that the Applicant should consider the research "should this change".
23. In reply, the Applicant has confirmed it has had regard to the relevant study, but will not be trading beyond 2:00am, and has no plans to change these trading hours. The Applicant further submitted that it is only to be authorised to trade until 2:00am, two days per week, with every other day limited to no later than 1:00am, which will further help mitigate such risks.
24. The Applicant noted that neither the South Australian Police (SAPOL) nor the local council opposed the application.
25. A matter critical to both applications was that the proposed premises was within a development known as Playford Alive, which the delegate noted was described by Renewal SA as "one of the largest urban developments in Australia", that is creating "a diverse, integrated and sustainable community while supporting skills training and economic growth".
26. In contending that both licenses were in the community's interest, in summary the Applicant's case was: the suburbs in the locality had experienced significant population growth, having risen by nearly 160% between the 2006 and 2021 Census, and that that growth was expected to continue and rise to about 40,000 when the Playford Alive project is completed; the proposed premises would provide the relevant community with a new, modern and attractive family oriented facility, that does not include a bottle shop, TAB, Keno, dart board or sports bar that will occupy a site that has been vacant since 2013; it will be within a Suburban Activity Centre Zone, and as a hotel, it will be the very type of development contemplated by the planning criteria for that zone and align with the Community Themes outlined in the City of Playford's Strategic Plan 2020‑2024; it has been over 30 years since a Gaming Machine Licence was granted in the locality and it has been over 180 years since a General and Hotel Licence, or its former equivalent, was granted in the locality.
27. It added that other supporting factors were: the only licensed premises within the locality that has a gaming licence is the Smithfield Hotel Motel, which it contended was a dated and very different facility that is on a major arterial road which of itself, significantly diminishes its amenity; there are no identified hospitals or drug and alcohol treatment centres, nor any accommodation or refuges for young or disadvantaged people, or "dry areas" within the locality; the Applicant is a very experienced hotelier which has developed a suite of venue‑specific policies and procedures to mitigate any potential harm or health impacts of the proposed venue; the proposed premises will generate employment in that it will employ a mix of up to 34 full‑time, part‑time, and casual staff, and that the construction and fit‑out of the proposed venue will also generate some employment opportunities; and its survey demonstrated that 86% of people surveyed within the locality considered the proposed hotel development to be in the community interest with comments such as: "the area is lacking in hotels/good quality hotels and needs a good hotel"; "there is nothing like the proposed hotel"; "it will be good for the community, local economy and will create jobs"; "it will be a good option for families"; and "there is no TAB and Sports bar".

1. The delegate received various submissions by way of objection to the grant of both licences, but I will focus upon those directed towards the grant of the gaming licence.
2. The objectors comprised of various residents, the proprietors of the Smithfield Hotel Motel and the Midway Hotel, who wrote a joint submission (The Hotel Objectors): the South Australian Council of Social Service Inc (SACOSS); Uniting Communities Incorporated (UC); the Australian Refugee Association Inc (ARA); Professor Michael Baigent, and the Member for Light, The Honourable Mr Tony Piccolo MP (Mr Tony Piccolo MP).

1. The delegate summarised the nature of their objections as follows:
   • saturation of gaming venues in the general area;
   • lack of community benefit;
   • the City of Playford's position on the gaming application;
   • crime, socio‑economic and other demographic factors;
   • risk of gambling‑related harm;
   • gaming venues are not to be located under the same roof as shops or within shopping complexes; and
   • criticism of the community engagement and survey undertaken by the Applicant.
2. Several objectors made the point that there are ten existing gaming venues within a 10 to 15 minute drive from the proposed premises; there are 360 gaming machines across Playford; the 2023/2024 aggregate NGR figures for Playford collectively show that the gaming venues within that area generated a NGR of $53,421,725.62; the average NGR per venue is $5 million, which is the highest in the State; and that by way of comparison, the aggregate NGR is $20 million more than higher income areas such as Unley and Prospect.
3. In reply, the Applicant submitted that Playford is the third largest council area in metropolitan Adelaide at 345 km2, with an estimated population of 107,069 persons as of 2023, and that by way of comparison, the City of Onkaparinga, with a council area of 518 km2, and estimated population of 180,865 has 22 gaming venues.
4. Several objectors submitted that the proposed premises would not contribute to the local community, and that the grant of the application would compromise the continued capacity of other gaming venues, such as the Angle Vale Tavern, and Centrals, which do support the local community, to continue to do so. The delegate noted that the Applicant submitted that it too is committed to supporting the local community's clubs, groups, and other organisations, through various initiatives such as sponsorship, donation, venue hire, training, and employment opportunities.
5. Some objectors expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed premises to Davoren Park, it being one of the most disadvantaged areas in the State and of evidence indicating that gambling harm is intensified in disadvantaged areas; that persons who experience social and/or economic disadvantage are less likely to avoid gaming machines in social settings; and of the correlation between a high density of gaming machines and harm.
6. The delegate noted that whilst the Applicant acknowledged Davoren Park's level of disadvantage, it submitted that it does not reflect the whole locality, and that it maintained its submission that the rest of the locality is developed with higher income levels in suburbs like Andrews Farm and Munno Para West.
7. Several objectors submitted that granting the application would result in an increase in crime, anti‑social behaviour, poverty, mental health issues, gaming and drug addiction, and domestic violence.
8. Some objectors questioned the Applicant's contention that the development, housing and population growth will increase the affluence of the locality, and asserted that there was no evidence to support this contention.
9. Several objectors submitted that the introduction of 40 additional gaming machines will negatively impact existing businesses and will result in an increase of problem gambling. They referred to statistics from a 2022 report of the Australian Gambling Research Centre, "Regular pokies gambling in Australia",[7] which indicated:
   • 81.9% [of] participants who gambled regularly on pokies were classified as being at risk of gambling harm, with younger age groups (18‑34 years; 89.2%) at highest risk;
   • 52.7% of regular pokies gamblers reported gambling alone;
   • 28.3% of women reported that they are more likely to gamble with their spouse or a family member/relative;
   • at‑risk gamblers spent approximately $500 per month (median) on gaming machines, with 19.4% reporting using credit cards to gamble;
   • the estimated median length of participants' pokies sessions was 2 hours;
   • only 9.2% of regular pokies gamblers reported seeking help for gambling harm, with the most common reason for not seeking help (65.4%) being embarrassment;
   • 39.3% of participants reported that their first experience of gambling with real money was on a gaming machine;
   • a large proportion of those surveyed reported having gambled on pokies more than fortnightly, with 61.6% reporting that they gamble on pokies at least once a week; and
   • probable serious mental illness was identified in 7% of regular pokies gamblers.
10. The delegate noted that the Applicant refuted this and asserted that the report relied upon by the objectors was based on an online survey of 1,016 participants, who reported gambling fortnightly on gaming machines, and that it was therefore "not a study of gambling habits amongst society more broadly", and that only 10.2% of the participants were from South Australia.
11. One objector relied on data from the Productivity Commission (2010) which observed that the social and economic costs of gambling have been estimated at $7 billion per year.
12. Several objectors raised concerns about the proposed premises posing a risk due to the proximity to MOC, a local library, and residential properties, which are home to families with young children, as well as the late‑night noise associated with venues of this nature.
13. The delegate noted that the Applicant submitted in reply that the risk of the proposed premises' proximity to the college was overstated because the college is not visible from the proposed premise; the distance from the proposed premises to the first access point of the college is approximately 600 metres, and although the college expressed some reservations about aspects of the application during the community consultation process, it did not lodge an individual submission of objection.
14. Several objectors called into question the efficacy of the Applicant's community engagement and the survey that it undertook. Many criticised the fact that the survey did not specifically mention the gaming machine application, and submitted that this omission was "deceptive and immoral" and added that the survey was of an insufficient number.
15. The delegate noted that in reply, the Applicant submitted that the survey consisted of persons who resided in the locality and that it was of a "sufficiently large sample size"; and that the survey "has not been deliberately skewed towards any particular age group or gender". The Applicant added that the survey was undertaken "anonymously by a professional research organisation based on available phone and address data".

1. The Hotel Objectors submitted that the application was not in the community interest because it was a "far from modest" application, that is in connection with a locality that experiences "serious economic disadvantage", that as of August 2024, was experiencing a NGR per venue that exceeded $5.3 million. They submitted that the survey results must be disregarded when considering community support, because the respondents to the survey were not asked to provide their views on each licence separately, such that the responses in support were completed on a false basis.
2. The Hotel Objectors submitted that that gaming venues and residents outside the locality should also be considered, given the nature of the locality, because local residents could be reasonably expected to travel "a few minutes" to existing hotels in the general vicinity of the locality.
3. The Hotel Objectors also contended that the application must be refused because the proposed premises share a common boundary with the Playford Shopping Centre, and upon completion will be so linked to or integrated with the shopping centre that they may properly be regarded as forming part of the centre so as to be barred by s 15A of the Gaming Act.
4. The Hotel Objectors added that in any case, the proposed premises was in an inappropriate location, given its proximity to the Cash Converters store, and the surrounding shopping and recreational facilities, such as a play area and skate park.
5. The Hotel Objectors filed their own expert report prepared by URPS,[8] and submitted that Future Urban had "glossed over" the level of disadvantage in the locality and failed to interpret the level of socio‑economic disadvantage within the locality.
6. The Hotel Objectors asserted that Future Urban gave little weight to the SEIFA data, noting that the significant population growth that it identified failed to acknowledge that the SEIFA scores reveal serious disadvantage, and submitted that given this data, "there is no precedent in the State for an application to introduce 40 new gaming machines into such a disadvantaged area."
7. The Hotel Objectors referred to an earlier decision of the Commissioner in which he refused an application for a gaming licence in connection with proposed premises in the development of the former Cheltenham Racecourse.[9] They drew particular attention to the evidence adduced in that case by Dr Charles Livingstone's commentary, which they summarised as follows:
   • The proposed venue's location being near a shopping centre and transport hub, raises concerns given the risks of "convenience gambling" where accessibility encourages gambling behaviour;
   • risks associated with venues adjacent to shopping centres, particularly to families and individuals who frequent these areas regularly, increases their likelihood of engaging in gambling activities;
   • physical barriers, like fences, would not effectively mitigate risks, as the venue's visibility from the shopping centre and road would still attract potential gamblers;
   • there is a positive correlation between gaming machine density and increased use, particularly in disadvantaged communities and among stressed populations, such as young men with reasonable employment under mortgage stress;
   • family-friendly venues normalise gambling, potentially influencing young people to see it as a normal activity;
   • the proximity of a shopping centre would attract more people from wide catchment areas to the gambling venue;
   • the venue is likely to attract people from neighbouring suburbs experiencing socio‑economic stress, making them vulnerable to gambling addiction;
   • 30% of regular poker machine users were problem gamblers, contributing to 60% of the revenue;
   • 75% of gambling problems were linked to poker machines, and adding more machines would increase harm;
   • the proposed venue was described as an ideal example of a convenience gambling venue, where accessibility would make it highly attractive to potential gamblers;
   • staff training measures were criticised, as insufficient to prevent gambling problems; and
   • the location was characterised as a "perfect storm" for gambling harm, due to its proximity to a shopping centre, transport hub, new residential areas, and existing socio‑economic challenges.
8. The Hotel Objectors submitted that these concerns applied in this case. Having noted that the Commissioner refused the Cheltenham Park application, the Hotel Objectors submitted that the site of the proposed premises was particularly problematic, being situated in a community with significant financial stress, including individuals at risk of mortgage stress. They added that recent NGR data indicates that gaming losses have increased significantly since the COVID‑19 pandemic, reversing a prior trend of diminishing losses.
9. In reply, the Applicant submitted the Report that was prepared by Mr Jenkins who has a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning (with Honours), and is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and Associate Director at Future Urban with ten plus years of experience in the industry, and submitted that he is "suitability qualified to speak to the matters set out in the report".
10. As for the Cheltenham Park decision, the Applicant submitted:
    • Concerns about the proposed premises being close to the shopping centre are overstated;
    • no new Hotel and Gaming application has been approved since 2011, which is contrary to the community and public interest;
    • policies and procedures have been developed to balance recreational activity and harm minimisation;
    • new measures have been introduced since the Cheltenham Park decision and the Productivity Commission's 2010 report to address risks associated with problem gambling;
    • new gaming venues near shopping centres, such as the Angle Vale Tavern, operate safely and successfully in local communities;
    • the Cheltenham Park decision highlighted a previous ratio of 1 machine per 200 people, with a reduction to 1 per 164 people if approved; and
    • the present application has 40 machines in the locality which results in a ratio of 1 machine per 678 people and 1 machine per 339 people if the gaming application is granted.
11. The Hotel Objectors also referenced Professor Delfabbro, who holds a PhD in the psychology of gambling behaviour, who expressed the following views:
    • There is a positive correlation between the density of gaming machines and increased harm, particularly in disadvantaged low socio‑economic areas;
    • the planning consultation acknowledged that the proposed venue would not be financially viable without gaming machine revenue, emphasizing the venue's reliance on gambling profitability; and
    • the Commissioner highlighted that there was no evidence to justify that the venue's community benefits would outweigh the potential negative impacts of gambling.
12. In regard to the cultural, recreational, employment or tourism aspects of the application, the Hotel Objectors submitted that the proposed premises would have little positive impact on tourism.
13. They noted that the Applicant did not specify any staff allocation, and they referred to an SJSC Research Centre paper: "An Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Gambling Industries on Median Household Income",[10] which references loss of employment associated with anticipated gaming losses.
14. The Hotel Objectors took issue with the Applicant's survey for essentially the same reasons advanced by some of the resident objectors.
15. The Hotel Objectors cited the decision of this Court in Mansfield Park Hotel (SA) Pty Ltd (Mansfield Park)[11] where the Court acknowledged the concern with late night gaming trading operations within disadvantaged localities.
16. In reply, the Applicant asserted that the gaming hours which were considered in Mansfield Park were substantially different to those sought by it, noting that in that case, the Mansfield Park Hotel had prior approval to trade until 3:00am every day, and it was seeking an extension to trade until 5:00am every day. The Applicant acknowledged that the Court was right to be concerned by the hours sought in that matter, however, it submitted the proposed hours in the present application are reasonable, restricted hours which will not give rise to the same late‑night gambling concerns.
17. The Hotel Objectors accepted that gaming licences may be granted despite the potential for harm, however, they drew attention to the high NGR per machine and venue in the locality and the council area, and highlighted the link between proximity and problem gambling, and the likely increase of harm, suggesting that it is: "logical to reason that a higher percentage of the gaming revenue will be new rather than a transferred expenditure."
18. In reply, the Applicant reiterated that it would not allow live entertainment, thereby reducing the scope for noise and amenity concerns, and that its proposed gaming hours would never go past 2:00am and even then, it would only be for two days a week. It added that the Smithfield Hotel Motel trades one hour later each day of the week.

South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS)

1. SACOSS described itself as the "peak representative body for the non‑government community social and health sectors in South Australia". It objected to the application on the basis that it is not in the public interest due to a number of adverse consequences. It submitted that the grant of the application would result in an increase in problem gambling in the Munno Para area and in Playford more broadly.
2. It made particular reference to the 2010 Productivity Commission Report (the Productivity Report) in submitting that there is a correlation between increasing gaming machine turnover and problem gambling.
3. It relied upon the Gambling Prevalence in South Australia (2018) report (the 2018 Study) which stated that: "In SA, 0.7% of respondents were classified as problem gamblers, and 2.2% were classified as moderate‑risk gamblers. The combined 'at-risk' rate of 2.9% (problem‑moderate risk combined) has not changed since 2012 (3.1%)." It submitted that this comprised of evidence to suggest that gambling, namely "pokies", is associated with substantial harm.
4. It also relied upon a report funded by the Australian Research Council for a Coalition of Organisations (ARCCO) which covers an extensive range of impacts that poker machine gambling cause individuals and broader communities, which the delegate summarised as follows:
   • economic hardship, homelessness, indebtedness, and loss of assets;
   • socio-economically disadvantaged groups are more likely to suffer adverse economic impacts of increased gambling;
   • increased crime rates, drug and alcohol issues, anxiety, stress, guilt, distress, and poor general health;
   • depression, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and suicide; and
   • family breakdown and violence, loss of friendships and relationship stress.
5. SACOSS submitted that based on the Productivity Report, it was likely that if the gaming licence was granted at least 65 children would experience depravation, and many more persons would be adversely affected.
6. SACOSS noted that Playford already has ten existing pokies venues and highlighted that the official July 2024 figures indicate that, collectively, these venues generate a NGR of approximately $52 million, which amounts to an average of $5.2 million NGR per venue. Based on these figures, SACOSS submitted that the grant of this gaming licence would lead to an opportunity cost of an additional $5 million per year of "discretionary spending", which otherwise would have been injected into local businesses. SACOSS noted that most of this revenue is taken out of the locality rather than being distributed within it such that the cumulative effect of this will result in reduced household income in the locality. It submitted that this in turn would negatively impact job security.
7. Drawing on a study from the SA Centre of Economic Studies, SACOSS submitted that for every $1 million spent on poker machines, only two to three employment opportunities arise, given that gaming rooms require few staff. SACOSS noted the positives of new job opportunities during the construction phase of the venue, however, it submitted that it would have minimal net employment benefits and that local jobs will suffer in the long run.
8. SACOSS emphasised that a high level of people seeking help due to gambling harm and addiction is accredited to "active marketing" which entices the idea that people will get a "lucky break" by winning at the pokies and submits that people living on lower incomes are highly vulnerable to this kind of marketing.
9. The Applicant submitted that the Productivity Report was dated, it being based upon data gathered from 2008. It submitted that since then things had changed and there were now far more comprehensive measures in place to mitigate the harm from the use of gaming machines including:
   • limiting EFTPOS and ATM withdrawals;
   • reducing maximum bets per machine;
   • the introduction of barring arrangements and facial recognition technology to assist licensees in identifying subsequent barred persons;
   • automated risk monitoring software;
   • regular CBS inspections to ensure adequate risk mitigation, policies and procedures are in place;
   • introduction of mandatory training requirements for gaming machine venue staff;
   • new licence conditions;
   • changes to advertising and responsible gambling services;
   • mandatory warning messages;
   • major reforms to gaming legislation including the introduction of the 'community impact' test and updated 'objects' of the legislation which focus primarily on harm minimisation;
   • new guidelines for Liquor and Gaming applications which require applicants to address potential harms and how they will mitigate associated risks;
   • new government policies and strategies to achieve gambling reforms;
   • new/ updated Gambling Codes of Practice;
   • increased government funding to the Gambling Rehabilitation Fund; and
   • gaming machines must comply with the latest Australian/New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard.
10. The Applicant added that the Productivity Report also identified some benefits of gambling, namely increased taxation revenue and contributions to local communities, both of which remain relevant considerations.
11. The Applicant submitted that the 2018 Study confirmed that most South Australians who use gaming machines "gamble responsibly", are not considered "problem gamblers", and that the study found "the gambling industry has evolved rapidly over recent years, particularly with respect to the growth of new modes such as wagering on mobile devices" and that "significant decreases" for the usage of gaming machines has occurred between 2005 (30%) and 2018 (19%).
12. The Applicant added that the risk of increased problem gambling is not an unacceptable risk, especially when balanced against the positive aspects of the application.
13. To support this, the Applicant relied upon statistics from the 2018 Study which it said established that 98.66% of the local population who use the gaming machines would not exhibit problem gambling behaviour.
14. The Applicant submitted that there was no substantive evidence to support SACOSS's submission as to the number of children who would be adversely affected by the grant of the application. It added that the likely absence of an adverse impact is illustrated by the fact that the Angle Vale Tavern is situated within a thriving shopping complex that is currently undergoing a "significant re-development as a result of surging demand for one of South Australia's fastest growing regions" and as such, is rapidly expanding.
15. The Applicant submitted that strict controls on advertising and promotion will be in place, and as such it anticipated that the proposed premises would not adversely impact the gaming or other revenue generated by existing premises in the locality.
16. As to the suggested loss of local jobs, the Applicant reiterated that it intends to employ 34 new staff upon the completion of the Hotel, which it contended was a substantial benefit. The Applicant also referred to the significant time during which the proposed site has been vacant and providing no employment opportunities, and noted that previous decisions of this Court had recognised employment benefits associated with the grant of new packaged liquor applications.
17. SACOSS submitted that granting the gaming licence could exacerbate crime levels, specifically theft and larceny, and referenced several studies in support of this submission. It contended that the Applicant failed to adequately address this issue and had not considered the potential increased criminal activity associated with the proposed premises.
18. SACOSS noted that the Applicant has provided little evidence of genuine community engagement, and submitted that the survey data is "woefully inadequate" given the lack of evidence of support for the proposed premises or the need for pokies machines. It suggested that the Applicant blurred the responses made in relation to the hotel to infer support for a gaming venue.

1. Mr Simon Schrapel submitted an objection on behalf of UC on the basis that 40 new gaming machines will increase the potential for gambling harm for those within the locality.
2. Mr Schrapel submitted that by reference to the 2021 Census data, the median weekly income for households in Munno Para is 25% lower compared to the South Australian population.
3. In reply, the Applicant submitted that this is a "good illustration of how some parts of a locality can differ from other parts despite being in close proximity" and observed that in accordance with URPS' findings, the suburbs of Andrews Farm and Munno Para West have higher personal income levels than Greater Adelaide and SA, while the suburb of Munno Para is only marginally below Greater Adelaide and SA.
4. Mr Schrapel also drew on the fact that as of the 2023‑2024 financial year, Playford has a combined 360 gaming machines distributed across 10 venues, and highlights that collectively, those venues generate a NGR of approximately $53 million. He noted, by way of comparison, with 211 gaming machines distributed across six venues, the City of Burnside and City of Mitcham generated a combined net revenue of $19 million. Mr Schrapel submitted that considering these figures and proven evidence of the locality's disadvantaged demographics, granting this licence would inflict gambling related harm.
5. Mr Schrapel submitted that the evidence establishes that:
   • over 40% of gambling revenue comes from those living with addiction;
   • for every 1 person living with a gambling problem, 6 other people in their life, including at least 1 child are adversely impacted;
   • gambling drives household debt - leading to devastating emotional and psychological effects;
   • gambling reinforces gendered drivers of violence, exacerbating the frequency and severity of intimate partner violence against women;
   • 73% of Australians aged 18 and over (3 in 4 people in the Munno Para community) reported spending money on one or more gambling products in the last 12 months and of this 33% had gambled using gaming machines; and
   • the National Gambling Trends Study in 2022 found an increase in spending on gaming machines post COVID restrictions.

1. Mr Christopher Chalubek submitted an objection on behalf of the ARA and expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on refugee and migrant communities.
2. Mr Chalubek submitted that Munno Para and its neighbouring suburbs are home to refugee and migrant families who are in the process of establishing financial stability and community integration. He noted the disproportionate effect that gaming venues have on disadvantaged localities and drew attention to the challenges already faced by refugee and migrant communities. He submitted that these challenges may be exacerbated by the prospect of a new gaming venue.

1. Professor Michael Baigent, Professor of Psychiatry, Discipline of Psychiatry in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University, specialises in addiction psychiatry and gambling related harm. He has over 25 years' experience and co-authored the RANZCP and RACP position statement on the prevention and treatment of gambling related harm. The delegate summarised his key points as follows:
   • Negative impact on community health: The increase in gaming machines will have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of the local community, particularly those vulnerable to gambling harm. Studies show a direct correlation between the number of gaming machines and the prevalence of problem gaming;
   • Gaming machines as a high risk gambling method: they are identified as the most harmful form of gambling due to their addictive features, such as linked jackpots and high minimum bets. Research indicates that 80% of weekly gaming machines users are at risk of harm, affecting various aspects of their lives (financial, emotional, and social);
   • Severe outcomes of gambling disorders: Individuals with gambling disorders, often at the severe end of the spectrum, experience crises such as suicidal ideation.
   • Research from Victoria highlights that 4% of suicides were linked to gambling related harm;
   • Broader societal impacts: Gambling harm extends beyond individuals to families and communities. National surveys show that for every problem gambler, six others are negatively affected with significant links between gambling and criminal activity; and
   • Economic and social costs: South Australia has disproportionately high gambling expenditure compared to Western Australia, which has stricter gaming machine regulations. The availability of gaming machines undermines income, employment, and housing, which are critical determinations of community health.

1. The locality is within the electorate of Mr Tony Piccolo MP. He lodged a submission against the application for a gaming licence on behalf of UC, Relationships Australia South Australia (RASA), and Anglicare. He stated that they took no objection to the Applicant building the proposed tavern.
2. The grounds for opposing the gaming application were identified by the delegate as follows:
   • the grant of the application would have a disproportionate negative impact on the Munno Para community, particularly as it is a lower income area characterised by high levels of debt;
   • the application does not breach s 15A of the Gaming Act, however, the proposed location for the premises is of concern as it falls within the "spirit" of the law, given it is adjacent to the Playford Town Centre and across the road from a community park/playground;
   • the proposed premises is walking distance to MOC with approximately 1,700 students. Given the negative impacts associated with gambling, MOC had formally passed a resolution to oppose the application.
3. Mr Piccolo provided data in support of his submissions. He submitted that there are ten existing premises with 360 gaming machines within a 10‑15 minute drive of the proposed premises and drew attention to 2023/2024 NGR figures for Playford which indicate that collectively, those venues generated a NGR of $53,421,725.62. He stated that despite the cost‑of‑living crisis, this figure had increased from $51,869,938.07 in 2022/2023 and that it is higher than other more affluent areas in Adelaide.
4. Mr Piccolo submitted that granting the gaming licence would also negatively impact existing small businesses. Based on the figures just mentioned, he said that each venue generated an average of $5.2 million NGR per year. He submitted that it could be inferred that if this gaming licence was granted, something of the order of $5 million per year of "discretionary spending" that would otherwise would have been injected into local businesses, will instead be lost on gaming machines. Mr Piccolo referred to research undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies and drew on the fact that most of this revenue is taken out of the locality rather than being distributed through a local multiplier effect on staff, services, and businesses. Mr Piccolo emphasised that for every dollar invested in pokies, less jobs are created, compared to money injected into local businesses. He submitted that the cumulative effect of this is harm to the economic wellbeing of existing small businesses. Mr Piccolo submitted in conclusion that the grant of the gaming licence would erode social capital and harm the social cohesion of the community and would potentially lead to greater levels or family and domestic violence and lower levels of financial crime.
5. Mr Piccolo provided email correspondence with Tracey Nye from Gambling Health Services and Nancy Penna, Executive General Manager of Community Services, Anglicare.
6. Ms Nye referred to a report of 2010 titled: "The Influence of Venue Characteristics on a Player's Decision to Attend a Gambling Venue" that was commissioned in support of RASA's initiative to reduce the number of gaming machines in the community, particularly those adjacent to community spaces. She noted that the report observed that when a gaming venue is situated close to other public areas, people frequently attend, because the accessibility of the venue becomes highly attractive to potential gamblers.
7. Ms Penna provided collated feedback from the staff of Anglicare SA, which the delegate summarised as follows:
   • most Australian adults (73%) gambled in the last 12 months, with 38% gambling weekly (major types: lotteries, horse racing, sports betting, and pokies);
   • approximately half of these gamblers are at risk of harm;
   • men are more likely to gamble frequently and spend more;
   • many Australians feel like there is too much opportunity for gambling and are concerned about the risks;
   • reducing the accessibility can decrease severe financial hardship and personal bankruptcies.
   • living near venues correlates to increased financial hardship and mental health issues, particularly in socio‑economically vulnerable populations; and
   • problem gambling has a consequent negative impact on families, specifically financial strain, and relationship issues.
8. Mr Piccolo provided a presentation by Mark Henley to support his submissions, which detailed the nature of the proposed premises, an assessment of the drive times to other existing licence premises in the area, research of negative impacts associated with gaming, and a statement of objection by MOC.
9. Mr Piccolo also highlighted that one of the floor plans for the proposed premises stated that 25% of space was to be allocated to gaming machines.

1. In reply to Mr Piccolo's assessment of the drive times associated with existing licenced premises in the area, the Applicant submitted that, excluding the Smithfield Hotel Motel, the drive time to each premise involved round trips of, or in excess of, eight minutes. It then referred to the observation made by this Court in Woolworths Limited v Smithfield Hotel Pty Ltd,[12] where in connection with an application for a retail liquor merchant's licence at Blakes Crossing, the Court spoke of it not being reasonable or realistic to expect patrons to have to travel distances involving journey times of eight minutes along and over not insignificant roads to satisfy their retail liquor demands.[13]
2. In reply to Mr Piccolo's comments about the size of the proposed gaming area, the Applicant reiterated that the licenced hotel (excluding car parks) is approximately 1,578 m2, and the gaming area is 238 m2 (i.e. 15% of the licenced area). It submitted that the venue was designed this way to reflect that "gaming will be a component of but not the sole focus of the proposed premise."
3. The Applicant also relied on supportive comments from residents of the locality who completed the survey in support of their submissions.
4. As to the objections more generally, the Applicant suggested that it was not clear that all of the resident objectors resided in the locality, and on the face of it many of the views expressed appeared to be "copied" and those views had to be weighed against the positive views expressed in the survey which was clearly limited to residents of the locality.
5. As for the concerns expressed about NGR, the Applicant made the following points: Playford (with $53 million NGR) is a large area and the City of Onkaparinga ($82 million) and City of Charles Sturt ($82 million) have similarly high NGRs; the locality has a very low hotel and gaming machine licence density; the introduction of gaming machines will increase the number of machines in the locality, however, not to an extent that will give rise to density concerns; and there will be an overall decrease of the number of gaming machines in South Australia given the nature of the Gaming Trading Round.
6. It also pointed again to its extensive gaming policies and procedures, staff training, support from Gaming Care, and its strong history of compliance with a view to demonstrating that it was in a strong position to mitigate and manage any gaming related harm.
7. As for the potential risk of gambling related harm, it submitted that: gaming machines are a legal, highly regulated enterprise that are enjoyed by a majority of society; hotel and gaming venues provide positive benefits to the local community; gaming applications need to be assessed on balance; whilst there are risks associated with poker machines, the Parliament has not prohibited them on these grounds; and the question to consider is whether the risk of harm is unacceptable in this particular locality.
8. It submitted that there was no unacceptable risk associated with the Gaming Application, noting the observations made by this Court in SGL Hotels Pty Ltd t/as Ovingham Hotel (Bombay Bicycle Club),[14] where the Court said:

I do not underestimate the damage that gambling related harm can cause ... But just as alcohol is a substance that is widely used in the community and for the most part is enjoyed without adverse consequences, so it is with gambling. And, as with alcohol, in connection with gambling, and in particular the use of gaming machines, Parliament must be taken to understand that by not prohibiting their use, there will be some adverse consequences. Thus, a finding of a possibility of increased risk of gambling related harm does not compel the refusal of an application. Consideration needs to be given to the extent of the possibility, the extent of the potential harm, and whether the implementation of measures short of refusal might be appropriate.[15]

1. It also made reference to the observations of this Court in Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Federal Hotel Motel) v Liquor and Gambling Commission,[16] where it said:

The legislation of gaming machines reflects a policy choice made by the Parliament. It must be taken to have formed the judgement, that whilst it is inevitable that gaming machines will cause harm to some, on balance, that is a price worth paying to regulate their use and to derive from them income for the State.

...

It is also notable that pursuant to s 16 of the GM Act, the Commissioner may approve no more than 40 gaming machines under a gaming machine licence. It must follow that Parliament has envisaged that in appropriate circumstances up to 40 gaming machines in a particular licenced venue is an acceptable number and that beyond the number is unacceptable.[17]

1. As for the objectors' complaints about the survey, the Applicant noted that:
   • it undertook detailed research to identify various stakeholder and community groups, Renewal SA reviewed the list of potential stakeholder and community groups to ensure that the Applicant had covered the key members of the community;
   • it went beyond the requirements of the Guidelines to notify a number of groups or organisations which are not typically key stakeholders;
   • each letter was sent by express post with tracking numbers and if any were "return to sender", or additional stakeholder or community groups were identified, it attempted to locate an alternative address for these parties and/or issued further letters;
   • the majority of letters were sent five months prior to the application being lodged, allowing all recipients to have adequate notice;
   • it met and communicated directly with the Mayor of Playford prior to lodging the application;
   • it responded or engaged with stakeholders such as MOC and Mr Tony Piccolo MP;
   • it spoke with Mr Peter Riggs; and
   • it engaged an independent expert research organisation to undertake a balanced survey of persons residing in the local community.
2. As for the alleged bar by s 15A of the Gaming Act, it submitted that the proposed premises would plainly be a separate entity that was not in any way part of the Playford Shopping Centre.

1. All parties were subsequently invited to make further submissions following the delivery of reasons Heysen Hotel.[18] In that case the applicant wished to build a large hotel in Mount Barker across the road from the Mount Barker South Shopping Centre and adjacent to a yet to be constructed On The Run service station and a Kentucky Fried Chicken store, in an area of Mount Barker that had, and was continuing to experience, significant population growth.
2. It applied for a hotel licence, and a gaming licence to conduct gaming at the hotel, as well as the grant of 40 gaming machine entitlements. It contended that the project, which was to cost in excess of $20 million, would only be viable if it could conduct gaming with that number of gaming machines and that it would not proceed unless that application succeeded. It produced expert evidence that established that this was so. The applications were positively supported by the local council.
3. The applications attracted only one objector, the owner of a hotel in Mount Barker that operated gaming machines. The objector introduced expert evidence that establishes that there is a clear association between problem gambling and the use of gaming machines, and that those who use gaming machines after midnight are much more likely to be problem gamblers. It tendered evidence that demonstrated that since the COVID‑19 restrictions had been lifted, there has been a steady increase in the NGR in this State. The objector argued that it was not in the community interest to grant the liquor licence or the gaming licence, as there were already numerous hotels and take away liquor facilities in the locality, and the addition of more gaming machines would inevitably cause gambling related harm in a locality whose residents can be expected to be experiencing mortgage stress. It also raised the s 15A of the Gaming Act point.
4. The Court rejected the s 15A point despite finding that the proposed premises would share a common boundary with the Mount Barker South Shopping Centre and the yet to be constructed On The Run service station and KFC. It did so because it found that they would not be so linked with each other that they must be regarded as being part of the same complex. The Court granted both licences. It was satisfied that the Liquor Guidelines had been met and that that the hotel would meet the desire of many in the locality of having access to a large modern hotel offering a full suite of services in an area of Mount Barker that is, for now, bereft of this type of infrastructure. It held that the hotel would add to the attractiveness of Mount Barker as a tourist destination and would generate jobs for some of those living in the locality. It held that there was nothing about the social profile of those living in the locality that raised any concerns in terms of liquor consumption.
5. As for the gaming licence, it accepted that the project would not proceed unless the gaming machine licence enabling 40 gaming machine entitlements was granted, because the project would not be viable without the revenue generated by them. It was satisfied that all of the requirements of the Gaming Guidelines had been met. It held that subject to imposing a condition on the gaming machine licence requiring the applicant to cease gaming at midnight from Sunday to Thursday unless those days fall before a public holiday for a period of five years, the grant of the application was in the community interest.
6. The Applicant in this case sought to draw favourable analogies from Heysen Hotel, namely that like there, this case involved a rapidly growing area that would welcome the addition of a modern attractive family friendly hotel and that the project would only proceed if both applications were granted.
7. The objectors sought to point out significant differences between the facts of each case, and in particular, the very different socio‑economic profiles of the respective localities and the absence of expert evidence that established the unviability of the project if the gaming application failed.

1. The delegate was satisfied that the Applicant correctly identified the locality.
2. She was satisfied as to planning consent for the purposes of s 17C of the Gaming Act.
3. In respect of the issue regarding s 15A of the Gaming Act, having found that proposed premises will share a common lane with the Playford Shopping Centre, namely, Elan Lane, she found that they would share a common boundary. However, she then went on to find that the proposed premises would not be so linked to or integrated with the shopping centre that they may properly be regarded as forming part of the same complex. She therefore found that the prohibition created by s 15A of the Gaming Act did not apply.
4. The delegate then observed that although the application clearly enjoyed some support, she was satisfied that a significant number of members of the relevant community were opposed to the introduction of additional gaming machines in the locality.
5. The delegate then observed that in Heysen Hotel, there was significant evidence before the Court, that without the gaming revenue stream, the project would not proceed. She noted that here the Applicant asserted that the hotel will not be viable unless the gaming application is approved, but had not provided expert evidence in support of that submission. She reasoned that because of this, she ought to place limited weight on that assertion. She added that in any case, even if the Applicant's assertion was correct, that the applications are binary, it would not make any difference to the outcome of the gaming application.
6. The delegate found that the approval of the gaming application would clearly provide some benefits to the community: being additional employment; it would provide those who enjoy using gaming machines a comfortable and relatively safe environment in which to do so; the gaming revenue would likely improve the viability of The Parkway Tavern; and it may result in increased revenue and therefore increased sponsorships of community groups, sporting teams, etc.
7. She found that the grant of this application would lead to a significant increase in the number of gaming machines in the locality from the present 40 at the Smithfield Hotel Motel to up to 80. That said, she accepted that the gaming machine density would remain low at 2.986 per 1000 residents in the locality, which is a lower density than South Australia as a whole.
8. The delegate then referred to the following observation made in Heysen Hotel:

Although much of the NGR generated at the Heysen Hotel will simply be a redistribution of NGR currently occurring in the other gaming venues in Mount Barker, it is also likely that the overall NGR for the locality will increase. It is difficult to put a figure on this, but what is clear is that the addition of gaming machines in an attractive new facility will inevitably result in some additional members of the relevant community losing money on gambling that they might otherwise spend to the benefit of themselves and their families. It is likely that the number of problem gamblers in the locality will also increase. For some of these, the consequences for them and their families could be catastrophic. This could lead to some increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.[19]

1. She found that this observation was apposite to the application and added that, "if anything, given the significant socio-economic disadvantage in this locality, the risk of such an eventuality is much greater."
2. The delegate found that the locality in the present application was quite different to the locality under consideration in Heysen Hotel. She found that the locality is within one of the most disadvantaged LGA's in the country.
3. She found that the locality has a higher proportion of young adults, higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in comparison to Greater Adelaide and has families and persons from low socio‑economic groups. She found that the average annual household income within the locality was significantly lower and there are close to twice as many one parent families compared to Greater Adelaide. She found that unemployment was higher and the locality's residents were more likely to be renting compared to Greater Adelaide. She also found that the locality has a higher proportion of mortgaged homes and a lower proportion of outright home ownership.
4. She accepted UPRS' conclusion that the locality faces "significant socio‑economic challenges" given that SEIFA data places it in the top 10% of most disadvantaged areas in the State.
5. She found that the NGR for the Playford ranks fifth out of 48 Local Government Areas, and the NGR per machine is higher in the Playford ($148,393.68) compared to the state average ($81,691.99).
6. She noted that the Applicant is open to limiting midweek hours to midnight on the same basis as was imposed by the Court in Heysen Hotel.
7. She acknowledged that the locality has a younger population demographic and accepted that the area is undergoing significant regeneration and renewal in light of the Playford Alive development. She said that it was clear that the locality will continue to experience significant population growth, and it may well be that in ten years' time the demographics and SEIFA profile and level of disadvantage in the locality will have improved, but added that for now she was not satisfied that an additional gaming machine licence would be in this particular community's interest. She said:

In light of the concerning socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the locality and the high NGR per gaming machine in the LGA, the Gaming application "sends alarm bells ringing", and in my view, the introduction of 40 new gaming machines into this locality carries with it an unacceptable risk of causing increased gambling related harm.

I am of the view that approving the Gaming Machine Licence with an entitlement to 40 gaming machines in this locality poses an unacceptable risk and is not in the community interest.

1. On review, I heard oral submissions from counsel for the Applicant, the Hotel Objectors, SACOSS and Mr Raffaele Piccolo. In addition to these, I have taken into account the submissions advanced by the Applicant and all of the objectors to the delegate.
2. In its application for review, the Applicant contended that the delegate made a number of errors in concluding that the grant of the gaming licence was not in the community interest.
3. It stated that she was wrong to find: that the gaming application sent alarm bells ringing and that the "introduction of 40 new gaming machines into this locality carries with it an unacceptable risk of causing increased gambling related harm"; and that the gaming application only enjoyed "some support" and that a "significant number of members of the relevant community are opposed to the introduction of additional gaming machines in the locality".
4. It stated that she placed too much weight on the submissions by the resident objectors and failed to heed the concerns that the Applicant had raised in respect of those submissions.
5. It stated that she failed to place sufficient weight on the level of community support for the gaming application identified in the Applicant's survey.
6. It stated that having correctly identified the relevant locality and having correctly found that the grant of the hotel licence was in the community interest, the delegate failed to give sufficient weight to the many findings that she made that established that it was in the community interest and the public interest to grant the gaming application.
7. It identified these findings as follows:
   • planning consent has been granted by Playford for a "hotel with associated advertising, car parking and landscaping".
   • there is significant population growth in the locality as identified by Future Urban.
   • if the gaming application was granted, gaming machine density in the locality would remain low and would be lower than South Australia as a whole.
   • the Applicant has significant industry experience and acumen, and noted the positive reference provided by Gaming Care SA, which was supportive of the applications being granted.
   • the shopping centre prohibition created by s 15A of the Gaming Act did not apply.
   • the Applicant "met the requirements of the Gaming Guidelines regarding the Community Impact Submission".
   • the Applicant's policies and proposed procedures around gambling harm minimisation are sufficiently comprehensive and are in keeping with what might be expected of an experienced hotel operator.
   • the Applicant has significant experience operating hotels, and demonstrated history of compliance with the law, leading the delegate to state that she had "no concerns in relation to their suitability to hold a Gaming Machine Licence".
   • the approval of the gaming application would provide benefits to the community including additional employment, a comfortable and relatively safe environment for people to enjoy using gaming machines and gaming revenue which "will likely improve the viability of the Parkway Tavern and may result in increased revenue and therefore increased sponsorships of community groups, sporting teams, etc".
   • the Applicant is open to limiting mid‑week gaming hours to midnight on the same basis as was imposed by the Court in Heysen Hotel.
   • the locality is undergoing "significant regeneration and renewal in light of the Playford Alive development".
   • the proposed site has been vacant since 2013.
   • the proposed site is situated within the $250 million Playford Alive Town Centre area which is the heart of the broader Playford Alive community development.
   • Playford Alive is "one of the largest urban renewal projects in Australia" and will house approximately 40,000 people on completion.
   • the proposed site is situated within a Suburban Activity Centre Zone and a 'hotel' development is expressly contemplated as part of the planning criteria for that Zone.
   • the proposed premises will align with the Community Themes outlined in the Playford's Strategic Plan 2020‑2024.
   • the locality had an approximate population of 26,782 persons as at the time of the 2021 Census data.
   • the population of the locality has experienced a growth rate of 159.34% between the time of the 2006 Census and 2021 Census.
   • the Applicant operates a leading registered training organisation business which includes specialist hospitality training courses and bespoke employment solutions for a range of qualifications.
   • the proposed premises would provide the community with a new, modern and attractive family‑oriented development that does not include a bottle shop, TAB, Keno, dartboard or sports bar type facilities.
   • there are no identified hospitals or drug and alcohol treatment centres, nor any accommodation or refuges for young or disadvantaged people, or 'dry areas' within the locality.
   • the Applicant has developed a suite of venue‑specific policies and procedures to mitigate any potential harm or health impacts of the proposed venue.
   • the proposed premises will employ a mix of up to 34 full‑time, part‑time, and casual staff, and the construction and fit‑out of the proposed venue will also generate some employment opportunities.
   • it has been over 30 years since a Gaming Machine Licence was granted in the locality and over 180 years since a General and Hotel Licence (or its former equivalent) was granted in the locality.
   • the Applicant's survey demonstrated that 86% of people surveyed within the locality considered the proposed hotel development to be in the community interest. Further, common themes of the survey feedback were that "the area is lacking in hotels/good quality hotels and needs a good hotel"; "there is nothing like the proposed hotel"; "it will be good for the community, local economy and will create jobs"; "it will be a good option for families"; "there is no TAB and sports bar".
   • the Applicant's community consultation included writing to 76 potential stakeholders and interest groups, advising of its intention to make the gaming application and inviting these groups to provide feedback.
   • neither SAPOL nor the local council opposed the gaming application.
   • Renewal SA and Gaming Care provided letters of support for the Applicant.
   • Renewal SA selected the Applicant to develop the site as a hotel after undertaking a detailed expression of interest process. Renewal SA's support for the Applicant was based on Renewal SA's urban design guidelines for the Playford Alive Town Centre precinct, the fact the site would be developed as a family and community‑oriented hotel, the Applicant's experience, the Applicant's commitment to train and employ people from the local area, the Applicant's commitment to give back to the local community.
   • there is only one gaming machine licence in the locality for the Smithfield Hotel Motel. The Smithfield Hotel Motel is on the outer edge of the locality approximately 2.6 kilometres away by road from the proposed premises.
   • the proposed premises will only trade until 2:00am on two days per week, with every other day limited to l:00am, which helps to mitigate any risk associated with late night gambling. In contrast, the Smithfield Hotel Motel is authorised to trade one hour later on each day of the week.
   • Playford is the third largest council area in metropolitan Adelaide with an estimated population of 107,069 persons as of 2023.
   • the Applicant is committed to supporting the local community's clubs, groups, and other organisations through various initiatives such as sponsorship, donation, venue hire, training, through employment opportunities or otherwise.
   • the proposed gaming area would only be 238 m2 (i.e. 15%) out of a total licensed area of 1,578 m2 and designed in a manner to reflect that gaming will be a component of but not the sole focus of the proposes premises.
   • there are parts of the locality where the demographics are consistent with or more favourable than State averages. For example, median personal and household income levels in suburbs such as Andrews Farm and Munno Para West (which make up the majority of the western part of the locality) have higher median personal income levels than Greater Adelaide and South Australia.
   • 2024 was a record year for new home sales for the Playford Alive development, with the local council also reporting that on average ten people per day are forecast to move into the area over the next 20 years.
   • major new residential and infrastructure developments have been announced for the locality at both State and Federal government levels.
8. In its oral submissions on review, the Applicant commenced by noting that the Gaming Act and the GA Act must be read together and collectively they reveal a Parliamentary acknowledgement that not only are gaming machines not banned in South Australia, but new gaming machine licences will be granted; the focus of the legislation in respect of new applications is directed towards harm minimisation, not harm elimination; that the Government derives considerable revenue from gaming machines; and the Gaming Act prescribes that a portion of the revenue generated must be applied to sporting and charitable funds and to gambler's rehabilitation.
9. The Applicant then focussed upon the delegate's reasons in granting the hotel licence, noting that she found that: the locality and area more generally was experiencing significant population growth; the density of liquor licences within the locality was low; the Applicant was an experienced licensee that intended to implement a range of policies and procedures to address harm minimisation; and that the proposed premises would provide improved choice, improved amenity, and significant employment and training opportunities for those residing in the locality. It added that she was clearly persuaded that these positive features outweighed any potential harm that might come from the addition of another licensed facility within the locality.
10. The Applicant then noted that in connection with the gaming application, the delegate found that it had met the requirements of the Guideline's requirements, its policies and procedures around harm minimisation are what might be expected of an experienced hotel operator, and that she had no concerns about its suitability to hold a gaming licence. It noted that she found that the approval of the gaming licence would provide some benefits to the community, through additional employment, increased sponsorship for community groups and sporting clubs, and the provision of a comfortable and relatively safe environment for those who enjoy using gaming machines. It noted that she found that even with the grant of the gaming application the number of gaming machines in the locality would remain low at 2.986 EGMs per 1,000 residents. It added that given that this ratio was based upon the 2021 census, given the substantial population growth, that ration would in fact be much lower. It tendered evidence that suggested that the number of people residing in the locality as of 2024 was just under 30,000.[20]
11. The Applicant submitted that these findings should have gone a long way to satisfying the delegate that the grant of the gaming licence was in the community interest and that where she appeared to have erred was because she placed too much weight upon the supposed socio‑economic disadvantage of the locality and Playford's high NGR.
12. The Applicant submitted that the delegate's apparent concern about the socio‑economic profile of the locality was inconsistent with her acknowledgment that the locality had a younger population, was undergoing significant regeneration, and that perhaps in ten years the socio‑economic profile may have improved to the point where the gaming licence might be granted.
13. The Applicant submitted that the gaming application had much to commend it as it would lead to the establishment of a modern, attractive, state of the art, well planned, safe, and conveniently located hotel in an emerging town centre precinct, in stark contrast to the only other gaming venue in the locality, the Smithfield Hotel Motel.
14. The Applicant submitted that although the delegate was correct to find for the purposes of s 15 of the Gaming Act that the proposed premises were not so linked to or integrated with the Playford Shopping Centre that they ought be regarded as forming part of the complex, it submitted that she should have found that this consideration did not arise. It submitted that because the proposed premises was separated from the shopping centre by a public road, it did not share a common boundary.
15. It submitted that the expression "a common boundary" cannot literally mean no more than to have in common, a boundary, otherwise it would lead to absurd outcomes. It put forward by way of examples, premises separated by a major freeway, a sea, or a river. It submitted that the expression should be construed much more narrowly along the lines of "immediately abutting one another" so as to comprise of a clear test, and that because here, the proposed premises and the Playford Shopping Centre are separated by a public road, they do not share a common boundary. It submitted that anything other than its suggested narrow construction would lead to uncertainty.
16. The Applicant identified six grounds advanced by the objectors in opposing the application: the demographics of the local community and the low SEIFA score; the NGR for Playford; the number of parties who opposed the application and the defects in its survey; the proximity of the proposed premises to MOC; the proximity of the Cash Converters store, Playford Shopping Centre and medical centre; and the alleged proximity to other licensed premises.
17. In respect of the first of these, the Applicant accepted that the socio‑economic data for the locality suggested that some parts of it were more disadvantaged than Greater Adelaide and that Smithfield Plains and the nearby Davoren Park had low SEIFA scores. But it submitted that this has to be balanced by the fact that other parts of the locality are not so disadvantaged and that the area in and about the locality is undergoing major regeneration and renewal. It submitted that the reasonable inference to draw from the fact that new houses have and continue to be built at a rapid pace in that area is that the level of disadvantage is decreasing and will continue to decrease. It added that in weighing the significance of disadvantage it was important to recognise that the density of gaming machines in the locality is very low and would remain so even with the addition of 40 gaming machines, and that the proposed premises was to be conducted by one of the most experienced operators of hotel and gaming machines in this State.
18. In respect of the second, the Applicant accepted that Playford's NGR was relatively high compared to other council areas. But it invited the Court to note that Playford is very large in terms of size and population and that although within it, there are many gaming venues, all but one are outside of the relevant locality. It referred again to the very low density of gaming machines and submitted that just because the council area in which a proposed gaming venue is to be located had a high NGR, it does follow that there is significant gaming related harm occurring within the locality or that there would be an unacceptable risk of gaming related harm if the application was granted. It added that it would be reasonable to infer that much of the revenue generated by gaming machines at the proposed premises would be a re‑distribution of revenue presently being generated by the Smithfield Hotel Motel.
19. In respect of the third, it made the point that it did not arrange for the survey to be undertaken for some sort of nefarious reason to bolster its case; it did so because undertaking a survey was mandated by the Guidelines. It submitted that the survey was of a decent sample size and the fact that 86% of respondents supported the proposal was significant. It submitted that the respondents understood that the proposed premises would include gaming machines as evidenced by the fact that some of the respondents expressed reservations about gaming machines. It added that it was also significant that the survey was undertaken by an independent specialist firm.
20. As for the number of objectors, it made the point that there are some who are inherently opposed to gaming machines, such that the fact of some opposition was hardly surprising. It then made the point that out of a population of almost 30,000 within the locality, on a percentage basis the number of objectors was very low and had to be weighed against the number who positively supported the application as evidenced by the outcome of the survey. It added that it was significant that neither SAPOL nor the Playford council expressed any objection and Renewal SA and Gaming Care supported the proposal.
21. In respect of the fourth, it submitted that the proposed premises cannot be seen from MOC and that there was negligible risk of school age children using its gaming machines because of its extensive policies and procedures and history of compliance.
22. In respect of the fifth, it submitted that there was no logical reason why proximity to a medical centre would increase the risk of gaming related harm. As for the Cash Converters store and the Playford Shopping Centre more generally, it submitted that it was significant that the main entrance to the proposed premises was to face east and not in the direction of the store or shopping centre. It added that pawnbrokers, loan businesses and gaming venues are all heavily regulated and that it, as an experienced and trusted licensee, could be expected to identify and appropriately deal with problem gamblers.
23. In respect of the sixth, it submitted that given the general agreement that the locality was within about a two‑kilometre radius of the proposed premises, it was difficult to see how licensed premises well outside of the locality were relevant. It added that in any event, the offering at the proposed premises was markedly different to what was on offer at the other identified gaming venues inside and outside of the locality. It then made the point that to travel to the identified gaming venues outside of the locality involved distances and travel times that in connection with an application for a retail liquor merchant licence this Court held not to be reasonable or realistic.[21]
24. The Applicant accepted that there is evidence that gaming machines are associated with problem gambling and that as a general proposition increasing the number of gaming machines in a particular locality increases the risk and gambling related harm. But it noted that evidence from Professor Baigent, upon whom the objectors relied, was to the effect that the percentage of people who are problem gamblers is less than 1% and that it followed that the overwhelming majority of society gamble responsibly, and are not at risk of gambling related harm.
25. It submitted that the evidence of Professor Delfabbro, upon which the objectors also relied, must be viewed from the premise that he has never conceded that it would be appropriate for a new gaming venue to be established anywhere. It added that his negative views about the proposed premises failed to take into account the collateral benefit that the local community would have through the establishment of a modern, attractive, family friendly hotel, the revenue benefits to the State, and the positive use of gaming revenue on the community, as mandated by the legislation.
26. The hotel objectors submitted that not only was the delegate correct in finding that the proposed premises and the Playford Shopping Centre shared a common boundary, she should also have gone further, and found that the two would be so linked as to be properly regarded as part of the same complex, such that the application was statute barred.
27. As for the submissions advanced by the objectors on review more generally, they essentially mirrored what was put to the delegate. In essence, their submissions were: gambling can cause significant harm to the gambler and the gambler's family; gaming machines are a common cause of problem gambling; the proposed premises was in the wrong place, i.e. wedged between a shopping centre and a skate park with a Cash Converters store in close proximity; that it is all very well for the Applicant to be highlighting the population growth and new housing in the locality, but there is no getting away from the fact that some of the suburbs in and about the locality are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the State; there is a clear relationship between socio‑economic disadvantage and gambling related harm, especially from gaming machines; many of the locality's residents are either renters or have mortgages who can ill afford to be losing money on gaming machines, to the detriment of themselves and their families; and that whilst the construction of a new hotel might be of benefit to the community, there is no evidence that the construction of the hotel would not be viable without the revenue stream generated by gaming machines and if the applicant chooses not to go ahead with the project if the gaming application fails, that is a matter for it, and does not provide a good reason to grant the application.
28. In support of their submissions about the harm that problem gambling can cause and role that gaming machines plays in connection with that harm, the objectors placed additional research papers before the Court on review. All of them identify various adverse features of gambling generally and gaming machines specifically.
29. Amongst them was a paper titled "Assessing Gambling‑Related Harm in Victoria - A Public Health Perspective".[22] It paints a bleak picture of the widespread harm that problem gambling can cause. It was issued in April 2016 and identified that gambling can cause harm to the individual gambler, the gambler's family and friends, and the community more generally.
30. It described the gambler's harm of comprising of things like compromised physical health, emotional and psychological distress, financial difficulties, reduced work or study performance, relationship breakdowns and participation in criminal activities. It stated that, of these, emotional and psychological distress was the most prevalent.
31. It stated that at a practical level the obvious harm that could be experienced by a gambler's family was through having to go without household and personal items, which could in extreme cases could mean going without food or gas and electricity. It also spoke of the shame and stigma that the gambler's family could feel, which in turn could compromise their physical and psychological health.
32. It mentioned that some partners of problem gamblers adopt adverse coping mechanisms such as overeating, drinking, and smoking as ways of managing their heightened stress, depression and anxiety.
33. It stated that a problem gambler's children can be even more susceptible to collateral damage as they might experience neglect, poor sleep, missing school, going hungry, eating unhealthy food, and possibly being more at risk of abuse because of diminished supervision at home.
34. It stated that the most explicit adverse impact that a problem gambler can have on the community is if the gambler resorts to criminal activity. But it added that the community is also affected by the potential additional strain on the public health system as it deals with the physical and psychological harm experienced by the gambler and the gambler's family.
35. Another paper was titled: "Does gambling expenditure have any effect on crime".[23]
36. This paper stated that in the 2021‑2022 financial year, Australians spent $24 billion on gambling which equated to $1200.22 per adult making Australia one of, if not the highest per capita gambling countries in the world.
37. Based upon the results of a study conducted between December 2015 and January 2020, the paper stated that there was compelling evidence that gambling provided an opportunity to launder money, and that there was unambiguous evidence of a causal link between the level of expenditure on gambling and rates of property and violent crime.
38. Another paper was from the Journal of Behavioural Addictions titled: "Unambiguous evidence that over half of gambling problems in Australia are caused by electronic gaming machines".[24] It was completed in 2022.
39. This paper came up with similar statistics about the prevalence of gambling in Australia. It suggested that the annual per capita rate was the highest in the world at $1,277 per adult.
40. It identified that particular issues that arose in connection with gaming machines and their excessive use and source of excessive losses related to things like repetitive behaviour, impaired control, pre-occupation with the machines, and a desire to chase losses. It added that an aggravating factor relative to other forms of gambling was that the machines involve high event frequency and continuous play.
41. The paper concluded that gaming machines account for the largest percentage of problem gamblers in Australia and that the ratio, compared to problem gamblers involved in other forms of gambling, was somewhere between 51.8% and 56.6%.
42. Whilst this paper acknowledged that its analysis may have had some limitations, such as an apparent reluctance of high spending gamblers to participate in surveys, is stated that gaming machines are responsible for the majority of gambling problems in Australia.
43. The final paper that I will refer to is one from the Australian Institute of Family Studies titled: "What characteristics of pokies gambling sessions are associated with high risk gambling?".[25] It was based upon an online survey conducted between July and September 2023, completed by Australians who gambled on gaming machines on a regular basis, being at least monthly.
44. The paper identified four categories of regular gamine machine gamblers: no risk, low risk, moderate risk and high risk. Consistent with the previous report it stated that the level of high risk gambling generally tends to be higher amongst those who use gaming machines.
45. The Applicant made the observation that some of these papers were based upon dated data, all were expressed at a general level, none were specific to the locality under consideration, and none took into account its reputation as a reputable licensee with a strong history of compliance that intended to implement policies and procedures to address gambling related harm.

1. I commence with the s 15A of the Gaming Act issues.
2. At its most basic level, the expression "shares a common boundary" means that two premises share a boundary that is common to both.
3. Should some narrower construction apply?
4. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that the words of a statute and the words of a section in a statute, must be read as a whole and not considered in isolation.[26]
5. With this in mind, in my view the meaning of the expression "shares a common boundary" can be ascertained by considering the additional qualification contained in the sub-section: "so linked to or integrated with the complex that they may properly be regarded as forming part of the complex".
6. It is plain that the mischief to which this provision is directed is that it is considered to be undesirable to have a gaming venue linked to or integrated with a shopping complex. But because it is a two‑pronged test, that automatic disqualification does not arise if the proposed gaming venue and the shopping complex do not share a common boundary.
7. Looked at in this light, there is no reason to give "a common boundary" a narrow construction. Doyle CJ, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said as much in The Roosters Club Inc v The Northern Tavern Pty Ltd (The Roosters Club):[27]

I approach this issue on the basis that s 15A should be interpreted liberally. The purpose of the provision would not be advanced by a narrow interpretation.[28]

1. It is true that if the narrow construction suggested by the Applicant is rejected, there will be scope to argue in each case whether the test has been met. But I think that suggested uncertainty is more illusory than real.
2. In ordinary parlance, it would be uncontroversial to say that premises separated by a narrow path or creek would be regarded as sharing a common boundary, namely the path or the creek. And it is easy to envisage that in some such cases, because of ease of movement between them and their obvious connection, that a proposed gaming venue on one side of the path or creek and a shopping centre on the other side, might both be properly regarded as part of the shopping centre.
3. I accept that some may baulk at the notion that premises either side of the Anzac Highway or the River Murray share a common boundary. But, in such cases, it seems very unlikely that there would be ease of movement between them or such an obvious connection that a proposed gaming venue on one side of that highway or river, and a shopping centre on the other side, would be regarded as so linked or integrated as to be regarded as forming part of the same shopping complex.
4. As it is, it is not necessary for me to explore the limits of the meaning of "a common boundary" because in this case I am in no doubt that the narrow lane that separates the Playford Shopping Centre and the proposed premises, constitutes a common boundary between them and is one that they share for the purposes of the sub‑section.
5. Accordingly, a consideration as the extent to which the proposed premises would be linked to or integrated with the shopping centre arises.
6. Whilst the proposed premises and the Playford Shopping Centre are not on the one readily identifiable parcel of land, the degree of separation between them is not great, it being a narrow lane.
7. It might be expected that some members of the relevant community will combine their use of the facilities on offer at the Playford Shopping Centre with the proposed premises and vice versa. It might also be expected that some people who visit the proposed premises will, for convenience, park in the shopping centre car park.
8. Pedestrian passage from one facility to the other would be easy, as both are on flat land and unlike Heysen Hotel, there is no substantial road that separates them. As I just stated, it is a relatively narrow lane and is one that might be expected to carry little traffic.
9. Although the predominant orientation and point of entry to the proposed premises will be from The Parkway, facing north, there will be some orientation and point of entry facing east into Peachey Road. From the opposite side of Peachey Road, an observer facing west and scanning from left to right, would see a main entrance to the Playford Shopping Centre, to the north of that, and still within the shopping centre, the Cash Converters Store with its signs advertising that store and the entrance to that store, then further north, Elan Lane, and further north again, the proposed premises, a point of entry to those premises, and an outdoor dining area.
10. The distances between the entrance to the proposed premises that faces Peachey Road, the entrance into the Cash Converters store, and the Peachey Road entrance into the shopping centre itself, are not significant.
11. Whilst the proposed premises will be physically separate from the Playford Shopping Centre, and will be built in a different style, as Doyle CJ observed in The Roosters Club, these are not matters of much significance.
12. What is important is to recognise that:

... Parliament was surely concerned with the question of whether, when there is a common boundary, the licensed premises are linked or integrated with the shopping complex in such a way as to facilitate and encourage movement of the public, and patrons in particular, between the complex and the premises by creating the impression that they are part of one complex.[29]

1. In determining that issue, I am entitled to have regard to the "common perception" of the situation and to consider, in the light of everyday experience, whether people visiting the proposed premises and the "shopping complex" would regard the proposed premises as part of the complex, having regard to the link between them and such integration as there might be.[30]
2. In my respectful opinion, having regard to their proximity, the ease of movement from one to the other, and the visual impression that an observer on the eastern side of Peachey Road, facing west, and scanning from left to right would experience, including the relatively close proximity of points of entry into the Playford Shopping Centre, the Cash Converters Store and the proposed premises, the proposed premises ought properly be regarded as part of the overall shopping complex. Respectfully, in my opinion, the delegate's contrary conclusion was not one that was reasonably open to her.
3. In my judgment the delegate should have found that the proposed premises and the Playford Shopping Centre would be so linked as to warrant the finding that they may properly be regarded as forming part of the same complex. For that reason alone, the application for a gaming licence should have been refused by reason of the prohibition created by s 15A of the Gaming Act.
4. In case I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, I will now go on and consider the merits.
5. In limiting my reference to the papers identified in these reasons and in limiting my discussion of them to relatively brief accounts, I am not to be understood as not having read all of the expert evidence tendered in this case. I have read it all, but a detailed analysis of every paper would have made these reasons unnecessarily long. What I have included paints a picture that could not be seriously contested. Gambling is a problem in this country. Gaming machines play a significant role in causing gambling problems. There seems to be a relationship between communities that experience socio‑economic disadvantage and increased usage of gaming machines. Because of that economic disadvantage, the economic consequences of problem gambling in those communities are likely to be more acute than elsewhere. And gambling problems can cause significant problems not just for the gambler, but also to the gambler's family and to the community more generally.
6. In connection with the problems that gambling can cause, what is written in the papers bears out the observations that I made in SGL Hotels Pty Ltd t/as Ovingham Hotel (Bombay Bicycle Club)[31] where I said:

... I do not underestimate the damage that gambling related harm can cause. In Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd (Park Holme) I spoke of common experience informing us that for many in the community, alcohol is a problem, and that it can create health risks, fuel domestic violence, shatter relationships, cause families to become dysfunctional, create financial problems, and result in people making risky and poor decisions. All of this is true of gambling. Common experience informs us that for problem gamblers, gambling becomes a compulsion, as does the need for money to feed that compulsion. This may result in problem gamblers distorting the allocation of their money to the detriment of themselves and those who are dependent upon them; damaging their relationships with friends and family because of borrowing money from them; incurring debts that they are unable to service, resulting in them being the subject of legal action and the possibility that that action may result in the loss of their assets and potentially their bankruptcy, and in the case of borrowings from unscrupulous sources, potentially becoming targets of threats and violence; committing criminal offences such as embezzling from their employer or stealing from others; causing stress on their family relationships and the potential for those relationships to become dysfunctional and break up; and not the least, causing stress to themselves, that can result in a myriad of physical and mental ailments, and in extreme cases, their death.[32] (Footnote omitted)

1. With these matters in mind, a strong case could be made that no application for a new gaming licence should ever succeed. But as I observed in Heysen Hotel,

... a licensing authority must approach an application for a gaming machine licence from the premise that the operation of gaming machines in South Australia is lawful, that gambling is a valid activity for South Australians, "and that responsible gambling should be fostered, not only to minimise harm caused by problem gambling, but also to accommodate those who gamble without harming themselves or others. Given the statutory framework, it would be illogical for ... [a licensing authority] to conclude that the net economic and social impact of the approval of premises as suitable for gaming will always be detrimental to the well‑being of the community of a municipal district in which the premises are located."[33] (Footnotes omitted)

1. Thus, this Court must keep an open mind and must proceed from the premise that the fact that the grant of a gaming licence is likely to cause some harm to the relevant community is not of itself, proof that the grant of the application is not in the community interest. Consideration needs to be given to the extent of the likelihood, the extent of the harm, and the benefit to the community if the application is granted.
2. In other words, having assessed the potential harm that the grant of the application is likely to cause, the question that needs to be asked is whether that potential harm is a price worth paying for the benefits that the grant of the gaming licence will bring to the relevant community.
3. The Applicant is right to contend that the establishment of a hotel on the vacant block next to the Playford Shopping Centre has much to commend it. It would undoubtedly be a welcome facility for those living in what is plainly a rapidly growing community. And it will create for them some employment opportunities.
4. The application has met the requirements of the Guidelines, and the Applicant's survey, although not perfect, provides evidence of some support for its gaming application by members of the relevant community.
5. The Applicant is right to contend that, for now, the gaming machine density in the locality is low, and that would remain so, even with the addition of 40 gaming machines.
6. Although I cannot quantify it, it is reasonable to infer that some of the gaming machine revenue that would be generated by the proposed premises, would be a redistribution of gaming revenue from the Smithfield Hotel Motel and other gaming venues in the general vicinity. If it were otherwise, it is unlikely that the hotel objectors would have participated in the hearing before the delegate and before this Court.
7. The Applicant is a very experienced licensee that has developed a suite of policies and procedures aimed at addressing problem gambling from the use of gaming machines. It can be expected to conduct a gaming facility that reflects current best practice in this State.
8. The proposed gaming lounge would provide a comfortable and relatively safe environment for people to enjoy using gaming machines.
9. The Applicant is right to contend that although some parts of the locality are relatively disadvantaged, there are parts of the locality where the residents enjoy median personal and household income levels higher than on average in Greater Adelaide and South Australia more generally.
10. Doubtless some of the revenue to be generated by the gaming machines will go back to the community, through sponsorships of community groups, sporting teams and the like.
11. It is notable that neither SAPOL nor the local council opposed the gaming application and Renewal SA and Gaming Care provided letters of support for it.
12. Whilst it was striking in Heysen Hotel that there was only one entity that formally objected to the gaming application and that entity had a direct financial interest in the outcome, the number of objectors in this case is not evidence of overwhelming opposition and must be measured against the outcome of the Applicant's survey.
13. The status of Mr Piccolo as the local member of Parliament is a matter that I must give some weight to. But that said, my impression of his submissions and those of his son, was that they reflected their belief that the grant of the gaming application was not in the community's interest, rather than them expressing the views of many of the constituents of the local electorate.
14. Thus, it must be accepted that there are a number of positive aspects of the gaming application and the opposition to it cannot be described as overwhelming.
15. However, there is no getting away from the fact that there are some concerning features of the population profile of those residing in the locality. Collectively, their average annual household income is about 20% lower compared to Greater Adelaide and they experience higher than average unemployment. The fact that not insignificant numbers within the locality have higher annual incomes, underscores how disadvantaged others within the locality are.
16. Many of those residing within the locality comprise of one parent families. Many rent their housing.
17. Based on the SEIFA scores, some parts in and around the locality, such as, Smithfield and Smithfield Plains, are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in this State. The nearby Davoren Park is plainly a suburb that is also very socially and economically disadvantaged.
18. Although the focus of the community interest test is on the community that resides in the locality, the public interest test requires a consideration of the attributes of the council area in which the proposed premises is to be located, because many who live in that council area can be expected to avail themselves of the new gaming facility.
19. Based on the 2021 Census, out of all council areas in this State, in terms of the SEIFA index, Playford was the fourth lowest. It ranked behind council areas such as Whyalla and Coober Pedy, and only Peterborough, Maralinga Tjarutja, and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, ranked lower. Whilst it might be expected that with the substantial redevelopment that has occurred within Playford since 2021, this might have improved, given that it started from such a low base it is reasonable to draw the inference that Playford remains one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged council areas in this State.
20. Whilst I remain guarded about the utility of social profiling in terms of identifying the likelihood that the locality has or potentially has a significant number of problem gamblers using gaming machines, the evidence of socio‑economic disadvantage, relatively low incomes, high rates of rental, high levels of single parent families, and high levels of unemployment, suggest that gaming losses are likely to have a more detrimental affect than they would in other communities with higher incomes, lower rates of rental, lower levels on unemployment and less single parent families.
21. In Heysen Hotel, the finding of this Court was that the likelihood of gambling related harms to the relevant community was not that great. It found that "much of the NGR generated at the Heysen Hotel will be simply a redistribution of NGR currently occurring in the other gaming venues in Mount Barker". It also found that "that the average NGR per person in the locality is relatively low in comparison with other Local Government Areas".
22. Importantly, the Court also found that "[t]here is nothing about the population profile of the relevant community that sends alarm bells ringing"; "[t]he relevant locality is not socially or economically challenged"; and "there is no reason to infer that the locality has a significant number of problem gamblers using gaming machines".[34]
23. The evidence in this case does not permit the making of similar findings. In this case there are parts of the locality and nearby, that are significantly socially and economically disadvantaged. That fact, and the clear evidence that those who are significantly socially and economically disadvantaged are both more likely to become problem gamblers through their use of gaming machines, and are more likely to suffer adverse consequences as a result, does send alarm bells ringing.
24. Within the objects of the Gaming Act and the GA Act are statements to the effect that regard must be had to minimising the harm that can be caused by gaming machines.[35]
25. To adopt the words of Warren CJ and Osborn JA in Kordister Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing,[36] because the concept of harm minimisation is itself anticipatory, there may be cases where, if an appreciable risk has been identified, a conservative approach should be adopted. In such cases harm minimisation favours avoiding such potential risk unless it can be positively justified.[37]
26. In Heysen Hotel, this Court found that there would be a significant benefit to the community if the application succeeded. It said:

The site of the Heysen Hotel is en route to towns like Macclesfield, Meadows, Strathalbyn and Goolwa. I find that it will be a destination hotel that will attract visitors to the region, and those passing through to other destinations. I find that it will add to the attractiveness of Mount Barker and the Adelaide Hills more generally, and it will therefore enhance tourism.

...

... the establishment of the Heysen Hotel will bring multiple benefits to the community. It will result in additional employment in the locality. It will provide a family friendly environment and a community meeting place. It will also provide those who enjoy using gaming machines a comfortable and relatively safe environment in which to do so.[38]

1. Another significant finding in that case was that the Court was satisfied that without the revenue stream from gaming machines, the Heysen Hotel project would not proceed, because it would not be economically viable to do so.
2. Thus, although there was a finding of some potential gambling related harm, the Court was satisfied that not avoiding the possibility of that harm materialising, was positively justified.
3. Doubtless the establishment of the Parkway Tavern will be of great benefit to the relevant community and it is understandable that the delegate was persuaded that in conformity with the community interest test, the hotel licence should be granted. But the evidence in this case does not permit a finding that the proposed premises would not be financially viable without the revenue generated by gaming machines.
4. It is one thing to say, as was effectively said in Heysen Hotel, that the applicant has plans for a large hotel offering a range of facilities, that will greatly benefit the relevant community, but the project will only be viable if the hotel has revenue from gaming machines. It is another thing altogether for an applicant to say: I have plans for a very attractive hotel that would be viable without revenue from gaming machines, but I am only interested in pursuing the project if I can have the additional revenue that the gaming machines will generate.
5. My difficulty is that without any evidence on that point, the position here is consistent with the latter, not the former.
6. In the end I am left with this: some parts of the locality and nearby are significantly economically and socially disadvantaged; many members of the relevant community are single parents, are unemployed, or are on lower‑than‑average incomes, and are much more likely to be renting than is the norm. It is reasonable to infer that if they have or go on to develop gambling problems, this may have a more detrimental effect upon them and their families, than is the norm. Whilst the establishment of an attractive family orientated hotel has much to commend it, there is no evidence that it would not be viable without gaming machines, and the decision not to proceed with it, should this application fail, appears to be a matter of choice, not necessity.
7. Having conducted a review of the evidence tendered before the delegate supplemented by the additional evidence tendered in this Court, I have come to the same conclusion as the delegate, namely that the grant of the gaming licence would not be in the community interest.
8. I would add, that having regard to Playford's disadvantaged circumstances, it is arguable that the grant of the gaming licence would not be in the public interest either.
9. It must be accepted that the annual NGR for a particular council area does not necessarily equate to the gross amount that the residents of that council area will lose on gaming machines in that year. Some of the loses will be from persons who do not reside in that council area. But it will also be the case that some who reside in the council area, may lose money on gaming machines in other council areas.
10. Taking these matters into account, in my opinion, the annual NGR for a particular council area is a fair guide as to how much the residents of that council area are losing on gaming machines in a particular year.
11. As Jacobs J observed in Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden, "[t]he interest of a section of the public is a public interest", albeit that "the smallness of the section may affect the quantity or the weight of the public interest".[39] With a population as of 2023 of over 107,000 residents, the residents of Playford constitute a public interest that must be afforded considerable weight.
12. It might reasonably be thought, that the last thing that this cohort, who reside in a council area which ranks as one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged in this State, who are already losing something of the order of $50 million a year on gaming machines, is another gaming facility within relatively easy reach, and the opportunity to lose even more money on gaming machines, especially given that a fair proportion of that money lost, will be solely for the benefit of the Applicant.
13. Be that as it may, as this issue was not fully argued, I take it no further.
14. The application for review is therefore dismissed.

[1] See BWS Seaford Meadows [2023] SALC 63 at [5]-[11].

[2] Section 53A(1) of the Liquor Act and s 17A(4)(a) of the Gaming Act.

[3] It should be noted that the Commissioner has issued separate guidelines for applications for liquor licences and gaming licences, but both sets of guidelines relevantly suggest that, as a guide, the relevant locality should be taken as that area within a two kilometre radius of the proposed premises.

[4] Heysen Hotel (SA) Pty Ltd v Fassina Investments Pty Ltd [2025] SALC 3.

[6] Stevens, M & Roy Morgan Research (2023) Impact of EGM late night play on EGM player behaviours.

[9] South Australian Jockey Club Inc (Cheltenham Park Community Land Sporting Club)(Cheltenham Park), Unreported, Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, 29 December 2016.

[11] [2023] SALC 83.

[12] [2012] SALC 57.

[14] [2024] SALC 91.

[16] [2021] SALC 64.

[21] Woolworths Limited v Smithfield Hotel Pty Ltd ibid.

[26] See, for example: K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd [1985] HCA 48; (1985) 157 CLR 309 at 315 per Mason J.

[27] [2003] SASC 103.

[31] [2024] SALC 91.

[35] See s 3(2)(a) of the GA Act and s 2(1)(a) of the Gaming Act.

[36] [2012] VSCA 325; (2012) 39 VR 92.

[39] [1975] HCA 17, (1975) 132 CLR 473 at 487.