STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMING MACHINE LIMITATIONS) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:03): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Casino Act 1997 and the Gaming Machines Act 1992. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The background to this legislation is the very limited attempt by the parliament in 2001 to amend the gaming machine legislation to limit problem gambling. We know that the much publicised measure of reducing the number of gaming machines has completely failed. We always knew it was symbolic, but the government could not even achieve a reduction of 3,000 machines in the total number in South Australia. We got a bit over 2,000, which was the compulsory element; the rest relied on trading of machines and extracting a number as they were traded. However, it simply has not come up with the solution.

To deal with problem gambling, attention is finally being turned to the game features themselves. We know the main problem with poker machines is that they are deliberately designed to have addictive features and, although I do not take a hard line on gambling generally, I have always believed that poker machines are particularly pernicious because of the way they are designed to take advantage of psychological weaknesses. They are designed to feed people's addiction.

So, in terms of ameliorating this problem, the way to go is to focus on game features. This is already done to some extent in the legislation. Under section 40 of the Gaming Machines Act, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner must have regard to guidelines issued by the Independent Gambling Authority as to whether a game is likely to lead to an exacerbation of problem gambling, and should not approve a game if it is likely to do so.

The legislation I am proposing today does two things. First, it takes the current guidelines and puts them into legislation, because the tricks and deceits in that list of game characteristics published by the Independent Gambling Authority are well established as features further likely to exacerbate problem gambling. However, I also include some additional game features, and I do that on the basis of recent research. The Independent Gambling Authority (IGA) commissioned research conducted by Charles Richardson that clearly establishes there are further features that need to be addressed.

The IGA has published concerns about features such as the so-called 'near miss' feature. Gaming machines have a number of pictures in a row; there is a central row and then usually a row or rows above or below that. Each column can be considered a reel, that is, based on the old physically manipulated gaming machines whereby there would be a spinning circular series of symbols within the machine, and in the old days the pull of the handle of the machine would cause the wheels to spin and a particular symbol would come up at random.

It has been established that if you have, say, four symbols that come up commonly and a fifth column, or reel, which contains one of those symbols that only comes up very rarely, you will tend to have on that machine a series of results whereby people get four out of five, and that is termed a 'near miss'.

This is a particular inducement for problem gamblers, because there is the mistaken belief that they have almost won and that if they keep going they will get that magical five out of five. The reality is that the machine has been designed to make that five out of five as difficult as a machine which had an equal number of symbols on each reel. The payout at the end of the day is the same, and that payout of 87 per cent to the punter is set out in the statute anyway.

There is also a concern about multiple lines. This is not just multiple betting on the one line, but allowing players to bet on multiple lines. The research indicates that it is an issue for problem gamblers because even though they can win when they play multiple lines, they end up losing more credits than they gain because they are betting more on those numerous lines.

However, the small win is sufficient inducement for the problem gambler to keep going with multiple bets. There is evidence that problem gamblers will start with the minimum bet over the maximum number of lines, but during the course of the period of play they will raise their bet to the maximum bet over the maximum number of lines. In other words, multiple lines allow the problem gambler to scale up their gambling.

There is also something called a 'reel power' feature. There is such a feature on the Indian Dreaming gambling machine design, and that allows symbols which apparently give some sort of a jackpot or bonus, so that it allows for extra credits to apply to subsequent spins: up to 243 credits to be bet per spin. When you consider that a credit could be worth $1, you can see that that could raise the amount of betting power considerably. As I have said before, the payout at the end of the day is statistically the same. So, these so-called bonuses do not result in any real long-term benefit to the punter.

There is also an issue about maximum bets, and I seek to reduce the maximum bet to $1 per spin. There is also an issue about the deceit of so-called free spins, whereby certain results on the gaming machine can lead to a spin being provided to the punter without additional insertion of tokens—tokens representing cash. The same principle applies, that there is nothing free in the world of gambling machines. The result is the same at the end of the day, and a free spin means that the other spins need to be designed in a way so that the results are even less favourable to the punter.

The bill that I have drafted ensures that all of these things are outlawed. There is sufficient evidence now to say that these things are conducive to problem gambling. Frankly, it is not that hard to change the design of the machines. There are teams of experts back at the gaming machine factories, so to speak, who can address these issues in a short space of time. I appreciate the cost to industry of changing over machines, but what it means is that you are going to remove from the pokie parlours these most pernicious of features.

I acknowledge that the IGA held a hearing on 29 April 2008. There was a fairly legalistic registration process, and evidence was taken on the day. Unfortunately, I could not attend but my colleague Nick Xenophon was able to, and he was able to present evidence supportive of the issues that I am raising today.

I want to force the government's hand on the issue. I do appreciate that the IGA is still considering these issues, but in my view as a parliamentarian the evidence is in: these problem gambling features, these deceits and tricks, ought to be outlawed. I put it to the parliament that we should take matters into our own hands and make sure that these features, at least, are banned. In subsequent debate, if we get through the second reading of this bill, there may be scope for amendment of this bill to restrict gaming feature design even further, depending on the views later published by the IGA.

I commend the bill to the house. The clauses are reasonably self-explanatory. They apply to the Casino as well as to hotels, in other words, all the venues in South Australia which have gaming machines. I have already described that the current IGA guidelines are incorporated into section 40 so that the commissioner has a very clear message from this parliament not to approve any of these machines which have the tricks and deceits which are most conducive to problem gambling.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.