Bills

Gambling Administration Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2019).

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:32): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 5

Noes 14

Majority 9

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:36): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Gambling Administration Bill 2019. I thank the government for their briefing—which was held yesterday. I thank them for the scant answers that I have received so far to my questions. I note that in their contribution the opposition, represented by the Hon. Clare Scriven, made a contribution of some 397 words on this bill. Of course, that stands in absolute glory compared to their 134 words on the regulation bill that is its companion. The opposition had 397 words to say on this bill, a bill which contains—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Quality not quantity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This contains neither quality nor quantity. I ask my first question: does the opposition today—that has just gagged the ability of the crossbenchers to engage in this debate—have a lead spokesperson for this debate today to answer the crossbenchers' questions about the agreement, the deal, the backroom brokered deal, between the Treasurer and the shadow treasurer on this bill that is now embodied in these pieces of government legislation, or will the opposition continue to hide behind that deal and not face the music in this place?

This bill, as it is described by the government, aligns and consolidates various administrative matters under the act across all sectors of the gambling industry, including that of the commissioner's powers of inquiry and direction, and the commissioner's powers when conducting proceedings. It ensures uniform rights for gambling providers to seek a review of a decision by the commissioner before the Licensing Court. It also provides for a streamlined process for the commissioner to prescribe advertising and responsible gambling, codes of practice and gambling administration guidelines.

It extends the expiation fees to all gambling providers for a breach of the code of practice. It also ensures the appointment of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the gambling acts and provides uniform powers of inspection, and it also simplifies and standardises the legislative power for compliance, enforcement and disciplinary action. Simplifies and standardises: well when they did the dodgy deal, the backroom deal, that shadow treasurer and the Treasurer, they certainly simplified and standardised processes in this place between the opposition and the government.

The bill will also allow persons at risk of harm or at risk of causing harm to a family member because of their gambling addiction problem to be barred for a period or for an indefinite period, including from the premises of a single gambling provider or from the premises of multiple gambling providers. This bill also broadens barring orders and those provisions to allow for a barring order, whether self-imposed or enforced by the commissioner or enforced by a third-party, to be initiated for any period of time or indefinitely, should those circumstances permit.

Those provisions are not ones that the crossbench seeks to query today. Indeed, much of this bill will provide some better and clearer measures, but the lack of transparency, the lack of process, the lack of respect for the crossbenches today reflects a lack of transparency, a lack of process and a lack of respect given to the community sector, and to those voices within the community that should have been at the table when the Treasurer and shadow treasure did the deal on note acceptors in exchange for facial recognition, in exchange for no conscience vote on the side of the government, no conscience vote on the side of the opposition—and today, almost no debate whatsoever in this place on the merits or otherwise of this bill, in particular on the merits or otherwise of the changes made by the Labor opposition to this bill in the other place.

There are 397 words, and not one about how the facial recognition technology will be applied, not a word in the 134 words on the regulations bill, not a word about whether or not facial recognition technology will be ensured to apply only to those who have barring orders, and not used to apply to actually create problem gamblers or fleece willing gamblers from their money more regularly, more quickly and more strategically.

We have no safeguards in this bill from the proposition put before us by the Labor opposition with no consultation with stakeholders, those who represent those at risk of gambling harm, to ensure that this technology will not be used for nefarious purposes rather than protective ones. However, we do have an agreement between Labor and Liberal that we are going to see note acceptors in this state, which means that people will be able to gamble away their money more quickly and, in cases of problem gamblers, with less protection in some situations.

This bill will also insert those requirements for facial recognition I have mentioned. They are the Labor amendments to the government bill in the other place. Indeed, the facial recognition systems will be approved by the commissioner under the Casino Act 1997 or the Gaming Machines Act 1992. It also allows some greater scope for the commissioner to make publicly available information regarding expenditure on gambling activities undertaken under a gambling act. It mandates the commissioner's report to include the total net state wagering revenue of all authorised betting operators and the total net gambling revenue of the holders of all gaming machine licenses and the special club licence.

I note we had the briefing on this bill just yesterday, so I did ask some questions and I will now place them onto the record. These were received today at 1.46pm and it is now a quarter to four. Being in question time, I have not had a great deal of time to digest the responses to our questions.

We did ask in our briefing who was involved in the consultation on this bill. We were told that there had been a round table. I note that at that round table from the government sector there was the Department of Human Services, the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Licensing Court of South Australia, SAPOL Licensing Enforcement Branch, the Lotteries Commission of South Australia and the office for recreation and sport.

There were support services and researchers, including the University of Adelaide's SA Centre for Economic Studies, the University of Adelaide School of Psychology, Aboriginal Family Support Services, AnglicareSA, Lifeline Mount Gambier, OARS Community Transitions, the overseas Chinese students association, PsychMed Pty Ltd, Relationships Australia South Australia, the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS), the Statewide Gambling Therapy Service, Uniting Communities, Uniting Country SA, and the Vietnamese Community in Australia SA chapter.

And from the industry, of course, always at the table, there was the Adelaide Casino, Club One (SA) Ltd, the Independent Gaming Corporation (IGC), the Australian Hotels Association, Gaming Care, Clubs SA/Club Safe, Greyhound Racing SA, Harness Racing SA, Responsible Wagering Australia, the South Australian Bookmakers League Incorporated, Thoroughbred Racing SA, Tabcorp Holdings, and Sport SA.

That was at the round table. Some of those aforementioned made a submission and some did not make a written submission, following that round table. What I am interested to hear from government is how many of those submissions, either at that round table that day, in the informal meeting or following that with the written submission, made a submission on note acceptors and made a submission on facial recognition technology. We will be seeking those answers from government.

Certainly in the briefing the full nature of the deal that has presented itself and wended its way to this upper house of this parliament was not consulted on at that particular round table. I note also that we asked the government about the community impact test. I will let the Hon. Connie Bonaros go into further detail on that, but I flag with the government that we will be asking further questions with regard to the community impact test as we move into the committee stage of this bill.

For, while the Greens will be opposing this bill today, we have seen quite starkly that the government and the opposition will be in lockstep on this, and they will be in lockstep to a point where no consideration will be given to other voices other than the Treasurer and the shadow treasurer and their deal behind the scenes that was done without the scrutiny of parliament, without the scrutiny of a committee process, without the scrutiny of proper community consultation on the very measures that were brokered, and that facial recognition technology, whether or not that shall be protected from being used, not to protect gamblers, as the opposition has put it, but indeed to procure gamblers. So again, I ask the government to give us some guarantees on that front, that this deal that they have done with the Labor opposition will not lead to unforeseen outcomes.

This bill is certainly one that we will be going through in committee stage in great detail. I could get up and speak for five hours. We could do what has been done in the past in terms of a WorkCover debate or a Return to Work debate. Indeed, with the Return to Work debate, when the Weatherill government rammed that one through, the fact that the now Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, had told everyone to vote Labor made a whole lot more sense.

When it comes to some of these matters of great state importance, Labor and Liberal are often in lockstep. They are in lockstep to the point where they tread all over the voices of those in the community who are harmed and the voices of the crossbenchers in this place who were duly elected to represent views that are not often heard in this place and were certainly not given appropriate opportunity to be heard, with a rushed process where the opposition and the government have done a backroom deal.

They have ensured that note acceptors in this state will allow South Australians to lose money more quickly, at a greater pace and with potentially greater harm, without the scrutiny and without the respect of even having the lead speaker of the opposition—the person who contributed the 397 words on this bill and the 134 words on the other bill in this place—answer questions about Labor's deal with the government that has been done behind the scenes and not with the transparency of parliament. With those few words, I anticipate a very robust committee process.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:51): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 5

Noes 14

Majority 9

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:55): I rise to speak on the Gambling Administration Bill, given that we have no choice but to do so now. In doing so, I echo the sentiments of the Hon. Tammy Franks in her contribution. We, too, received a briefing on this bill yesterday. We, too, received scant detail at best in response to most, if not all, of the questions asked. We, too, have only just received responses to some of the questions that were raised during that process, and we, too, are disappointed bitterly in the government and the opposition—and maybe perhaps particularly the opposition—in terms of their approach to this bill.

I will take the opportunity now to reflect, as did the Hon. Tammy Franks, on the lack of transparency, the lack of respect that has been shown to the crossbench. Again, as pointed out by the Hon. Tammy Franks, I point to the contribution that was made in this place last week by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Clare Scriven, who, as the Hon. Tammy Franks referred to, spoke to both these bills for a total of less than six minutes. The courtesy that she afforded the Gambling Administration Bill was a contribution of 397 words—397 words.

The opposition's contribution on these bills is a reflection not only of the deal done between the government and the opposition, which has been well articulated by the Hon. Tammy Franks; it is a reflection of the lack of courtesy and respect that has been shown to the crossbench, but above everything else it is a lack of courtesy, respect and acknowledgement of the issues that problem gamblers in our society face each and every day. It is a lack of respect for every single family impacted by problem gambling and poker machines in particular. The Hon. Clare Scriven's contribution on this bill was nothing short of abysmal. It was a complete and utter disgrace.

On that point, I would like to go to another member of the opposition and refer to a letter that was sent to Shonica Guy, a well-known advocate of poker machine reforms in this jurisdiction, by a member in the other place, Ms Nat Cook, in which she stated:

Dear Shonica and the Pokies Anonymous Group

Thank you for contacting me and the Leader of the Labor Party, Peter Malinauskas MP regarding South Australian Labor’s decision to support poker machine reform legislation introduced by the Marshall Liberal Government.

Firstly, let me assure you as the Shadow Minister for Human Services, in which the portfolio area of Problem Gambling falls, I take this and other gambling matters very seriously.

As justifiably unpopular as poker machines are in this state, it's the unfortunate reality that, because consecutive governments have let them in to pubs and clubs over the last 25 years, the vast majority of these businesses have got business models which rely upon them.

The Labor Cabinet and Caucus looked at the Government’s reforms very closely, and we haven’t blindly decided to support the legislation.

Whilst you are correct that we did support the introduction of note acceptors in South Australia, which is the last state in Australia not to have them, we will only accept such introduction if the maximum note possible is $50.

Additionally, we have proposed a significant amount of amendments to the government which we required the government to look at before we would support the legislation.

The member then goes on to outline those amendments, including:

LIMITING the maximum amount of credit that can be loaded into a machine to $100, down from the current $1000.

BANNING EFTPOS withdrawals of more than $250 at a venue in a 24-hour period, aligning it with ATMs.

ALLOWING notes of only $50 or less in acceptors.

BLOCKING poker machine operation on Christmas Day and Good Friday.

STOPPING State Government plans to let clubs have up to 60 poker machines, compared to the current 40 cap.

KEEPING a currently legislated pokie reduction target, and introducing a new buyback scheme, to be funded by any extra taxes from reform.

We also believe online betting is fast becoming a bigger problem than poker machines across the country; therefore, our plan also means that online betting firms would also be forced to provide detailed data on the scale of SA activity, plus be barred from offering markets on an increased number of amateur sports.

Whilst poker machines will always be a divisive issue, the South Australian Labor party is committed to the reduction in poker machine harm; and harm caused by other forms of problem gambling.

I have never heard a bigger bunch of rubbish come from a shadow minister in relation to poker machine reforms. As articulated by the Hon. Tammy Franks, it is well-known that this legislation is the result of a deal done behind closed doors between the government and the opposition. Everybody knows that is the case. The opposition has said to me, 'Well, we didn't have any amendments to consider when we were looking at this, so we had no choice but to take the package as it existed to caucus and vote on it and vote on our amendments.'

My response to the opposition was, 'We didn't have the opportunity to provide any amendments. We didn't have any opportunity to provide any meaningful input into this bill because you've both chosen to ram it through this parliament against—against—the normal procedures that we follow in this place.' In fact, I think yesterday it was made very clear to us that, despite the fact that we have followed every protocol that exists in this place in terms of drafting amendments, in terms of having them filed on time and in terms of making them available to members so that they have a week's notice at least to consider them before this debate is dealt with, we were told very clearly that this debate will conclude this week.

That is the process that we have chosen to follow in this instance. We have decided that we are going to gag this debate, that we are going to ignore all the stakeholders who have said quite explicitly that they have not been involved in any way in the development of this bill, that they have not been consulted on issues as important as the introduction of note acceptors. In fact, I think the advice I received yesterday at the briefing from the government was that note acceptors was not a policy when they consulted on the bill and it was put to the stakeholders after the bill was introduced, after the deal was done with the opposition. A fat lot of good that did them.

In terms of that process, and to make it clear to the opposition so there is absolutely no doubt in the Leader of the Opposition's mind as to this question, as soon as these bills were introduced the first thing that we did together with the Hon. Tammy Franks was invite all those stakeholder groups in here for a roundtable discussion. The groups that we invited included all the groups that represent the social welfare sector and all the groups that represent gambling addiction in this jurisdiction.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Plus Pokies Anonymous.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Plus Pokies Anonymous. They included the Centre for Economic Studies. Michael O'Neil from the Centre for Economic Studies was present. They included Shonica Guy, Pamela Higginson and Andrew Robinson from Pokies Anonymous. They included Sharon Hollamby from Communities Against Pokies. They included Dr Greg Ogle from SACOSS. They included Mark Henley from Uniting Communities. They included Dr Jane Oakes, Dr Quentin Black and Sue Lemon from PsychMed. They included Tony Mohr from the Alliance for Gambling Reform. They included Peter Sandeman from AnglicareSA, and they included Simon Schrapel, Chief Executive of Uniting Communities.

So we did our due diligence. We invited all those groups in. We certainly knew that the AHA and Clubs SA had been consulted on this bill. They had been consulted extensively. In fact, I am pretty sure, if the Treasurer would like to go back to the media monitoring records, he will find that Ian Horne was on the radio spruiking this information as 'our' legislation—not the government's legislation but 'our' legislation. That is a reflection of just how much this government chose to consult with the AHA, Clubs SA, the poker machine barons and the poker machine lobby, rather than the people who are left to deal with the mess of poker machines each and every day in this state. That is who the government chose to consult with over this bill.

In terms of that issue of transparency, procedure and process, as I made clear to the Leader of the Opposition, once we had that round table discussion, our next step was to go straight to parliamentary counsel to ask for amendments to be drafted. That is what we have been doing for the last couple of weeks.

For the last fortnight, we have been drafting amendments to this bill and the next bill. But, of course, if we were following normal process, the government would know—and I am sure they know very well—that in order to draft amendments to this bill we obviously have to wait for the outcome of the lower house debate. So those amendments could not be finalised any sooner than they were. In fact, right up until this morning, my staff, and I am sure the Hon. Tammy Franks' staff, have been working like—I cannot even explain the extent and the hours that they have put into this to ensure that we have something to present to this chamber today.

We have completely and utterly dismissed process. It seems that, in the last two weeks of parliament, all we are going to do is override process. We did it last week with GM crops, and we are going to do it this week with gambling reform. Yesterday, when we attended the briefing offered by the government, we asked a number of questions. A number of those questions were directly related to some of the amendments we would have liked to move—and which we will be moving.

When the Leader of the Opposition says to me, 'We haven't had a chance to reflect on your amendments,' I say to the Leader of the Opposition, 'Perhaps, if you had not gagged the debate on this bill, and the next bill, you would have had ample opportunity to reflect on them. There may be some good measures in there, some genuine measures that have been proposed that you could have considered, that would have made this bad piece of legislation slightly better.' But we are not going to do that: we are going to ignore every good measure that has been proposed by every industry expert, and we are going to take the word of the AHA and Clubs SA that this is the approach we should be adopting.

In her second reading contribution, the Attorney-General said that the bill:

…seeks to regulate and control gambling activities in the state and to repeal the Gambling Administration Act 1995. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to gambling laws that meet contemporary needs and community expectations while maintaining the right balance between reducing the risks and costs to the community and individuals from harm caused by gambling and the maintenance of an economically viable and socially responsible gambling industry in South Australia.

I have never heard a bigger bunch of rubbish my life. This government, the Attorney, claims that this bill:

…meet[s] contemporary needs and community expectations while maintaining the right balance between reducing the risks and costs to the community…

That is the very community that she failed to consult with appropriately in response to this bill. That is who she claims to be supporting with the introduction of this bill.

We know all too well that since their introduction into pubs and clubs in 1994, poker machines have driven an exponential increase in gambling losses in SA, and with it enormous social and economic harm. Over $14.3 billion has been lost, while state government has collected over $5.6 billion in tax revenues, and that is not even to mention what the poker machine lobby has gained in revenue.

The minute that poker machine lobby saw their revenue being threatened, being at risk, with the introduction of new limits on machines—$5 down from $10—what did they do? They lobbied the new government for changes that would suit their needs, they lobbied the government for note acceptors and they lobbied the government to get rid of social effect certificate tests, because none of that suited their agenda. They were looking at a hole in their revenue and they wanted to fill it, and this government has obliged. They have done absolutely everything in their power to ensure that their friends in the poker machine industry do not suffer any more losses to their revenue. They have also done that to ensure that they are propping up their own revenue base that they get from poker machines.

The gambling industry in SA and its large poker machine owners have disproportionate economic and political influence, with both the government and the opposition seemingly falling over each other to keep them happy, and nothing could be more true than that today when we see both the government and the opposition trying to gag this debate in order to ram these bills through this parliament. In their aggressive pursuit of profit, they have unleashed an enormous amount of individual, family and community misery, something we do not talk about in this place at all.

We are quite happy to stand up here and talk about statistics on suicide, but we ignore the fact that over 400 people a year—more than one person a day—take their lives because of a gambling addiction. We do not talk about that in here. We talk about statistics on suicide in every other respect, but we ignore the fact that more people lose their lives through gambling addiction in this country than many other forms of addiction, illness or violence.

In response to those sorts of statistics, this government and the former government have failed to provide responsible and effective regulation to protect the community. We know that for every one problem gambler at least seven other individuals are impacted. We know that crimes are committed as a result of problem gambling. We know that people steal. We know that it results in other forms of disruption to families' lives each and every day. People lose their jobs, they go to gaol, they steal and they commit suicide because of gambling addiction. But that's okay: we will just ram a bill through parliament that makes gambling addiction more of a problem and more of a burden on the community, without even taking into account the total social and economic cost to our communities.

We have been clear all along in relation to our position on gambling reform. On that note, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has recently taken a swipe at me and at SA-Best for its blind ideology on matters that are raised in this place—blind ideology on matters that concern unions. But there is no blind ideology when it comes to problem gambling. There is no blind ideology when it comes to the cost to the community. There is no blind ideology when it comes to suicides. There is no blind ideology when people end up in gaol. There is only blind ideology when we do not support a bill that suits the opposition's agenda, or that suits this government's agenda.

I am very happy to stand up in this place now, today, tomorrow, next week, next year, and use my position to support those people who voted us into this place and to ensure that we remain true to our values and principles—values and principles of transparency, accountability and openness—even when the government and opposition choose to get together behind closed doors and do a cosy deal that suits the poker machine barons to the detriment of our communities.

We make no apologies for that. Research by the Productivity Commission and two landmark research reports indicate that about 40 per cent of poker machine losses come from those people who experience severe problem gambling harm. In its 2010 report—one that I am sure the Treasurer is all too familiar with—the Productivity Commission noted that nationally there were at least 80,000 to 160,000 people suffering severe problems from their gambling, and between 230,000 and 350,000 Australians at real risk of a full-blown gambling addiction. That equates to almost one person per machine having a severe gambling problem, and almost two other people—1.7—at risk of a full-blown gambling addiction Australia wide.

The opposition can come into this place and say, 'Look at us, we've secured an inquiry into online gambling', and we have not for one second ever underestimated the impacts of online gambling, but to correct the Leader of the Opposition in this place, who is not even here today, but poker machine reform, poker machine addiction in this state—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: He's at a funeral.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Okay. Well, whoever is in the role of the Leader of the Opposition—we do not know because we have not been told—poker machine addiction far outweighs online gambling in terms of its prevalence to this day. They are not my stats, they are official stats. Poker machine addiction still outweighs online gambling in terms of its addictiveness and prevalence in this country.

It drives up levels of crime, poverty, depression and other serious mental health problems. The majority of gambling-related fraud is due to poker machines. The poker machine fraud generates crimes amongst many otherwise non-offending citizens. Whatever the government makes in poker machine revenue in the short term is just not worth it in the long term.

The economic impact cannot be underestimated either, because on average we know that over the last 10 years alone some $731 million has been lost each year on poker machines in hotels and clubs in South Australia. That is money diverted away not just from individuals who have lost their money and their families but it also deprives retailers, supermarkets and other small businesses of valuable revenue.

A study by the Adelaide University centre for economics found that for every $1 million spent on poker machines only three jobs were created, compared with more than double that for $1 million spent on retail and double again for jobs created in hospitality, in cafes, in fast food and in restaurants. For every $100 million not spent on poker machines but spent on retail goods, there would be 300 to 350 additional jobs in retail and more than double this in hospitality, cafes, restaurants and other small businesses. They are the statistics we fail to acknowledge in this debate. That is the long-term outcome we could be looking at, but instead we are not only focused but stuck on the short-term gain from poker machines across this state.

On 8 November 2019, The SA Centre for Economic Studies published a media release in response to this gambling package and in that release they said, 'Giving gamblers ready access to cash and allowing electronic gaming machines to accept banknotes will only worsen the situation for problem gamblers in South Australia.' That is the review of researchers at the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies at the University of Adelaide, a view that has been completely ignored and undermined in this debate.

The Centre for Economic Studies has been a leader in analysing the economic and social impacts of gambling activities, particularly electronic gaming machines, for more than 20 years. The government has not bothered to reach out to them during this debate. Speaking about the state government's amendments to gambling laws which are currently before parliament, Professor Michael O'Neil said:

The State Government has argued that its reforms will help protect the community 'against gambling-related harm.' To say that these proposed amendments are concerned with 'harm minimisation' contradicts all serious gambling research.

Serious gambling research that did not see the light of day in the government's consideration when it drafted these bills. In relation to note acceptors he states:

The introduction of note acceptors compounds an existing problem in South Australia: easy access to cash through EFTPOS inside a gaming room and ATMs inside venues with gaming facilities.

'Other states have banned ATMs and EFTPOS in gaming machine areas of clubs, hotels, and in most casinos', Professor O'Neil said. If the gambling reforms are passed, South Australia will stand alone as the worst gambling jurisdiction in the nation for its ability to allow gamblers to access easy cash in a gaming venue. That is what the government and the opposition today can congratulate themselves on: they can congratulate themselves on standing alone, making South Australia stand alone as the worst gambling jurisdiction in the nation for its ability to allow gamblers easy access to cash in a gaming venue.

Professor O'Neil goes on to say that research in Australia and overseas clearly demonstrates that the introduction of note acceptors has reinforced problem gambling behaviour. By contrast, other research has shown that bans on the use of note acceptors has resulted in a reduction in gambling turnover and a significant drop in the number of gamblers and relatives making calls to gambling helplines. He called on the state government to follow the lead of the Victorian government and ensure that gambling data at the level of individual venues be made publicly available to enable a full assessment of the impact of gambling.

The lack of transparency and the poor record of serious gambling research commissioned in South Australia provides a veil of secrecy that is certainly not in the public interest. It reflects a lack of maturity in policy debates, leaving policymakers to fall back on conjecture and assumptions or the powerful influence of lobbyists and industries.

I hope that by the time we get to the committee stage of the bill I can have some answers in response to the questions that I asked on this very issue yesterday during the briefing that was offered to us by the Attorney-General's office and by the commissioner, specifically in relation to the issue of statistics and data and why it should or should not be made available publicly so that each and every time we front up to this place to have a debate on problem gambling, gambling addiction and poker machine reforms, we can do so with the requisite knowledge and the requisite information that we need, research that we need, to make informed decisions.

Informed decisions as opposed to the sorts of decisions that have been made in this place today; informed decisions as opposed to backdoor deals between the government and the opposition that have completely dismissed, undermined and ignored the research that has been done in this area, the experts who have provided feedback in this area and the knowledge that they had to share with both the government and the opposition, which was completely and utterly ignored.

It is not just us who are being shown a lack of respect and courtesy, it is not just the community that is being shown a lack of respect and courtesy—to their detriment, I might add—but it is also those people who we rely on each and every day in this place to inform us about the decisions that we make about the welfare of those individuals in this state.

I am sure that when the Treasurer speaks on this he will tell us that a gambling addict will walk over cut glass to access a poker machine if they have an addiction—I am sure of it. I have heard it before. It has stayed with me for years: they will walk over cut glass. No-one has argued against that, but our job in this place is to ensure that we provide appropriate harm minimisation measures, that we provide appropriate protections to those who are most vulnerable in our communities. That is what we have failed to do in this instance.

We have failed, at the most fundamental level, to afford to those individuals who need them the most the protections they deserve against problem gambling, against gambling addiction, and against poker machines. That is what we are achieving today.

In relation to the issue of the social effects certificate and note acceptors, as well as a number of other issues I have spoken to, I indicate that I will have a lot more to say about those matters when we get to the gambling regulation bill. We have touched on some of those matters now because all these bills are interrelated, they are linked and are reliant upon each other, but when we finally get to the gambling regulation bill—which no doubt will be very shortly—I will have a lot more to say on those measures, and I am sure the Hon. Tammy Franks will have a lot more to say on those measures as well.

In the meantime I would like to read from an email that was sent to me in relation to this bill from someone referred to earlier, Sharon Hollamby of Communities Against Pokies. She is one of the individuals who has been trying, at length, to ensure there is some sense of transparency in this debate and some sense of ensuring that everything gets on the record that needs to be on the record. She sent my office an email—or somebody has sent an email to my office on her behalf—saying that she has been nice enough to keep them up to date with the proposed legislation, and that they would be most grateful 'if you could share Chieu's story in parliament in opposition to these bills', because they 'don't want anyone else to have to go through' what they have gone through. I quote:

In her final note Chieu wrote 'my life has been a total wreck and it seems like each day it gets worse…I really feel lost and no matter how much I cry out for help no one is there…finally I've had enough of it and I feel the world is much better without me…I just feel like I'm stuck in the middle and everything is falling all around me and there's nothing I can do to change it. I can't hold it up. I can't stop it.'

Since that time, the email we received from Mr Anthony Neave, reads:

Dear Minister,

Four years ago today my life changed forever. My wife Chieu took her own life, leaving behind our then 16 year old son.

According to the police report, my wife 'appeared to have a serious gambling problem which resulted in her squandering a substantial amount of…money'. In the opinion of the investigating officer, this was 'one of the most prevalent (factors)' in her decision to take her own life.

As you may have heard in the news, several people, including my wife, were able to withdraw more [money] than the prescribed EFTPOS limit at the Mansfield Park Hotel. At several other venues Chieu frequented, namely the Adelaide Casino, The Regency Tavern, Greyhound Racing SA, The Bartley Tavern and the Grand Junction Tavern, she was able to withdraw $200 three, four or on many occasions, five times per session. Who knows how many more times they would have let her [withdraw] money if she wasn't limited by the bankcards she was using.

Chieu kept her addiction hidden very well. I never once saw her in front of a machine, but the operators at these venues did, and they kept feeding her addiction, until she had lost everything and ultimately took her own life.

The last 5 years or so of my life have been emotionally very difficult. I have had to seek counselling and medical assistance for depression and anxiety on numerous occasions, not only after her death, but during our separation. Chieu lied to me many times about her addiction, and that loss of trust destroyed our marriage.

I still experience post-traumatic flashbacks after finding Chieu's body. If my son Kae had decided to go to the house to look for her that day, instead of taking the bus to school, he would have found her. I cannot begin to imagine how painful it must be for Kae to lose his mum at such a young age. I am constantly anxious about his future.

As you see, poker machine addiction impacts more than just the people who use them. They really do destroy people's lives, and they destroy families.

Less than 2 weeks after receiving a letter from the Hon. Vickie Chapman to say that 'the Government is 'genuinely concerned about issues associated with problem gambling,' the minister appeared on TV news announcing proposals allowing cash acceptors on machines, reducing red tape for licensees' and allowing venues to open on Christmas day and Good Friday. I'm deeply saddened that she thinks these measures will somehow reduce the harm they continue to cause. According to the executive director of the SA Centre for Economic Studies, Mr Michael O'Neil, there has been a 47% increase in losses in the Northern Territory since they introduced cash acceptors in 2013.

I implore you to vote against any changes that would increase the damage caused by these machines.

With respect,

Anthony Neave

Over the years, I have heard countless stories just like Chieu's and just like Anthony's, and that is why each and every time one of these bills comes up here I will ensure, despite how much it may annoy other members, that we do our utmost to ensure that their voices are heard during these debates, to ensure that those people who ultimately suffer the consequences of gambling addiction and their families, those people who end up committing crimes, those people who end up committing frauds, those people who end up taking their lives, are recorded in Hansard as a reflection of the deals done in this place when a government and an opposition get together and ram through measures that we all know, that industry experts have told us, will result in detrimental impacts for our communities.

This is a very sad day for South Australia and is yet another growing example of the Marshall government's greed, arrogance and hypocrisy, and the opposition this time round can take credit for sharing in that very same greed, arrogance and hypocrisy. I acknowledge for the benefit of the Treasurer that there are some good measures in here that we would have very happily supported had we not rammed them in between a number of very detrimental and hurtful measures, but for the Attorney to suggest, as she did in her second reading speech, that these bills 'meet contemporary needs and community expectations while maintaining the right balance between reducing the risks and costs to the community and individuals from harm caused by gambling and the maintenance of an economically viable and sociable responsible gambling industry in South Australia' is disappointing to say the least.

For those reasons, we will be opposing this bill, and we will have much more to say on the issue of the package when we get to debating the gambling regulation bill. I look forward during this debate to receiving responses to all of the questions I have so far had the opportunity to place on the record with the Attorney at the briefing that was offered yesterday.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:34): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 5

Noes 14

Majority 9

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:38): I had not put myself down on the list earlier today because I had assumed that common sense would prevail, and given that the crossbench briefing was only held yesterday and that so many questions remain unanswered I had assumed that decency would prevail and the bill would be adjourned, but, clearly, deals have been done and we are now going through the motions with this bill and the two that follow it.

At the outset, I acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks on this issue. She is the lead spokesperson for the Greens on gambling issues and she has done a good job in putting our position, and the position of those whom we seek to protect from gambling harm, on the record. So my contribution is in addition to what my colleague has said and not in substitution.

I was reflecting also on some of the remarks of the Hon. Connie Bonaros and some of the stories that she was telling of the harm that has been perpetrated on people who have gambling problems and gambling addictions. That harm obviously reaches the pinnacle of harm when people effectively die as a result of their addiction.

I was reflecting that, when I first came here in the 2006 election, a person who came somewhat out of left field, who people did not expect would do that well, was the Hon. Nick Xenophon. On a 'no pokies' ticket he secured about a quarter, from memory, of the statewide vote. I think this is an issue on which the crossbench has a lot of support in the community, and there is a lot of debate that still needs to be had, rather than just rushing this bill through in the hours that we have left in this session of parliament.

When we were discussing poker machines back in 2006, if someone had stood up and said, 'I've got an idea. Why don't we let them feed $50 notes straight into the machine?', then people would have said, 'You're mad. We know enough about problem gambling that that would never happen.' Yet that is exactly what we are debating this afternoon, feeding $50 notes straight into the machine.

My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks told me about the briefing that she had yesterday. One of the documents that was provided in relation to that briefing was a list of people who attended the government's round table. That list was further annotated with the names of those organisations that had made formal submissions, and yet we do not see the government being forthcoming with providing those submissions. It may be that some of them might have been obtained by other means, but certainly I have not seen what Lifeline had to say about this bill, and I have not seen what some of the gambling organisations said. I am assuming that a lot of what they said fell on very fertile ground, but we do not know what it is they have pushed for because we have not seen the submissions.

The government also kindly provided a document that related to facial recognition. When I had a look at that brief document, the technology was not just about having a look at who is coming in the front door and matching it to see whether they are on the problem gambler list; it was also about spying on your staff to make sure they are doing their job properly, to make sure that they are doing their rounds as they are obliged to do. I do not recall that ever being highlighted as part of the reason for facial recognition technology.

When we do get into the detailed debate on these bills, I will certainly be interested in what the government has to say about facial recognition technology, because I think I am probably the person who has said most about it over the years. I was the only person who even noted in parliament that the previous South Australian government had handed over the biggest and most comprehensive database of South Australians in existence. It handed it over to the feds for the purposes of facial recognition. I am referring, of course, to the South Australian driver licence database. It is a database of increasingly high-resolution photos plus the names, addresses, dates of birth, bank details, contact details of just about every adult South Australian, and that has gone off to the feds.

I am not one for saying, 'The horse has bolted. There is no point arguing about facial recognition. Let's just assume that every government and non-government organisation or corporation has access to your mugshot and can match it electronically with a database.' I am not prepared to concede that yet. The government keeps talking about safeguards, and yet every day we get an email, even from our good friends at Parliamentary Network Support Group, telling us about the latest phishing scandal, the latest hacking attempt. Apparently just yesterday people were trying to hack into the parliamentary network.

We know from news reports that the networks of law enforcement authorities are no safer. We know that the national parliament itself has been hacked into. I do not for one minute trust that this increased reliance on facial recognition is something that is safe or that it is something that the community accepts. Therefore, I want to explore that in a lot more detail when we get into the committee stage of these bills.

I am disappointed that the last sitting week or two is going to end like this. The government is pushing these bills through when, clearly, for members of the crossbench, this is core business. As I said, our friends at SA-Best were formerly the No Pokies party in a previous iteration, with the Hon. John Darley as well. So we have three members, together with the two Greens, for whom preventing harm from gambling is core business. For the government to say, 'Well, we've got the numbers; we're just going to push this through,' I think is an appalling way to end what has otherwise been a fairly civil session of this parliament.

It is not just in this place. In the other place they are still debating a bill. They are in the fourth hour of debate on a bill that no-one had seen until it was put on their desks at 11 o'clock. We still have not seen it here, and yet we are concerned that the government will try to ram legislation through roughshod. I have heard nothing from the government in relation to these gambling bills as to why there is a pressing need for them to pass in this week. I know the government has said they want them to pass this week.

Given the briefing was held only yesterday, given the absolutely fundamental nature of this topic to five members of this chamber, I cannot believe that the government has any pressing reason to get this through other than that they have done a deal with the Labor Party, they can get it through on the numbers and they are going to just push it through. I think that is an appalling way to manage the legislative workload.

My plea to the government would be to come back in February. We have the sitting calendar for next year. We still do not know a prorogation date, although I think it is the magical Tuesday 4 February, which would normally be a sitting date and appears to be absent from the calendar. I am expecting that that one might be it, but I have been wrong before; it might be some other time in that week. There will be no reason why the government cannot bring this back in February. That would be a much better way to proceed.

The other aspect that we do not know about is what deals have been done with the gambling industry. I can still remember one of the very first lobbyists who knocked on my door in Parliament House; he was from the Casino. I do not think he was too happy. I said, 'How come you've got a pass to Parliament House?' 'I used to work here,' he said. He still had his pass—in Parliament House, knocking on members' doors, lobbying. We got his pass taken away; that was good thing. I know that lobbyists from the gambling industry are in the ears of members of the major parties, if not constantly then very regularly.

I also remember, as a very young fresh-eyed member of parliament, the very first committee luncheon that I was invited to. I thought, 'I will go along to that and be collegial.' It was at the Casino. I thought, 'I'm not really interested in that.' It was in the restaurant attached to the Casino. We sat down and the deal was that we were all going to pay for ourselves, but within a short period of time a man who I did not know turned up. Everyone else seemed to know him quite well. The first question was, 'What are you drinking?' And all of a sudden, he snaps his fingers and another bottle of the same wine emerged. Given the person who was choosing the wine was incredibly knowledgeable about wine, it was not the cheapest on the list, I can tell you.

When I went to leave, I got my wallet out and I paid for my lunch, and I could see other members begrudgingly getting their wallets out. As I was leaving, the person who I did not know said, 'Don't worry about it; it's on the house. It's fine.' Members of parliament getting a free feed at the expense of the Casino, and then they wonder why we ask questions in this place when gambling bills are brought forward.

Similarly with the Casino expansion, driving down King William Road the other day I realised that you have now lost sight of a lot of the vista because of that new extension. I keep calling it the railway station. I think I am probably the last person to call it that. For everyone else, it is the Casino, an appalling privatisation of an important public space, as far as I am concerned. We know that there are ongoing arguments about the five-storey car park that will be built behind Parliament House. The key issue there is: how many car parks can we wrangle from the Casino for the staff and members of parliament?

The gambling industry get so many concessions from government and their lobbyists haunt these corridors with apparently gay abandon. So I am very nervous about the deals that are being done. We will forensically examine these bills in detail. We will ask the questions and we will try to get to the bottom of it, but in the meantime I put those brief comments in relation to the second reading. We will see where these debates go from here.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:50): I move that the debate be adjourned.

The PRESIDENT: I understand from the Clerk that it was only 12 minutes, so the motion was not validly put. Greater attention needs to be placed on the clock. I rule that the motion is invalid, on the advice of the Clerk, on time.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:50): I rise to put on the record that I am wholeheartedly supportive of the SA-Best and Greens amendments to the bill that have recently been filed. These amendments address some of the very problematic elements of the bill, such as the introduction of note acceptors onto electronic gaming machines. The amendments aim to make improvements for problem gamblers and I am supportive of those measures.

I think it is appalling that the government has removed the prohibition on note acceptors on pokies. The government believes that they are introducing a harm minimisation measure because they have legislated that the maximum note that will be accepted will be $50. This is laughable and demonstrates that the government has no understanding of problem gambling, or that they simply do not care. The cash withdrawal limit of $250 per card per cash facility is also a measure that has been dressed up to be done in the name of harm minimisation but is so far off the mark that I am not sure the same game is being played.

Given my previous stance on $1 bet limits and EFTPOS facilities in gaming venues, I do not think it would be a surprise that I will be opposing much of this bill and supporting the SA-Best and Greens amendments. I know other members have lengthy contributions to the bill and I do not want to repeat what they have to say. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:52): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Ayes 5

Noes 13

Majority 8

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:56): I rise to say that I will be, obviously, joining my colleagues in opposing this bill. I would like to thank the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. John Darley for their words, and, obviously, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, who has been very passionate over a long time about the impacts that poker machines have had on people not only in our community but also in the wider Australian community.

I have been around a long time. I can still remember the days when poker machines were introduced in South Australia. At the time, it was done with perhaps more anticipation of a boost to the state's economy. There was also the fact that the hotel industry was really suffering because of the onset of drink-driving laws in South Australia. I do not think many people realise that just as we have seen here, where deals have been concocted, a deal was concocted in those days.

The hotel lobby was very strong in South Australia. It had strong influences through the media, and I am quite familiar with the influence that they had on various sections of the media here. They felt that the introduction of drink-driving laws had impacted on their revenue streams. They wanted something to supplement that, to supplement what they were doing, and of course we had the start of the insidious what I think we used to call at the time 'one-armed bandits'. That is what they were known as in New South Wales, in the clubs over there.

I remember in my youth visiting clubs in New South Wales where they had these so-called one-armed bandits. I could see the impact that they were having on people playing them. They became quite addictive for them. Also, they raised a lot of money for those particular clubs that had the licences for that, and a lot of that money went into the community generally. Of course, here it was a different thing. It was not the clubs that were going to benefit as such. It was actually the hotels, the pokie barons, the people who owned some of the biggest chains of hotels in South Australia.

There was much excitement when these machines were introduced, but at the same time a lot of naivety because nobody really in those days had done any research into the impacts that it would have on people: that there would be problem gambling, that there would be issues that would result from problem gambling, including increasing crime, issues with family violence, homelessness—all those issues were never taken into consideration when the government of the day decided it would introduce these machines.

Twenty-five years on, I have spoken to one of the Labor members whose vote was quite crucial in that, the Hon. John Trainer, former Speaker of the House of Assembly, and he tells me how sorry, regretful and shameful he feels because he voted for it. To this day he regrets that he and the parliament did not stand up and oppose these machines. We have seen over a period of time that people become quite wealthy. The pokie barons have become quite wealthy as a result of the losses incurred by the most vulnerable people in South Australia.

It is incredible that the Australian Hotels Association, which has been at the forefront of promoting its gaming venues and also in supporting this legislation, which the Hon. Connie Bonaros has aptly described what they claim is 'our legislation', can wield so much influence in this town—not only influence in terms of its lobbying strength but also the amount of money it can expend in trying to prop itself up, prop up its ill-gotten profits.

That could not have been more evident than at the 2018 election, when the former senator, Nick Xenophon, who headed our party—Nick Xenophon, SA-Best—was running. The opinion polls were very strong for SA-Best at the time. Nick had built quite a strong following in South Australia because of his strong stand against poker machines and other social justice issues. Nick stood up for the downtrodden, for the voiceless, the people who needed help, and he was particularly strong when it came to these insidious poker machines. He earned enough respect and support in the community to be elected to parliament.

Nick continued his strong stand against these machines right up until he was beaten at the state election. Let me just say—let's not beat around the bush—that the reason the Liberals are in office today is because of the influence and money that had been poured into that campaign by the Australian Hotels Association, of course run by its chief executive, Ian Horne. I cannot ever recall a campaign like that, particularly where one group had such a strong presence in trying to impose itself on the South Australian community, impose its will by spreading complete untruths about what would happen if Nick Xenophon and members of his party were elected to the House of Assembly and also to the upper house, the impact it would have on things like live entertainment, jobs and all that sort of stuff. It was totally unfounded, totally baseless.

I think the biggest shock came afterwards when we learnt how much they had spent. It turns out that the Australian Hotels Association has emerged as the second-largest political donor in Australia with declared political gifts leaping from $153,000 in 2016-17 to $1.1 million last financial year: $1.1 million last financial year from the Australian Hotels Association—buying influence; that's how they bought elections in South Australia and in Tasmania.

The AHA's generosity was also focused strongly on the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party, which received $289,000 as it fought an election campaign against the Labor Party which, at the time, showed a bit of gumption because it promised to ban poker machines in the state's pubs. We do not get that promise here from Labor. We did not get that and now we know why we did not get it, because they were resoundingly beaten by a campaign that was launched by the AHA.

According to figures released from the AEC that covered the 2017-18 financial year, the AHA of South Australia donated nearly $325,000 to the South Australian Liberal Party, the South Australian ALP, and the Australian Conservatives. So there you go: hence why we have such a cosy sweetheart arrangement between Labor and the government over this bill.

The Tasmanian Liberal top five declared donors all had poker machine interests and together they gave the party $513,750 in 2017-18. New data from the Australian Electoral Commission shows that further donations to the Tasmanian Liberals flowed from mainland gambling interests including $12,000 from the Australian Hotels Association's federal office and $2,750 from Tabcorp. The Tasmanian Liberals received $4.1 million in total donations compared with just $1 million to the state's Labor Party. The Liberal Party only had to declare the source of $950,000 of that sum because they are not compelled to declared donors who give less than $13,500. More than half the Tasmanian Liberal Party's declared donations came from poker machine owners or their representatives.

The Tasmanian election was a test case, according to author and historian James Boyce who said, 'We now know what happens when a political party dares to campaign against the poker machine industry.' Mr Boyce also said:

Your political opponents will be given whatever they ask to destroy you. They use that money to buy up all the available advertising space.

Does this ring a bell, Mr President? It should ring a bell to Labor and the Liberals because that is what happened here. You could not help but notice, if you picked up The Advertiser during the election campaign, the AHA ads all over the place: you saw them on television, you heard them on radio and they were all over the internet.

The Tasmanian federal MP Andrew Wilkie said that lax disclosure regulations mean that voters would never know how much money the gambling lobby donated to the Tasmanian Liberal Party. Mr Wilkie said:

This is a mind-blowing amount of money in itself but it's all the more alarming when you consider all of the spending that isn't disclosed.

Quoting him again:

No big political donor hands over money without expecting a return on that investment and the poker machine industry sure did hit paydirt at last year's state election.

Here we have it today, all this hysteria going on in the other states about Chinese influence, money being donated to political parties, perhaps to curry favour with those political parties, yet here no-one says anything about a major lobby group, the AHA, throwing millions of dollars into political campaigns. How is that? We will probably need legislation to prevent this from happening in future.

I must point out the role of Ian Horne in all this. There he was at the head; he was the figurehead of the AHA's campaign throughout, all the ads were authorised by Ian Horne. Yet there he is, sitting on the board of the South Australian Tourism Commission—and he was reappointed again this year. I think that has the odour of a job for the boys, thank you very much.

Mr Horne certainly has an interest in the hotel industry, and we know that the hotel industry is a big part of tourism in this state. However, is it appropriate that a person who oversaw the spending of millions of dollars in an election campaign, in a political campaign, should then be able to hold a government position such as that?

There is no doubt that this legislation—let me say, probably the most vile, vulgar legislation I have seen come before the South Australian parliament—is some kind of a pay back to the AHA. We know they have been whingeing that their profits from gaming have been diminishing, so they needed some kind of a prop up for their profits. Of course, you boost their profits and up go their taxes.

This legislation is all about propping up the gaming industry in South Australia, propping up the AHA and, of course, propping up the Casino next door and that edifice that is currently going up. It looks like it is going up quite quickly. Members may have noticed the exterior; by the time it is finished I think I will give it the moniker 'The Midas Tower', because that is what is going to happen. They will hope it will attract more gamblers to go in there, they will have more machines in there for gamblers to play—and, of course, these machines are going to be different.

That is probably part of the reason the government is so keen to rush this legislation through, because not only will hotels benefit, we know that the Casino will also benefit from note acceptors. Note acceptors are something I find totally abhorrent, and I would say that the rest of the South Australian community would find them totally abhorrent, in a world where gambling seems to be almost accepted as part of our society these days.

In Australia we seem to be renowned for our affinity for gambling. Whether it is on racehorses, two snails, flies going up a wall, two-up or whatever, Australians seem to have a penchant for gambling. Of course, we now have casinos and with those casinos we have online gambling as well, which is now probably going to be one of the worst of these influences from gambling that we can imagine. Online gambling is, to me—in fact gambling is—the tobacco of the 21^st century. No doubt about it.

Online gambling is going to present our society with a lot of problems in future. You see constantly on television, in newspapers, on radio, on the internet, the online gambling companies that are constantly peppering users with their advertisements to entice people to go and gamble. But they are not only enticing adults, they are also enticing the next generation of gambling addicts: young kids.

There is nothing more disturbing than sitting down with my family—for instance, while I was watching the soccer World Cup, with young kids, young nephews, around me—and suddenly, as the teams come out, it cuts to a commercial break with an online gambling pundit giving you the odds as the game is about to start. What message is that sending to the young kids? I have also had young kids, when we are discussing AFL football and the winning chances of the Adelaide Crows or Port Adelaide Power, it is always prefaced with, 'Oh, you know, Uncle Frank, they are a $1.30 favourites on Sportsbet.'

Really? Is that how you judge which team is going to win, based on what their sporting odds are? That is where society has gone in Australia and we are continuing to encourage that with money that has been thrown at improving facilities that encourage gambling, supporting gambling venues, like this legislation here.

I want to go back to the note acceptors and just how repulsive this type of machine is going to be to the unfortunates who are attracted to these gaming machines. Just think about it: today, they put in coins, and the coins can act as a bit of a break because if you run out of your coins I guess you can always go out and try to get a few more, so there is an opportunity there to at least take a break from the habit. With notes, you do not have that. With notes, you can just keep feeding the machine. It will empty the wallets of workers, it will empty the purses of pensioners, it will just keep taking money.

You can also withdraw money from within gaming venues. How sickening is that? That is something that the last Labor government allowed, for people to withdraw cash inside gaming venues. What concerns do they have about problem gamblers or trying to curb it? None. I hark back to some comments that were made by Professor Michael O'Neil, an extremely well-respected academic at the Centre for Economic Studies. Here is what Professor O'Neil had to say when the Attorney-General released details of the legislation. He says:

…South Australia was the only state and territory not to have banknote acceptors…both in clubs and hotels and the Casino...South Australia had an enviable track record [there] because the research on gambling in regard to banknote acceptors shows that the introduction of note acceptors into hotels and clubs leads to a substantial increase basically in losses by the individual and the Productivity Commission and all other researchers that have looked at it have basically counselled against banknote acceptors [and] certainly, if [there is to be a] limit of about $20 as the load up limit…there are elements of the proposed changes in the gambling area that I think will have serious implications for problem gamblers and people who are vulnerable to excessive gambling.

He had a blunt message for the government. He said:

…state governments pay lip service to the research done by gambling researchers. South Australia I think, not only the Centre for Economic Studies, but Dr Paul Delfabbro, in the psychology department, one of the top researchers in the world, [says] governments also pay lip service to research and, in fact, they will use Orwellian doublespeak basically to say, 'Well, the introduction of note acceptors is a protection against harm,' because, what, the individual will go up to a machine, an ATM or an EFTPOS machine, and withdraw cash and go back to the machine and put it in. Very, very limited human contact…we know that there [was also] court case [recently where] one hotel that did not police individuals accessing money from EFTPOS machines not once, not twice, but a number of times, so this is just one venue that's now in the forefront of the public domain. How [often] does this occur?

he asks. He continues:

[So] this is the problem: the government use Orwellian doublespeak. They ignore research. They basically listen to the industry.

And we know why. It continues:

…South Australia introduced the fact that a gambler could access cash inside the gaming area…[actually] inside…where the machines are…to my knowledge—

Michael O'Neil said—

this was absolutely a ridiculous policy…I can't find anywhere in the world in which a problem gambler is able to access cash inside a gaming area…South Australia claims it's at the forefront of harm minimisation. Well, South Australia, with the banknote acceptors and accessing the cash in gaming venue, is probably the laggard of all states and territories...

In Victoria, there are no ATMs in hotels or clubs with gambling, but there are in South Australia. You cannot access the gaming area in Victoria but you can in South Australia. There are strict limits on EFTPOS in Victoria. Victoria has trialled pre-commitment…South Australia has not. So, South Australia's research in this area is very, very poor…

Overall, this is a very bad public policy without sufficient consultation and there's not a balance between what the industry might want but what researchers have thrown through…quite good peer-review research…

Allow me to indulge the Legislative Council with some research. First, a paper from one of the world's most respected gambling analysts, Dr Charles Livingstone, and his report, 'How electronic gambling machines work'. It states:

Electronic gambling machines (EGMs), known colloquially as 'pokies', have their origins in older style lever-operated machines which spun a series of physical reels, on which were portrayed a number of winning symbols. These devices used mechanical stops to arrest the spin of the reels in order, usually from left to right. When the winning symbols lined up, a prize was delivered, usually via a coin dump into the tray at the bottom of the machine.

Today, EGMs are computers. However, many are still reminiscent of older style games, being housed in large upright boxes and utilising 'reels' that appear to spin.

At the core of any EGM is a random number generator. When a button or touch screen is activated, the computer accesses the numbers generated at that point in time and converts them to a display on the screen. The numbers correspond to a position on a 'reel map'—the number and order of symbols on each virtual reel—and a 'pay table'—the prizes awarded for each combination of symbols appearing on a line. For example, if the random process generates three Kings, this will be mapped to the pay table to pay, e.g., five credits.

Every country has its own regulations governing EGM design. This paper focusses on so-called 'Australian-style' EGMs…In the documentary film KaChing! Pokie Nation (Lawrence & Goldman, 2015), Schüll comments that Australian-style machines are seen internationally as sophisticated and successful at achieving their goal—attracting people to use them, and encouraging repeated expenditure. They were rapidly adopted by American casino operators after being introduced there in the 1990s.

Is it any wonder, if you have had look at the share market, why one of the gaming machine maker's share prices are always so high? It is a consequence of the Americans being able to uptake that technology. It continues:

In Australia, EGMs are required to conform to the Australian and New Zealand Gaming Machine Technical Standards. However, each jurisdiction requires slightly different parameter settings (return to player ratio, maximum bet, credit load-up limit etc.). Each jurisdiction also requires EGM games to be approved separately, although some regulators take notice of game approvals in other Australian jurisdictions. Australian jurisdictions outsource game approval testing to licensed private agencies, which certify games as compliant.

Policy and Regulation

In Australia, EGMs account for over $14 billion in gambler losses, or 62% of all gambling revenue. Around $2.5 billion of those losses occur in casinos.

That was a finding from a Productivity Commission report in 2010. The paper continues:

A recent study using nationally representative data from four countries found that while high expenditure on EGMs is associated with the most harm, harm can also accrue to those spending more moderate amounts…

Policy makers and regulators tasked with protecting gamblers and reducing harm associated with EGMs have at their disposal the Australia/New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard…

The standard currently applies to all Australasian jurisdictions and specifies a range of technical standards required for approval by regulators. It is not without its problems. One is that each Australian jurisdiction applies distinct parameters…Another is the orientation of the standard towards technical, rather than harm prevention or reduction, priorities…

Arguably the biggest problem with the standard is that understanding of specific 'structural characteristics' of EGMs and their relationship to gambling harm and behaviours is not well reflected in it.

EGM structural characteristics…are discrete but integrated elements of game design that in the aggregate constitute the game portrayed on an EGM. They are the 'building blocks' of an EGM game.

You may be bored out there, but perhaps none of you actually know the internal operations of a modern gaming machine, so while you are passing this bill you may as well learn how these things operate and how they will be fleecing people. It continues:

Some EGM characteristics may add to the enjoyment of those who derive pleasure from the machines. The issue for policy-makers is to balance this consideration against the harm generated by an EGM characteristic. This is identical to challenges arising when developing policy and regulation for other consumer goods, services and public practices (e.g., motor vehicles).

EGM characteristics are not accidental aspects of game design, nor are they immutable. EGMs have evolved rapidly in recent years to utilise many characteristics known to increase the addictive potential of games, and, as a corollary, increase the likelihood of harmful consequences for a substantial proportion of those who use them.

So these games are designed to increase addiction. It continues:

The process of game evolution has been well documented…and its rapid growth has delivered digital devices that far exceed the revenue performance, and addictive and harm-inducing potential, of older, mechanical poker machines.

No wonder they want note acceptors on them. It continues:

Given the rapid and continuing evolution of EGM design, it appears that regulators are not always aware of the implications of some aspects of game design. Australian regulators have all 'outsourced' game testing to commercial operators who determine whether games meet the standards, and issue certification.

Research relating to many specific game characteristics and configurations is relatively modest… Facilitating researchers' understanding of the new generation of EGMs would assist regulators in the crafting and application of standards.

Rapid progress in understanding the impacts and effects of EGM design could be facilitated by providing bona fide researchers with regular access to probability accounting reports (PAR sheets), and actual game data. Improved access to actual game data would be supported by the introduction of comprehensive pre-commitment systems, enabling de-identified data sets to be generated.

Then, in an approach for public health, the author states:

Gambling regulation has become overtly aligned with public health principles in recent years. Gaming machine standards and other requirements for approval of EGM games provide an important set of tools to incorporate practical and highly effective mechanisms for the prevention and reduction of harm, and the improvement of consumer protection measures.

Understanding the effects of EGM structural characteristics, and re-orienting the national gaming machine standards towards harm prevention and reduction priorities, represents a reflection of a fundamental principle of the public health approach. Access to better information and real-world data would be of great benefit in achieving this goal.

However, there is already ample evidence available of the relationship between some important EGM structural characteristics, and the harms associated with the use of EGMs. Acting on this understanding would provide considerable benefits…

Like other forms of gambling, EGMs have a price, a kind of negative return on investment known as the 'return to player' ratio.

Let's explain the return to player ratio:

A return to player (RTP) ratio is the proportion of each wager an EGM game is designed to return on average to users. RTP represents an average deduction from the user's wager for each bet, calculated over the game cycle.

Australian jurisdictions prescribe a range of minimum RTP. In clubs and [hotels] in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory, minimum RTP is set at 85%. In the ACT, minimum RTP is 87%, and in South Australia it is 87.5%. EGMs in casinos generally have a higher minimum RTP (reflecting their greater turnover and higher bet limits).

So the Casino is going to benefit greatly. It continues:

If minimum RTP is set at 85%, this means that, over the long term (often described as the 'game cycle'), the game must return to the user at least 85% of the amount they wager.

The prescribed method of calculation for this to be achieved varies between jurisdictions. In Victoria, the actual RTP is calculated by assessing the aggregated wagers and total returns paid to users over the course of a year for all EGMs operating within a specific venue…In other jurisdictions, an individual machine must return at least the minimum RTP over its game cycle. The game cycle, however, may be many years, because of the large number of possible outcomes…

A machine's theoretical return to player ratio (TRTP) is determined by its 'game maths': the interaction of the configuration of the game's 'reel maps', the number and order of symbols on each virtual reel, and the 'pay table', the prizes awarded for each combination of symbols appearing on a line.

A game's TRTP can be readily determined mathematically, but it is important to note that TRTP is very unlikely to be achieved on an EGM game in the scale of an individual user's interaction with the game. Most EGM games have a very large number of potential outcomes—frequently 50,000,000 or more.

Dolphin Treasure, a relatively old-style EGM game still provided in many Australian venues, has 35,640,000 possible outcomes. This can be derived from the number of symbols on each of the five reels utilised by the game—

and the formula for that is—

(30x30x30x30x44). Thus, the time to traverse the full repertoire of possible outcomes of such a game would require a minimum—

get this: a minimum—

of 5.6 years of continuous use (at game intervals of 5 seconds per spin, for 24 hours per day, every day).

Are you getting dizzy, Treasurer? It continues:

However, the probability that even such a time commitment would produce all possible results in an EGM game is very close to zero.

Let us look at the reality of player returns:

The price of EGM games can be defined as 1-RTP, so that an RTP of 85% (or 0.85) produces an average price per wager of 0.15 or 15%. That is, the 'house edge' for Australian EGMs is as high as 15%. It is…rare for such an outcome to be achieved in the short term.

However, in an experiment where the price of a game was varied substantially (and rather more than occurs in practice—between 2% and 15%), users were reportedly able to detect this…

In some Australian jurisdictions, RTP must be displayed on a user information screen, while others prescribe that such information must be available at a venue upon request. But even when disclosed, the question remains whether EGM users understand the meaning of RTP or its relevance to their outcomes.

I may well have to, when the Casino opens up, borrow Hansard and go with them because they will get an explanation here of how it all works. It continues:

The bottom line is that, unlike in other addictive consumptions, such as alcohol and tobacco, price as a concept is difficult to apply to the case of EGMs.

Common misconceptions

Many EGM users believe that if the game is operated in a fair manner they should leave gambling venues with an amount consistent with the return to player ratio as advertised—that is, 85% or 87% of their stake (depending on jurisdiction).

In this state, 87.5%. It continues:

In fact, the 'price' calculation is best conceived as the deduction of the price factor, the (1-RTP) on average for each bet wagered (i.e., for each spin).

A user operating an EGM with a price of 15% will on average lose 15% of their wager at each spin. The effect is cumulative. So, if a user inserts $10 and wagers $1 each spin, even if the game performs exactly as predicted (and this is extremely unlikely), the user would exhaust their funds in little more than five minutes (at the rate of one wager every five seconds). With $5 bets, this process would occupy a little over a minute.

So imagine when you have note acceptors how quickly that is going to be, how quickly they are going to lose their shirts. It continues:

In a simulation of the popular game Black Rhino, the Productivity Commission undertook an exercise to calculate the mean and median time on a device with a given stake. Their calculation, based on a $30 stake, $1.50 in wagers and 5-second spins, was that average time on the game before the funds were expended was 13 minutes and 4 seconds, with a median time of less than four minutes.

The maths behind major prizes is just as stark. The Productivity Commission developed a calculation to assess the number of spins that would be required to provide a 50% probability of winning the major prize on an EGM. Applying their calculation to the Dolphin Treasure game, it would require 24,703,765 spins to achieve a 50% probability (a 1 in 2 chance) of winning the major prize. Wagering a single line at 40¢ per spin at intervals of five seconds, this would cost nearly $1.2 million and occupy 1,429.6 days (or 3.9 years) of continuous use.

The betting 'strategy' of users will influence time on a [machine]…If a user bets only one credit on one 'line', they may experience extended time on the game compared to the above examples. However, most experienced EGM users employ a 'mini-max' or a similar strategy, whereby they will select multiple lines…and bet the minimum on each line. This means that no 'winning' line will be missed. It also makes 'losses disguised as wins' possible.

If gamblers' demand for EGM gambling were highly responsive to price—that is, if users changed their behaviour as prices rose—then the conclusion would be that EGMs had significant price elasticity. Raise the price and lower the demand. The Productivity Commission has noted a lack of evidence of price elasticity for gambling in general, and in particular for EGMs. But on the basis of available evidence, the Productivity Commission concluded that demand for EGMs was most likely price inelastic, because of the lack of price information and the lack of substitute ability.

Although in casinos alternative gambling forms, such as somewhat lower priced table games, are readily available, [the Productivity Commission reported that] EGM users continue to utilise EGMs—which may cost as much as 10 times the price of a table game…

Let us look at the structural characteristics of EGMs:

The goal of game designers is to maximise revenue per available customer (RevPAC) and 'time on device' (ToD). For the most part, designers utilise structural characteristics to do so…

Structural characteristics define the capacity of EGMs to induce substantial expenditure in users. They may also have an addictive or habituating effect on users…

Basic psychological characteristics underpin all EGM designs. These characteristics deliver 'reinforcement' to users; render games attractive to, or popular with, users; and appear to be associated with the establishment of persistent game utilisation or addiction. There are many such characteristics delivering game outcomes, and it is appropriate to consider them as relevant to harm minimisation interventions. All psychological characteristics are amenable to modification, given the computer-based nature of EGMs…

In psychology, reinforcement means anything that increases the likelihood that a response will occur…

Operant conditioning is a psychological concept related to the provision of an irregular, variable or random schedule of reinforcement—that is, of rewards or 'prizes'...

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that animals (including humans) develop habitual behaviour when exposed to an unpredictable pattern of rewards in response to specific activities.

You may like to draw an analogy to the 2018 state election. It continues:

Operant conditioning is a key element of EGM design and is incorporated in EGM games via their 'game maths': the interplay of random outcomes and the reward schedule of the game.

Variables of EGM operant conditioning.

Volatility.

This concept relates to the extent to which an EGM game conforms in the short term to its programmed overall…outcomes. For example, a game with a 90% return to player ratio (RTP) can achieve that outcome by providing a steady stream of small rewards, or by providing larger rewards more infrequently. The latter game would be regarded as more volatile than the former…

Frequency of rewards is related to the volatility of a game and its prize structure. If rewards are awarded regularly, the game is likely to have a lower maximum prize, or to provide that maximum prize only very rarely; this may permit users with a fixed stake to use the game for a longer period than a more volatile game…

The structure of rewards is also related to volatility and frequency of rewards. A game with many modest rewards may have a lower or rarer jackpot than a more volatile game. However, a game with regular modest rewards may also have a large maximum reward if it does not have a spread of rewards in the middle ranges, or if that maximum reward is very rare…

Many games offer jackpots, which may be either stand-alone or linked. Stand-alone jackpots apply to a single machine. Linked jackpots contribute to an aggregate prize pool, which is accessible as a single jackpot for any user of a linked machine.

In either case, if the jackpot is what is known as 'progressive' the game makes a pre-determined contribution to the jackpot pool, which is then paid to the user who achieves the successful combination of symbols. The effect of this is to lower the actual return to player (RTP) to users who use the game without achieving a jackpot payout. The user of such a game is unlikely to understand the impact of this effect.

In other words, they are totally oblivious to what is actually going on inside the electronic brain of that EGM. They just blindly feed in their coins—or will soon be blindly feeding in their notes—unaware that all this is pre-programmed to achieve a desired result for the operator of that machine. It continues:

For example, the game's base theoretical RTP may be 87%. If 5% is contributed to a linked jackpot, the base RTP for that game alone will be reduced to 82%. Stand-alone jackpots operate in a similar manner. RTP is calculated having regard to the effects of jackpot contributions.

Progressive jackpots permit the game to portray large prizes as available, although the most likely effect is to reduce the user's 'time on device' for a specific amount of money relative to a similar game without a progressive jackpot.

Some progressive jackpots may be less than completely random: that is, the probability of these events occurring may vary from time to time. This type of jackpot may arise by use of a 'deterministic' algorithm which imposes some constraint on the conditions under which the jackpot may be achieved. This may involve a combination of the amount the jackpot pool contains, the number of EGMs being utilised within the linked network, or the number of bets made within a certain time period. This is in contradiction of the usual random nature of EGMs, and is another characteristic generally not well explained to EGM users.

They would not have a clue how this thing operates. I am sure that if they did they would have second thoughts and think, 'Oh, well, am I ever going to beat this machine?' It continues:

The parameter constraints of progressive jackpots may not be apparent to EGM users, although Hing (2007) has reported that some criminal syndicates have attempted to dominate the use of EGMs on linked networks when they believe an algorithm's conditions have been met.

The maximum prize available on a game may also be referred to as a 'jackpot'. However, a maximum prize jackpot is non-progressive (i.e., the size of the prize is not increased via the contributions of users), and the RTP of the game incorporates the effect of this—usually very rare—event.

Non-deterministic jackpots, like all other prizes on EGMs, have a constant probability of occurring at any time…

There is some evidence that jackpots influence user behaviour, including increasing expenditure and bet size…

The maximum value of rewards on EGM games is related to volatility and reward structure. Maximum prizes in Australia are generally subject to a regulated maximum value of $10,000, although unrestricted games available in casinos may offer higher maximum prizes.

Classical conditioning.

Classical conditioning, made famous by Ivan Pavlov…postulates that animals, including humans, will learn to associate favourable and rewarding outcomes or events with specific physiological stimuli—for example, sounds, lights, odours and sensations. There is ample evidence that classical conditioning can be associated with any type of stimulus, and that it is as effective in humans as in other animals.

It has been some time since I have been in a gaming venue, but people who have been in there have asked if anyone has ever seen a clock inside a gaming venue? I have not. It continues:

EGM games typically signal delivery of rewards with a combination of melodies and sounds, visual displays—such as lights and colourful images—and, in some cases, messages indicating a 'successful' outcome.

Such signals become associated with the achievement of a successful outcome (a reward) and deliver classical reinforcements across a range of highly stimulating audio-visual stimuli…

Messaging on EGMs is typically reinforcing. Messages displayed on the screen may congratulate the user on their 'good fortune' or 'luck'; they may indicate the scale of the reward (usually by an accumulating display of 'win' credits); in some cases, they may suggest that the user is beating the odds. Congratulatory messages of this nature are not universal, but where they are displayed they provide users with a reinforcing message indicating that rewards reflect the user's luck or good fortune.

Regarding messaging, I think we know that gaming machines in South Australia were supposed to have messages, messages that would—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We cannot do that here? We can do everything else that indicates how lucky you have been or how much you have won but, no, I think more than 80 per cent cannot display messages that have warnings about problem gambling. They need more time and perhaps need more money—it may come through the note acceptors. It continues:

Melodies for EGMs are typically composed for purpose and will vary to reflect the scale of the reward. A large reward will be accompanied by a lengthy melody, aligned with the game's theme. However, even small rewards are accompanied by a melody.

I bet members did not know any of this. It continues:

Typically, game melodies are upbeat, use major chords, and conclude on a rising chord structure…

Some games employ sounds such as animals galloping, engines revving, tires screeching, simulations of coins dropping into a tray, railway engine whistles or horns, or some other sound effect associated with the theme of the game. These sounds are triggered by rewards occurring in the game, including the awarding of 'features' (usually 'free' spins) that characterise many games…

EGM lighting effects can be very spectacular and typically include flashing coloured lights on or around the periphery of the screen, waves of colour traversing the screen and so on…

Many games utilise animated effects on screen, for example, treasure chests opening to display jewels and gold, dolphins leaping, cars crashing through the screen, goddesses or other supernatural creatures appearing and smiling. Such effects are also invariably aligned with the theme of the game.

The achievement of some combinations of symbols triggers often spectacular visual effects focused on symbols, and these are likely to have a conditioning effect.

You can just see the psychological impacts and all the science and technology that actually goes into trying to get people addicted, to stay at these machines. It is quite complex, quite complicated. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.