Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2019.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (23:19): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill 2019, and I start with three facts. The first is that more than one person dies each day in Australia as a result of gambling addiction—one a day. If you are horrified by the fact that one woman is killed each week by a partner or someone they know, then I do not know how for the love of God you could not be horrified by that statistic.

Fact 2: the Liberal Marshall government and their convenient bedfellows, the Labor opposition, have come to an arrangement that is resulting in these changes to poker machine laws being put through this place in the last weeks of parliament, totally ignoring their own processes in a blatant and callous bid to prop up the poker machine lobby with zero consideration for the impact these measures will have on our community. In relation to that position I ask where is the moral compass for both major parties in this debate? I for one could not sleep at night passing not only the measures we have just passed, or opposed, under the previous bill but perhaps, worse still, the ones that are due to be debated next.

Fact 3: this week's debate on poker machines can be described as a Claytons' debate at best. To borrow from a number of my colleagues, perhaps if note acceptors on poker machines were depicted as vaginas and involved the sexual and reproductive rights of women, we would have a conscience vote on the government's pathetic poker machine laws due to be pushed through this place in the cosy deal that has been done between the government and the opposition. I ask again: where is the moral compass? I know that I have stood in this place time and time again and have been lectured to about my moral compass and the importance of issues of social conscience, so I ask the question: where is the moral compass? Where is the social conscience? Where is the conscience vote on this issue that impacts our most vulnerable members in our communities?

More than one death a day is the direct result of gambling addiction. That is not my quote but that is a fact. Let me repeat for the benefit of the opposition and the Acting Leader of the Opposition, who was absent during my contribution on the last bill, that the opposition's contribution on this bill in this chamber is a reflection not only of the deal done but the lack of courtesy and respect shown to the crossbench, and, more importantly, every single family member impacted by problem gambling and by poker machines. It has been abysmal, and, with the harm they wreak on our communities, it is a complete and utter disgrace.

The next time any member in this place, particularly of the opposition, chooses to stand up in this place, as the Acting Leader of the Opposition has done previously, and accuse me or my colleague of blind ideology when it comes to issues that relate to her party's platform, I will be more than happy to remind her of the complete disregard shown by the opposition as a whole on this social issue.

Next time the opposition comes into this place spruiking the union-backed rhetoric I will have one thing to say to them, and that is: take note of your own hypocrisy. One hundred and thirty one words: that is the importance the Acting Leader of the Opposition afforded gambling addiction in this debate during the second reading speech—131 words. You can say a lot in 131 words, but I have read them very carefully and there was zero substance—absolutely zero substance—to those 131 words.

The opposition could not even fake some concern for problem gambling such is the disdain with which they have approached this issue. They spoke fewer than 600 words in total on the entire reform package during the second reading debate. That is what the opposition has chosen to do in this debate. I for one will take great pleasure in sharing on their behalf the contribution made in this place with every group who has even the slightest interest in social conscience issues—every single one. I will gladly post those speeches and ensure that they know the level of respect and courtesy shown to problem gamblers in this jurisdiction during the second reading debate of this bill and the previous bill.

We all have our platform issues, key issues that saw us elected to this place in the first instance. The crossbench has never stood in the way of those debates. I fully acknowledge that the Treasurer has given us ample opportunity in this place to make our views well known, but the fact remains that we have been put in a position where we are debating this bill without having had the opportunity to prepare for it as we would any other piece of legislation that we would be debating.

I would like to remind the opposition that the other week, when I filed an amendment on the Monday of the sitting week dealing with labour hire legislation, a key platform issue for the opposition, the Hon. Ian Hunter, at our Monday whips meeting, indicated that the opposition would not be in a position to deal with that bill despite the fact that it was a minor amendment. Why? Because he was following convention and process, something that has been completely undermined and ignored during this debate when it comes to preparation, when it comes to filing amendments, when it comes to having adequate time to deal with the substance of the bill and with the amendments.

I reflect again that on Monday it was made very clear to us that irrespective of whether your amendments are filed—and I note again for the record, for the benefit of anyone who was not here, that the minute this bill was made available to us we trotted off to parliamentary counsel and started the process of drafting amendments. We run our offices on the smell of an oily rag. We have done nothing but deal with gambling in every spare minute we have had over the last three weeks to ensure that we could have a measured debate on this issue.

But it does not matter what efforts we put into a measured debate because, as has been reflected, up until this point of this package of amendments every single amendment we have proposed so far, every single issue we have raised so far has been opposed by the opposition and by the government. I can almost accept the government's position but the slap in the face from the opposition is incomprehensible and it is something that I will certainly remember for a very long time in this place.

Sitting across the floor and allowing us to speak for hours on end in an attempt to allow us to prepare for this debate does not mean that you have followed process. In fact, in the last couple of weeks we have done a pretty good job in this place of completely and utterly ignoring process convention that would normally apply. As I said, we on this side already operate on the smell of an oily rag. We may have the same staff members as the government—as the opposition certainly—but we do not have the same numbers. We do not have the benefit of splitting portfolios amongst all our colleagues. We deal with everything, and the opposition is acutely aware that the last week of debate in this place was taken up entirely by land tax.

That is what we were trying to deal with but, at the same time, in every spare minute we spent our time on these gambling bills in an effort to bring some meaningful amendments to this place, which ought to have been supported in the previous bill and which ought to, at the very least, be considered based on their merits in this bill, but we know that will not happen because the last bill was a reflection of that.

We just voted against the amendments that deal with advertising aimed directly at minors. We voted against amendments that deal specifically with barring orders where somebody has a barring order in place because they have a gambling addiction, and we are about to do it now in relation to note acceptors, in relation to EFTPOS, in relation to ATMs, in relation to facial recognition—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think note acceptors are part of this bill. I think facial recognition is part of this bill, and note acceptors, and they will be the focus of my speech. One dollar maximum bets will be the focus of my speech—a number of matters will be the focus of my speech.

Just on yesterday, I, like other honourable members, am extremely grateful to everybody who spoke in an effort to allow us to prepare for this debate in the time available, despite the fact that on Monday we had not been listed to speak, despite the fact that on Monday we had indicated when we would like to speak and that we had amendments coming, and all of that was ignored. I am particularly grateful to my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his marathon effort yesterday that enabled me to sit here and sift through all the data I have before me to be prepared for this debate to the best of my ability in the time available to us.

The biggest concern I have with the bill before us is in relation to the introduction of note acceptors for the first time in this jurisdiction and the dumping of the social effects test. What upsets me in the cosy deal that has been done between the government and the opposition is the overwhelming support of the bill by them that will see note acceptors introduced into this state. The AHA, Clubs SA and the Casino must be absolutely rubbing their hands with glee because they get to turbocharge the poker machine industry in this state and wash their hands of the harm these machines cause. That is an absolutely shocking outcome that we should all be absolutely afraid of.

Australians are world beaters at gambling. In fact, Australia is the biggest gambling nation on earth, losing more than $24 billion a year. We have 20 per cent of the world's poker machines, yet only 0.3 per cent of the world's population. We lose more at gambling than any other population in the world, with $1,000 in per capita losses mostly because of the prevalence and ferocious hunger of poker machines.

Coincidentally, the 35^th edition of the national gambling statistics were published the other day and the results of those statistics should shock all of us. They indicate that an astounding $24.887 million was lost by Australians gambling in the year 2017-18. Gambling has grown across the board, from poker machines through to sports betting, draining money from Australian communities. Poker machine losses accounted for over half the total national gambling losses, with $12,520 billion in losses—over half. South Australia contributed $682,252 million to that total.

Some 200,000 machines later, poker machines are the biggest driver of the nation's gambling industry. That has come at a very expensive cost because about one in six Australians who plays regularly has a serious addiction and loses on average about $21,000 a year, according to government data. The social cost of gambling to the community is estimated to be at least $4.7 billion a year.

According to the government's own statistics, stats that the Treasurer dismissed as not having to be accepted by the government during question time a few weeks ago, $11,000 more is lost on poker machines today than when poker machine numbers ballooned 17 years ago. The number of problem gamblers has almost doubled over the past 14 years. When I quoted these figures recently on radio, Ian Horne, who has referred to this legislation as 'our legislation', not the government's legislation but 'our legislation', was quick to call in and tell me I was wrong. He was not even willing to accept government statistics on gambling. Not my statistics, not Professor O'Neil's statistics: these were government statistics. These were statistics that this government, this government's agencies, have come up with. Why? Because it did not suit what Ian Horne called 'our legislation'.

Poker machines, the crystal meth of gambling, are in the vast majority of the state's pubs and clubs, housed in over 500 venues in this jurisdiction, with more than 12,000 machines still taking money from South Australians. That is an average of nine poker machines per 1,000 South Australian adults. They are concentrated in the state's most disadvantaged areas, with South Australians losing more than $682 million in 2016-17.

This is the environment in which the government and the opposition have hatched their deal, the very same environment and the very same communities that they profess to support on so many social and welfare fronts: housing, poverty, cost of living, government payments like Newstart; the list goes on and on. These are the very same people who stand to be hardest hit by what is being debated here today with zero consideration or sympathy for those addicted to these insidious machines, machines and measures that are deliberately targeted towards our most vulnerable citizens, while at the same time propping up poker machine barons. In that regard, the policy intent of this piece of legislation speaks for itself.

According to The Economist, Australian gambling losses of $1,068 per adult in 2017 were 40 per cent higher than in the next highest country (Singapore), more than twice as high as in the United States, about three times the level of the United Kingdom, more than four times that in Germany and France, and 30 times as large as those in Ireland. What a world title we have—something to be proud of.

The reason why Australians became the world's biggest gamblers during the 1990s was, of course, the expansion of gambling, a deliberate government policy choice. It was the Bannon Labor government that introduced poker machines in this state and the Marshall Liberal government that seeks to turbocharge them with the measures contained in these bills. In fact, we need to go back to that time because when the Labor Party first proposed, through the private member's bill of Frank Blevins, to introduce note acceptors, I understand, according to Hansard dated 4 September 2010 the contribution of the Hon. Iain Evans was:

…we all remember the great drama of Mario Feleppa being chased down a corridor by premier Bannon and others to get that last vote to get it through the upper house. One of the arguments given was that the hotel industry was struggling and this would be a boon to the industry.

Well, what a boon it has been for them ever since on the back of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our communities. We are ridiculed the world over for our position on gambling and poker machines. Poker machines in Australia have been likened to guns in America—governments will not give them up. Annual poker machines losses are around $12 billion and account for half the total losses across the nation.

Australia was not a highly ranked gambling nation in the 1970s. There was betting at racetracks, at government-owned TABs and on lotteries. Sports betting was illegal, and although there were poker machines in clubs in New South Wales and the ACT they were unsophisticated contraptions that could only be played with small coins. Even the first casinos in regional centres were poker machine free.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, state governments became cash strapped because of the abolition of various taxes, including death and gift duties, and burgeoning demands on health, education and community services. With the exception of resource-rich Western Australia, where poker machines continue to be confined to the casino, governments turned to poker machines to help resolve the revenue shortfall. Poker machines were introduced into pubs and clubs not in response to public pressure but in spite of it. In Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, the policy change was opposed by a majority of the population. Their governments pressed on regardless.

The new licensed machines were not the 'one-armed bandits' featured in New South Wales clubs since the 1950s. In one of the most life-destroying design innovations in Australian history, local gambling company Aristocrat Leisure's cross-disciplinary team of researchers, whose expertise included neuroscience and behavioural psychology, developed electronic machines with features specifically designed to keep people at them, playing longer and faster.

Stimulating the release of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, in a manner that brain imaging has shown is similar to what occurs with cocaine use, proved to be central to the inherently addictive nature that Aristocrat Leisure founder, Len Ainsworth, memorably described as a 'mouse trap'. The name given to the invention was 'electronic gaming machines' (EGMs), thus rebranding high-intensity poker machine gambling as a game.

The proliferation of poker machines that subsequently occurred in Australia was unique in the world. By the turn of the century, there were around 200,000 poker machines across the nation—around 18 per cent of all the poker machines on the face of the earth. Even more remarkably, as an Australia Institute report found in 2017, a country with just 0.3 per cent of the world's population had 76 per cent of the world's poker machines outside of gambling-only venues.

Today, the rapid growth of sports betting has led to gambling losses of more than $1 billion dollars a year. Annual pokies losses are over $12 billion and account for half the total losses across the nation. In New South Wales and Victoria, each poker machine gambler loses an average of about $3,500 a year in pubs and clubs alone—nearly three times the average $1,245 spent annually on electricity and gas, the repercussions of which dominate political debate. The irony is astounding.

Why did the evidence of social harm that led governments overseas to limit EGM proliferation not lead to similar action in Australia? The answer is simple: it is because they are conflicted by the tax revenue that they reap. A more important factor in sustaining the status quo has been the political power of the gambling industry. I fully accept that the Treasurer does not accept my views on this, but the poker machine licence holders have almost no commercial risk. The only serious threat to their profitable business model is policy reform.

This reality, and this reality alone, has ensured that the industry has become an active participant in our democratic process, and we saw that at the last election. I again remind members that Ian Horne has referred to these bills as 'our legislation'. The government and the opposition have given AHA SA, Club Safe and the Casino a very special Christmas gift indeed, and they should absolutely hang their heads in shame.

They are unconcerned about this country's gold-medal losses, and do nothing as the gambling industry causes untold and preventable harm to millions of our most disadvantaged citizens, their families and communities. For their sake and the good of our democracy, it is time for the political power of the industry to be confronted head on and for Australia's 30-year experiment—because that is what it has been: an experiment—in radical gambling liberalisation to be brought to an end. But that is not what we are doing. Instead, we are going into superdrive with these bills.

I am going to reflect on the dark side of poker machine addiction—the stories that end with suicide, the stories that I have had to sit through and listen to in that regard because, as I said at the outset, it is estimated that there are 400 Australians with gambling-related problems who take their lives each and every year.

I am going to reflect on two such stories. The first is Anthony Neave, who lost his wife, Chieu, to poker machine addiction. Mr Neave met his future wife, Chieu, as a student at Woodville High School in Adelaide's north-west in the 1990s. As a child, Chieu arrived in Australia after her parents stole a boat to flee from war-torn Vietnam. The hardworking migrants worked at various jobs, including stints in a linen factory, to make a life for themselves in their adopted homeland. As a teenager, Chieu had a passion for R&B music, including boy band New Kids on the Block.

Anthony and Chieu started dating after school when they were about 18 or 19. They were married on 6 September 1998 and had a son the following year. In November 2014, the pair separated, with Anthony and Kae, their son, leaving the family home. Almost a year later to the day, on 8 November 2015, Chieu took her own life. Mr Neave believes it was his wife's addiction to poker machines that triggered a pattern of behaviour that ultimately led to her death.

During happier times, Anthony and Chieu would enjoy daytrips around SA. They would head to the Barossa Valley, the Adelaide Hills and Victor Harbor. One year, they took an impromptu trip to Tasmania, where they sought to see as much as possible in four days with a map and a hire car. Anthony describes his wife as a very outgoing person and always the life of the party. He said she was a beautiful person inside and out. Poker machine addiction, like any addiction, changes people. Chieu began to lie, steal and cheat to support her habit. She was a poker machine addict. She played poker machines for many years before taking her own life and she kept the addiction hidden very well.

After her death, Mr Neave discovered a raft of transactions, some unauthorised, on both Chieu's debit card and her mum's credit card. Chieu lost $55,000 in the last four months of her life. Mr Neave said that Chieu would go to these venues and be given $200 four or five times a session—upwards of $1,000 a session, in most cases. The question has to be asked: why did the venue she attended not exercise their duties in responsible gambling and prevent her from gambling and speak to her about her addiction?

One of the venues she frequented is now the subject of criminal action in the Magistrates Court. The matter involving the Mansfield hotel has yet to be—

The Hon. F. Pangallo: Yes, it is. They pleaded guilty today and were fined a paltry amount.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There we go. There is the update from my colleague. They have pleaded guilty in relation to their actions concerning—

The Hon. F. Pangallo: And no conviction.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —Chieu's gambling and no conviction has been recorded. Mr Neave wanted the former coroner to investigate the impact that EGMs have had on people as they take their lives. He said bank statements showed there is financial behaviour that indicated that 'pokies were one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, Chieu took her own life'. The tragedy is that there was no inquest, and I think Mr Neave asks himself each and every day, as do many people: what will it take for a thorough investigation to be undertaken into the link between gambling addiction and suicide?

Further, the Coroner's office has stated that records are not kept of gambling-related deaths. Why not? It is estimated that more than one person a day, as I said, takes their life as a result of gambling addiction and this is not something we talk about. It is underreported. It is not investigated. It is not reported, and that is something that needs to change in this debate.

I also want to tell honourable members about Katherine Natt. Katherine Michelle Natt, 24, died in hospital in 2006 a few days after taking an overdose of paracetamol. In that instance, there was a coronial inquest. It was a coronial inquest that I was involved in together with my former employer, and we advocated on behalf of Katherine's family and represented them—her mother—during that coronial inquest.

The Coroner's Court heard she had struggled for four years with a poker machine addiction. It started after she began work at the Adelaide Casino when she was 18. Her father, Edward Strudwick, told the court he understood many employees worked at the Casino because it prevented them from gambling there, but he said many, including his daughter, would still gamble at other venues after work. He said his daughter did not reveal the extent of her problem to the family, and he wished that she had been offered help. He said his daughter accumulated a debt of more than $100,000.

In a statement to the media, Casino owner SkyCity said it provides rigorous training for its staff to recognise and deal with problem gamblers and has a confidential counselling service for all employees. The company said Ms Natt was a wonderful employee who was loved by many staff and her death was a tragedy. I quote the Coroner's all too brief report into Katherine Natt's death:

Sometime late on Monday, 31 July 2006 or in the early hours of the following morning, Katherine Natt consumed a large amount of paracetamol. At or about the same time she wrote a note in her journal which might be described as a suicide note. It says in part:

'I ruined my marriage with my pokie addiction and then it affected my Dad finacilly when he had to bail me out off my me$$ that I had gotten myself into. but it was too late my pokie addiction was too big I couldn’t stop. I CAN’T STOP! but what finally did it was when it took away something I wasn’t sure I would ever get back. Because I was so so so far in debt I couldn’t quit my job to try and find a job with 9-5 hrs because I couldn’t afford to take a pay cut so if I fight for Taneeshka I’m scared I’ll loose. But if I say yes what happens in 5-6 years will he let me have her back, will she want to come back.'

Katherine did not disclose her consumption of paracetamol to her partner, Mr Kane Nitschke. She was admitted to Flinders Medical Centre two days later and died on 5 August 2006.

One of the most shocking parts of that inquest that we all sat through was to learn that when she was in that hospital and she had come to the realisation of what she had done, even if she wanted to reverse that decision, she was told by the doctors there was nothing they could do to save her. So she died a slow death and one that her family had to witness. The finding states:

A post-mortem examination showed that death was the result of hepatic encephalopathy due to hepatic necrosis due to paracetamol toxicity—

Again, that is not something you can go to a hospital and be saved from. She sat in that hospital room and awaited her final outcome, as did her family. The finding continues:

…Katherine’s suicide note and the evidence taken at this Inquest show that she was addicted to gambling on poker machines as a result of which she suffered heavy financial losses and became concerned that she would lose the custody of one or both of her children. In consequence of these matters she took an overdose of paracetamol in what was clearly an act of suicide.

Katherine, as I said, was 24 years of age at her death. She was the mother of two young children, a daughter, aged six, and a son, aged 2½, and those children have grown up without their mother. The finding further states:

It is clear that for several years prior to her death that Katherine was in a worsening financial position and was betting heavily on poker machines.

The finding states:

With the…note in her journal Katherine left bank statements in her name covering the period from 24 June 2006 to 23 July 2006. The statement records withdrawals from an ATM at the Aberfoyle Hotel. The Aberfoyle Hub Tavern has an automated teller machine near the front door and alongside the gaming room. [During] the evening of 27 June 2006 Katherine withdrew a sum of $200 from the ATM at 1949 hours. She withdrew a further sum of $200 at 2020 hours, a further sum of $200 at 2035 hours and a further sum of $160 at 2035 hours, a total of $760. The account records that the same evening at 2012 hours Katherine transferred the sum of $760 into the account from her credit card.

On 29 June 2006 Katherine withdrew sums of $200 from an ATM at the Lonsdale Hotel at 0406, 0412, 0413, 0427, 0427 [for a second transaction], 0438 and 0439, amounting to a total of $1,400.

Also on 29 June 2006 Katherine withdrew sums of $200 from the Aberfoyle Hub Tavern at 0945 hours and 0946 hours respectively. A total of $400, making a grand total for 29 June 2006—

on one day—

of $1,800.

On 4 July 2006 Katherine withdrew the sums of $200 from the Aberfoyle Hub Tavern ATM at each of 2225, 2231, 2238, 2300 hours and a further withdrawal of $100 at 2300, making a total of $900. On the same night at 2257 hours she transferred the sum of $900 from her credit card into her savings account.

There is no direct evidence that Katherine spent the money withdrawn on these occasions from the ATM on the poker machines. However, having regard to the suicide note she left, the fact that the bank statement was left together with the suicide note, and the particular references in the evidence to Katherine's concerns at her growing indebtedness, [it was considered] reasonable to infer that the entirety of those monies was gambled on poker machines. There is no evidence as to whether Katherine had any winnings on the poker machines in return for those sums gambled.

Exhibit C14c contains a number of other bank statements which show other withdrawals from the ATM at the Aberfoyle Hub Tavern and also at the Strathmore Hotel on North Terrace, Adelaide.

A hotel that was widely regarded as a frequenting place for members of the staff of the Adelaide Casino. It continues:

Evidence taken at the Inquest indicated that Katherine was known to gamble on poker machines at the Strathmore Hotel. [She] was a full-time employee of the Skycity Adelaide Casino. She worked as a dealer on the table games. Under the terms of her employment with the Casino Katherine was not permitted to gamble in any way at the Casino, including by use of the poker machines.

The evidence showed that Katherine was a shift-worker and much of her work at the Casino was carried out during the night. She would often complete her shift in the early hours of the morning and, with other staff, would visit the Strathmore Hotel on the other side of North Terrace, Adelaide to wind down after a shift. Almost invariably Katherine would play the poker machines at the Strathmore Hotel.

Katherine was, as her suicide note suggests, assisted financially by her father. Indeed, [her] father, Mr…Strudwick, lent her $40,000 during her marriage. [He] said that after Katherine and [her husband's] relationship came to an end, she owed $16,000 on her credit card, $40,000 to him and between [her and her husband], a total indebtedness of over $100,000. He thought her share of the debt was about $60,000. He assumed responsibility for paying off the credit card amount of $16,000 and effectively assumed control of Katherine's income at that point. He agreed with Katherine that she would cancel her various credit cards, that he would assume responsibility for paying her utility and other expenses and that she would be given an amount of cash each week for petrol and other…expenses. [Her father] believed that Katherine had continued to draw money on the credit card while he was supporting her and that she was using those funds to continue with her habit of gambling on the poker machines…

A table of ATM withdrawals and [credit card transactions] between September 2005 and July 2006 for Katherine's Bank SA account shows that in this period she withdrew a total sum of $12,710 at hotels in the Southern suburbs. A table indicating ATM withdrawals and account [credit cards] between 2 March 2006 and 31 July 2006 for Katherine's CPS Credit Union account shows that in this period she withdrew $5,650 at various hotels…

Having regard to all of the evidence received at the Inquest, [the Coroner] concluded that Katherine's suicide was a direct result of her inability to cope with a poker machine addiction and the resulting financial consequences of that addiction including, particularly, her fear that the addiction may lead to her losing custody of her children. It is true that there was another stressor in her life at this time [because for the past] 3 months prior to her death, a wrist injury had kept her away from work and she was not earning any income. [That was said to only] heighten an already seriously adverse financial situation…

Counsel for Katherine’s mother urged [the Coroner] to draw a link between Katherine’s exposure to gambling as an employee of the Casino and her addiction to poker machines. [It was said that while] it is clear from material tendered by counsel for Katherine’s mother that statistically persons employed in the gambling industry are more likely to have gambling problems than other members of the community, there is no…basis on which to conclude that there was a particular link between Katherine’s employment at the Casino and her undoubted gambling addiction using poker machines. In particular, investigations were carried out with the Casino to determine whether Katherine had ever made use of the Employee Assistance Program counselling service provided by the Casino with a view to seeking assistance for her gambling addiction. She did not. While some of her co-workers at the Casino were undoubtedly aware of her gambling problem, there is nothing to suggest that senior managers at the Casino were ever made aware of this [in the Coroner's view] nor that Katherine ever raised the issue at a management level herself. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that Katherine was very secretive about her addiction and her problem.

For those reasons, the Coroner stated:

I decline to make any comment upon the relevance, if any, of Katherine's employment at the Casino to her gambling addiction.

He did note that two staff at the Casino knew about her gambling addiction, including her direct manager, and neither did anything about it. The only recommendation made by the Coroner was to refer the report to the Gillard government at the time—that was it. I have to say that it was the first time I was completely and utterly disappointed with the outcome of a coronial inquest, particularly because it was the first one that ever shone a light on the issue of gambling addiction and suicide.

That is the effect of gambling addiction in this state: the people who are the collateral damage in the greed for poker machine revenue. What happened federally was that we came close to enacting new safeguards in 2010 when Andrew Wilkie agreed to support the minority Gillard government in return for stricter rules on poker machines, including allowing maximum $1 bets. It is against that backdrop that the Coroner referred the matter to the Gillard government. That is a discussion that I have had with the Coroner and I acknowledge the reasons why he did that, despite the disappointment that I have expressed tonight. I quote:

After a campaign by club lobbyists branding the measures 'un-Australian', Gillard tore up the deal. And the election of the Coalition government killed [absolutely] any chance of reform.

The [poker machine] lobby's influence compares to the power wielded by the National Rifle Association in the US, [according to] Tim Costello, Alliance for Gambling Reform spokesman. He said the states and the gaming industry have helped pokies 'to spread, particularly through the poorest postcodes, and it's a wilful blindness by the [state and] federal governments to say, 'well, who cares?'

Well, I care and I know a number of others in this place care. I do want to say this in relation to both of the individuals I have referred to, Chieu Neave and Katherine Natt, because I understand that these are very sensitive issues that involve family members and that involve kids who have grown up and who have to live with knowing what their mums have done.

The reality is, of course, that in every one of these situations, there is a mum, there is a dad, there is a brother, there are sisters, and there are children who have been left behind to pick up the pieces. That is what happens when 400 people a year, more than one a day, take their life as a result of a gambling addiction.

I am told that there is an unwritten rule in the media not to report widely on deaths that are the result of suicide. That stems from concerns around copycat suicides and, of course, privacy reasons. I am told that there are a number of reasons around those issues and why we do not report on the fact that one particular department store in the city is said to have had to install nets and sails to curb the incidence of gamblers leaving the Casino, walking over to Rundle Mall and getting access to one of the top floors in order to take their life as a result of their gambling addiction. These are the things we do not talk about when it comes to problem gambling. That is the dark side of poker machine addiction and problem gambling.

For us on this side of the crossbench, this is a very sad day for South Australia. For me, it is another growing example of greed, arrogance and hypocrisy. I was disappointed when the Attorney-General said that the proposal in relation to note acceptors in particular was simply bringing SA into line with other states, because we know that that completely undermines all the evidence around note acceptors.

As I said, the Attorney-General's own figures reveal that in the last financial year, $11,000 more was lost on each poker machine compared with when the number of those machines had ballooned in this jurisdiction 17 years ago. The number of problem gamblers, 85 per cent of whom play poker machines, has almost doubled over the past 14 years. Those figures cannot be ignored and they cannot be denied.

Let's turn now to the specific issue of note acceptors. I have said time and time again during this debate that I am yet to hear from one industry expert—not one—that supports the introduction of note acceptors in this jurisdiction. There is absolutely no question that the prohibition of note acceptors in this state has been the single most effective harm minimisation measure that we managed to implement in terms of reducing harm caused by poker machines. That is something that I attribute to my former employer, Nick Xenophon, during those debates. Since that time, we have managed to hold the line. We have managed to refrain from giving in to the pleas of the poker machine barons, to the benefit of our communities.

As Tim Costello, one of our most well-regarded advocates, has warned, other jurisdictions are now looking at backing away from note acceptors, not increasing their usage. Why? Because there is no credible evidence—zero—that supports their use as a harm minimisation measure. That is the backdrop against which the government and the opposition have agreed to pass this bill. That is the backdrop against which the opposition has agreed to lend its support to the government to get these bills through.

Mark my words—in fact, you do not need to take my word for it because the statistics that I have referred to and the statistics that are provided to us each and every day reflect the fact that this situation that will see the introduction of note acceptors in this jurisdiction will mean that the damage caused by poker machines in South Australia is about to get a lot worse.

The Australian Institute yesterday published a paper, some new research, that indicates that South Australians, the people we represent, overwhelmingly reject allowing poker machines to accept notes. They have revealed that four in five South Australians (80 per cent) believe that allowing poker machines to accept notes will increase harm in the community. The key findings of the Australian Institute's report are these:

Four in five South Australians believe allowing poker machines to accept notes would increase the level of harm that results from poker machine addiction.

More than four in five South Australians (82%) either want poker machines to be restricted to accepting coins only or for the machines to be banned entirely.

41 per cent wanted machines restricted to accept coins only.

41 per cent wanted poker machines to be banned.

Only 13 per cent of South Australians say that poker machines that accept any money should be permitted.

Allowing poker machines that accept any money was the least popular choice for men and women and all voting intentions, age groups and income groups.

According to Noah Schultz-Byard, Director of The Australia Institute SA, 'This research has shown that community opposition to the government’s reforms is very strong.' He said:

The Parliament is currently considering Government reforms which would allow poker machines to accept notes, but the level of opposition from the community is coming through loud and clear.

Problem gambling does enormous harm to communities across Australia and allowing poker machines to accept notes is seen as a negative move by the vast majority of South Australians.

South Australians are overwhelmingly convinced that these reforms will have a negative effect on the community.

Only 13% of South Australians support the Government’s plan while more than 40% want to see poker machines banned outright.

For the purposes of ensuring that the record reflects clearly the findings of the Australian Institute, I will highlight the method that was used by them to conduct a survey of South Australians between 1 and 13 November 2019 online through Dynata, post-weighted to reflect social demographics by age and gender in South Australia. Voting crosstabs show voting intentions for the lower house. Those who were undecided were asked which way they were leaning; these leanings are included in voting intention crosstabs, but results are also shown separately for undecideds. 'LNP' includes separate responses for Liberal and National. 'Other' includes Centre Alliance, Jacqui Lambie Network and Independent/Other.

I am going to turn now to the feedback I received today from the shadow treasurer regarding note acceptors, during a discussion in which he indicated that he had heard the arguments for note acceptors but not those against note acceptors, and that is why the opposition chose to support the measures. He was clear that support for note acceptors came about as a result of a push from industry to maintain their share of the gaming market. He said that note acceptors—this is not a direct quote, but they were words to this effect—would lead to an improvement in that regard. In other words, it would increase revenue share.

I do not know if the shadow treasurer has been living under a rock, but I think I made it clear during the course of this debate that the arguments against note acceptors have been made clear—not by me but by industry experts—for some time now. How it is that he has not heard the arguments against note acceptors simply beggars belief.

In fact, I am not sure it is even accurate because, according to the correspondence I read onto the record during the debate on the Gambling Administration Bill, Professor O'Neil addressed at least two letters, two items of correspondence, to the shadow treasurer, and they were annexed to the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies report on the Consideration of Proposed Harm Minimisation Measures South Australia 2019.

I am going to refer to those letters now, and I will only refer to those parts of the correspondence that I have not referred to during the previous debate and those parts that refer specifically to this debate. I quote:

Appendix A: Correspondence to the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP (16 October 2019).

Stephen, I understand you recently met with Simon Schrapel and Mark Henley regarding the proposed reforms to gambling in SA. I would like to have attended. I would like to make several points that I believe require some considerable thought prior to any final decision on note acceptors.

The first is that research evidence points to high use by problem gamblers and at risk gambler of note acceptors and for that reason SA decision to not allow note acceptors was a smart decision. Note acceptors are also used to 'wash money' as they are a fast way of doing so. I have seen this in ACT clubs, a Vietnamese groups feeding $50 and $100 bills into a machine located in a very corner of a venue and operating several machines for more than an hour. There is a very big difference between using notes and using coins where the latter has the impact of slowing down rates of play and hence losses.

Not all states allow note acceptors. It is hardly a risk minimisation measure notwithstanding your proposal to establish facial recognition for exclusion about which I wrote some 6-8 years ago.

SA is alone [in] now allowing access to cash inside the actual gaming room (I can find nowhere else in the world where this is allowed and to put it bluntly that was an absolutely stupid decision initiated by [minister] Gail Gago, without any foundation, no evidence and without proper consultation. I note the current court case involving the Matthews Hotel Chain regarding an abuse of these arrangements), SA then allows access to EFTPOS in a venue with restrictions that are easily avoided, it allows ATMs in the Venue and ATMs may be located outside, but in immediate proximity to a venue. Put that all together and reflect on any statement that SA is engaged in harm minimisation. You don't have to bar access to cash but why not force removal of ATMs from gambling venues and close down access to cash inside a gaming area. Victoria has those arrangements.

You may not approve of the Commonwealth's cashless debt credit trial but here we have the C/W endeavouring to restrict funds for alcohol and gambling and we have the SA Government seemingly doing everything in its power to facilitate access to cash to gamble.

You apparently make the point that now EGMs are embedded in the community and venues requiring gambling money as the core element in their business model. While there is an element of truth in this statement, this is not a sound business model and entrenches many venues to promote gambling over and above their original purpose. The Labor Government's (Minister Rau) facilitation of small bars/small venues illustrates this point that many people desire a social environment without gambling and that trend will continue. As to why hotels and clubs should be shielded from competition by government I cannot fathom.

In the second of his letters, he states:

It is untenable to argue we are following other states in regard to land tax aggregation, note acceptors, facial recognition, EFTPOS etc., but we choose not to follow them on making public information that should be in the public domain.

I am also going to refer to an email that was sent to me by Shonica Guy, a Pokies Anonymous advocate, who helps individuals with poker machine addiction. She says to me that she and Stephanie Thompson met with Stephen Mullighan on Friday 1 December 2019 at 10.15am at his office. She asked about Labor's amendments to the government's latest gambling reform package. One of her questions was: had anyone with lived experience—an issue that we have debated tonight—been consulted about any of the amendments prior.

According to Shonica, Stephen Mullighan's response was that he consulted with his assistant and he pointed to him. He said, 'These are the resources I have. Him and the person at the front desk. There are three of us.' Stephen Mullighan's assistant said, 'None of my friends play the pokies. When we go out, none of them say, "See you; we are going to the pokies."'

I can fully comprehend why Shonica was frustrated that that was the response she received from the opposition while also accepting that the shadow treasurer does only have the staff that he referred to and does not have the resources of the government. But if we are going to support the government in their position on this and we are going to move amendments as part of that package, then I think that what Shonica expected was a bit more detail around the arrangement that had been done and certainly a bit more detail around any consultation that had been done with people with lived experience in relation to gambling addiction.

I am going to speak about evidence in relation to removing note acceptors and look at some models and the results of those models outside of Australia and in Australia. I will start by referring to the Norwegian government, which banned note acceptors on EGMs. That resulted in a 16 per cent drop in the number of calls to the national problem gamblers helpline and a 24 per cent reduction in the number of people seeking help for problem gambling. In summary, in that jurisdiction, the gambling losses and gambling harm reduced significantly with the removal of note acceptors and the reductions in harm were sustained. They are one of the few jurisdictions to remove note acceptors.

In May 2013, the NT allowed up to $1,000 in any note denomination to be loaded onto poker machines. As a result, gambling in that jurisdiction increased by 24 per cent in the following year for venues with poker machines, and that reflects an increase in harm and financial loss for those with problem gambling issues.

The Productivity Commission obviously looked at this issue when it did both of its reports. It found that problem gamblers were much more likely to use note acceptors than any other gamblers, with about 62 per cent of problem gamblers using this feature often or always, compared with 22 per cent of non-problem gamblers. In 2019, the commission said that the amount of cash that players can feed into machines at any one time should be limited to $20, and this would not be compatible with note acceptors.

In relation to South Australia, the SA gambling prevalence study 2019 found that 85 per cent of people with a gambling problem in SA played the poker machines. That is nearly double the rate of any other form of gambling. Since 2012, there has been a reduction of 30 per cent in the number of people playing the poker machines in SA, but only a 9 per cent reduction in poker machine losses. This indicates that fewer people are playing the poker machines but that those who continue to play the poker machines lose more.

The situation is being echoed around the world. The proportion of revenue coming from people with gambling problems is rising and poker machines are taking even more money from people with an addiction. I refer also to another statement by Associate Professor Michael O'Neil regarding responsible gambling, terminology and behaviour that is ill-defined at the very least, and a summary of policy and practice. He stated:

Responsible gambling, terminology and behaviour that is ill-defined at the very least refers to responsible individual behaviours with respect to consumption, responsible provision of gambling on the part of the provider and responsible regulation with the intent to do no harm on the part of government. Just as with the consumption of alcohol, the supply of alcohol in legislation related to alcohol, there are three parties involved. Responsible gambling cannot only refer to the individual.

That note acceptors are not permitted in South Australia is a positive harm minimisation strategy. In jurisdictions where note acceptors are permitted, there are significant environmental differences to the situation that exists in South Australia. For example, ATMs are not permitted in the actual gaming venue. EFTPOS is not able to be accessed inside the gaming venue. Access to EFTPOS must involve a face-to-face transaction. In some jurisdictions a person can only access cash using a debit card.

The situation in South Australia is that a person can access EFTPOS inside the actual gaming area, they can access EFTPOS in other parts of the venues and they can access an ATM inside the venue and access an ATM proximate to the venue. They can use either a debit or credit card. That is to say, access to cash is not constrained. Relatively easy access to cash withdrawals coupled with the proposal to allow note acceptors constitutes a package of measures that could not be better designed to increase harm.

The attached table summarises harm minimisation measures that are in place in various jurisdictions, many of which have no evidence, no credible research to attest to their effectiveness. The distinguishing features about the table is that the most significant and most effective harm minimisation policy measures are those which have been introduced outside the control of venues. To allow note acceptors in the current environment in South Australia cannot in any way be claimed to be a harm minimisation measure.

The Treasurer may be surprised that I have highlighted a number of harm minimisation measures that we have often advocated for very strongly in this place, but I think it is important to note that we do so for very good reason, one I think the opposition has completely missed in this debate. When they dismiss arguments about note acceptors they fail to appreciate that in order to be effective a number of these measures are reliant upon one another.

That is to say, for instance, you cannot expect barring to work by itself if it is not backed up by appropriate enforcement and compliance measures. You cannot expect electronic warning messages to work if they are not part of a coordinated precommitment system or other measures to identify problem gamblers in venues. You cannot expect ATM removals to work if you replace them with EFTPOS inside gaming rooms. You cannot expect facial recognition to work if you do not back it up with self-exclusion. The list goes on and on. There are some standalone measures that are effective on their own, and that is important to note because note acceptors is one of those measures, in fact, one of the single most effective if not the most effective measure we have ever had in this jurisdiction.

If you are going to tackle problem gambling on poker machines, then the last thing you do—the absolute last thing you do—is water down those harm minimisation measures altogether. During my briefing on Monday, I asked specifically: did the government inform itself of what the experience has been in other jurisdictions with regard to note acceptors? Did they consult? Did they seek input from anyone other than the poker machine lobby? The response in relation to whether note acceptors were consulted upon was no. In fact, at the round tables I referred to, note acceptors were not put on the table as one of the issues that was discussed at all.

The government then said at that briefing that after the round tables the government announced its position, the government announced its proposal, and at that point invited industry stakeholders to a consultation process in relation to note acceptors. But of course we do not know the outcome of that consultation process insofar as it relates to note acceptors.

We have not had the submissions made available to us but, worse still, all the stakeholders we have spoken to, many of whom are on the list that the government provided, have indicated that there has been a complete lack of any acknowledgement of the issues they have raised in relation to note acceptors, and not one of them has indicated their support for note acceptors.

I am going to refer to two articles specifically dealing with the issue of note acceptors. One from The Canberra Times in 2015 is entitled 'Move to allow $50 notes in Canberra poker machines withdrawn after revolt'. The article by Kirsten Lawson states:

Facing a revolt from Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and opposition from the Liberals, Chief Minister Andrew Barr has reversed the move to allow $50 notes in poker machines, backing down on the change made in the days before Christmas.

Mr Barr announced the backdown at 6pm on Tuesday, one day after The Canberra Times revealed the change, and just hours after Mr Rattenbury told him he would move to overturn it on the next assembly sitting day.

Mr Barr said, and I quote:

As a result of discussion within the community over the past few days, the government has decided to withdraw the regulation which allowed $50 note acceptors on electronic gaming machines in the ACT pending further work on practices in other states and implementation of cash input limits…

According to the article:

Ms Burch made the change in the days before Christmas, lifting the note limit for poker machines from $20 bills to $50 bills, despite Mr Rattenbury's opposition. She did it quietly, without announcement, and without even informing Mr Rattenbury.

Mr Rattenbury said Cabinet had not agreed to it, and the first he knew of it was when he read it in The Canberra Times on Monday.

Mr Barr is also believed to have been taken by surprise on the timing and Ms Burch was called into his office on Tuesday. It appears cabinet had expected the $50 change to be introduced alongside a limit on the amount people could bet at a time, but that limit is yet to be worked out or introduced.

Mr Barr's spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the scenario.

So in 2015 we have a scenario where in Canberra the revolt by the community and by the Liberals was so huge that almost effectively any move to increase the amount that could be pumped into a note acceptor was withdrawn.

Mr Rattenbury told Mr Barr he would move to overturn the $50 limit in February when the assembly sits, leaving Mr Barr no choice but to withdraw it or face defeat in the assembly.

Now, wait for it, the article further states:

Liberal Leader Jeremy Hanson also opposes the move, saying the case had not been made and he shared the concerns of anti-gambling groups.

He said:

'The way that this was done was sneaky. It was underhanded. It was deliberately aimed to implement a policy without any scrutiny…The manner in which this was done was underhanded and disgraceful by the Minister Joy Burch…Whichever way you look at it, this is a very bad start to Andrew Barr's administration.'

That was based on the fact that there was community revolt almost immediately overnight in response to an announcement to increase the amount that could be pumped into a note acceptor.

More recently, there have been examples overseas where the maximum amount permitted to be staked on betting terminals has been cut in the UK from £100 to £2 after the ministers ignored pleas from bookmakers and branded the machines a social blight. That change, which was subject to a parliamentary vote this year, was intended to reduce the government's tax take from the machines but would be paid for by an increase in duty applied to online gambling.

So they acknowledged the need to address note acceptors and also acknowledged in that jurisdiction the lack of contribution that had been made up until that point by the online gambling sector and sought to make up that difference through that means. The article states:

These machines are a social blight and prey on some of the most vulnerable in society, and we are determined to put a stop to it and build a fairer society for all.

The sports minister, who led the review, said that the government had been particularly concerned by the consistently high rates of problem gamblers among players of these machines. Nearly 14 per cent of people who use FOBTs are problem gamblers, according to the gambling commission figures from 2016, higher than every other form of gambling—very similar to the situation right here in Australia and specifically South Australia.

In that jurisdiction, individual gamblers lost more than £1,000 on FOBTs on more than 233,000 occasions in a single 10-month period, while one user lost in excess of £13,700 in just seven hours. As part of that package, the government indicated that it would be implementing a number of measures designed to protect vulnerable people and the young. That included the use of spending limits for online gambling until companies had carried out affordability checks to ensure gamblers had enough money to even play in the first instance. That is something that certainly has never been contemplated here.

It also included TV adverts for gambling that would have to show responsible gambling messages for the entire duration while there was also to be a dedicated TV ad campaign targeting addiction. It also included that the age limit for the National Lottery, which could be played at 16, was to be reviewed, while online gambling firms would also be required to tighten up age checks. The Association of British Bookmakers, which campaigned against a state cut, said:

This is a decision that will have far-reaching implications for betting shops on the high street…We expect over 4,000 shops to close and 21,000 colleagues to lose their jobs.

They did not have much regard for the issues that had been highlighted in relation to the losses that resulted from note acceptors in that jurisdiction but, much like the poker machine lobby in this jurisdiction, were more concerned about maintaining their market share that ultimately results in revenue.

I am going to move on from note acceptors to the issue of ATMs and EFTPOS. I will refer again to the report entitled Consideration of Proposed Harm Minimisation Measures South Australia 2019. I think on the first page, that report says:

The previous Labor government put forward an amendment to the Gaming Machine Act 1992 to remove the prohibition on access to cash through EFTPOS facilities located within the gaming area of hotels and clubs. The South Australian Parliament approved that amendment…

It goes on to provide a comparison of all Australian jurisdictions when it comes to EFTPOS and ATM provisions in gambling venues. The report says—and I think this is something we all know:

…South Australia is currently the only jurisdiction to permit, via EFTPOS facilities, access to cash in the actual gaming area of a hotel or club. The situation prior to this amendment…which is a clear summary of the intent of the public policy to minimise harm and protect consumers. The decision to enable gamblers to access cash in the actual gaming area runs counter to the efforts of all jurisdictions and regulators (including evidence and policy advice of the Productivity Commission and researchers) to restrict access to cash whether that involves ATMs, the cashing of cheques and restrictions on credit facilities. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies based on a research of articles in gambling journals, gambling websites and websites of regulators cannot find one jurisdiction that permits access to cash or credit facilities located directly in a gaming area.

I acknowledge on that front the limitations that have been put on access to EFTPOS in venues, but the fact remains that we are the only jurisdiction, not only in Australia but most likely in the Western world, that has allowed access to EFTPOS of any amount in a gaming area. It was a retrograde step when it was implemented, and it is one that this government should have reversed. The report goes on to say:

It is interesting to now reflect on that amendment with the current court case against the Matthews Hotel Group for allegedly breaching laws limiting cash withdrawals in hotels and clubs. Recall that gambling staff, managers and licensees are expected to monitor EFTPOS withdrawals (in ways unspecified) yet it was staff and a hotel manager in one of at least 40 transactions that did the alleged offending. Some eight charges of breaching the EFTPOS laws have been laid.

Note further that the alleged offending was not detected by the Office of the Liquor and Gaming but rather the alleged offending came to the 'attention of Consumer and Business Services when a husband concerned about his wife's withdrawals reported the transactions.'

The simple fact is that the frequency of transactions are not monitored, that the regulator is not in a position to monitor or prevent offending…

Contrast this with the situation in Victoria where ATMs are not permitted in a venue that offers gaming, and VCGLR rules that provide that an EFTPOS device or ATM must not be accessible by any person (staff or gambler) within the gaming machine area of an approved gaming venue for the purposes of withdrawing cash.

Other states have banned ATMs and EFTPOS in gaming venues outright. It is undesirable that South Australia stands alone as the worst jurisdiction in the ability to access cash in a gaming venue with which to gamble.

During the course of debate on this bill, I intend to refer at length, specifically when we get to my amendments, to the SAJC case regarding the social effect certificate test. This is a policy measure for which I have openly given the opposition lots of credit in recent years, because it was a good proposal and a good measure that finally saw some positive outcomes in this jurisdiction when it comes to the granting of poker machine licences.

I will not do so at this moment, but when we get to those provisions, I think it is important in the context of this debate to point to the evidence that was given on record by not only parties that are directly involved but also the experts who were called to give evidence in relation to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the approval of that application.

I think that is a really important decision that we need to talk about in the context of this debate, not only in relation to the changes to the social effect certificate test but also in relation to the changes the government has indicated it will be pursuing regarding the transfer and amalgamation of licences, where there are small venues involved.

I have been involved in at least two matters regarding amalgamation. In the first case, which ended up before the courts, there were very good reasons as to why the application was rejected, both on the basis of the impact it would have in the community for which it was intended and also on the basis of the underlying contractual arrangements involved in that case. That case set a precedent for similar cases.

Despite the fact that there were challenges post that case, it was not until the SAJC decision that we had a precedent that had considered all of those previous cases, including the case involving the BH Club in Port Pirie, which I think I referred to yesterday. Whilst I acknowledge and accept the difficulties that these small clubs face in terms of their operation, the fact of the matter remains: that is the direct result of a failure of the training system that we have had in place. If anything, the social effect certificate test has improved outcomes in this jurisdiction in relation to applications for poker machine licences.

When we get to that part of the debate, I will certainly be seeking further information from the Treasurer regarding the level of consultation that took place specifically on the issue of amalgamation. I will ask him at that point to confirm which groups were consulted in relation to amalgamation, who provided any written submissions in relation to that, what the reasons were for supporting the introduction of that measure in this jurisdiction, and how that sits against the framework of the current legislation and the social effect test that we have in place?

I will also reflect on the evidence given, specifically during the SAJC case by Professor Paul Delfabbro, who not only covered issues concerning the appropriateness or otherwise of having that application approved but also, importantly, covered extensively the issue of EFTPOS facilities and ATM access in gaming areas.

I will also refer to the evidence of Nick Xenophon, who provided written submissions and was involved in that case. I will also refer specifically to the evidence provided by Dr Livingstone in relation to all the similar issues that I have just outlined, and his particular area of expertise, but I will save those comments for when we get to the actual provisions relating to the social effect certificate and also to the amalgamation proposal that the government has referred to.

At that point, I will also canvass—perhaps I will do it when we are dealing with the amendments—the amendments that have been proposed in relation to $1 maximum bets and $500 maximum jackpots and the impact they can have in the harm minimisation setting.

Before I finish—do not get nervous—there are some questions that I will refer to the Treasurer and the Acting Leader of the Opposition in relation to the $100 limits that have been proposed and accepted by the government; that is, legislating the $100 limit on the amount of credit that a player can add to a gaming machine, down from $1,000. That is a measure that we support, Mr Treasurer. It would be the lowest in the nation, along with Queensland.

My specific question in relation to those measures is on the interplay that they have with any application made under the Gambling Regulation—Systems Criteria—Prescription (General) Variation Notice 2019. I am happy to deal with that further when we get to those particular provisions. I think it is important that we canvass that, not because we do not support these amendments—we think these are good amendments—but because I want to be certain that there is no inconsistency between those new limits and the ability for clubs and hotels to apply for increases to their cashless spending, as was done by the Casino. Again, we will canvass those further when we actually get to the amendments in question.

Perhaps to the surprise of many honourable members, everything else that I intend to speak to relates directly to either amendments that have been proposed by the opposition or amendments that we are proposing and, as such, I will speak to those amendments and those proposals during the course of this debate.

In closing, I reiterate for the record our disappointment with the approach that has been taken with respect to these bills and our disappointment with the arrangement that has been reached between the government and the opposition to the exclusion of the crossbench, in fact when it was too late for us to add anything to that debate that was likely to result in any meaningful change in this chamber. As we know, that deal was signed off well and truly in advance of when we were able to make a contribution.

Mr Acting President, I do not want to shock you, given the hour, but I have indicated that I will speak to the rest of the matters as the amendments and as the clauses come up for debate. With those words, I indicate that we will not be supporting this piece of legislation, but we will certainly be moving a number of amendments all aimed at improving what can only be described as a dud deal struck between the government and the opposition.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo, do you wish to make a contribution?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (01:02): Yes, thank you very much, Mr Acting President—and I will not be cruel by calling a quorum for members to be here.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I'm listening.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Good. I am glad you are, and we have the Hon. Mr Darley here and the Hon. Emily Bourke.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Mr Darley's here.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, he is, and I thank him again for showing support. I am going to be short and succinct.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo has the call.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you. I can soak up some time if you like, Mr Acting President and Treasurer. I am going to be short and succinct. The people of South Australia should be alarmed that when it comes to grubby donations from filthy rich gambling lobby groups, like the Australian Hotels Association—the pokie barons—and the Casino, the Marshall Liberal government and the Peter Malinauskas-led ALP have absolutely zero moral or social compass.

I think every member of those parties should hang their heads in shame tonight that they have let down some of the most vulnerable people in our community, that they do not care about the social destruction of the most vulnerable people in the state. Governments and elected members have a duty of care to ensure the welfare of each citizen they represent and to be model legislators. They have failed miserably on all counts. In saying that, we obviously will be opposing this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (01:04): I rise to indicate the Greens' position on the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill 2019. This bill allows banknote acceptors to be fitted to gaming machines in clubs and hotels and automated table game equipment in the Casino, originally with the consequent regulations to prescribe restrictions on the denomination of the banknotes and the amount of money that could be inserted by a player. But I note that there are Labor amendments in the other place that have put that into the act rather than by regulation.

It also allows sporting and community clubs that hold a gaming machine licence to merge together or transfer gaming machines more easily. It requires unclaimed winnings on gaming machines to be paid into the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. It expands the scope of that fund to include public education, treatment and counselling programs, as well as gambling research.

It replaces the current social effect inquiry process with a new community impact and public interest test better aligned with liquor licensing requirements. It imposes a fixed maximum number of gaming machines to operate in South Australia. It enables the amount of money a person can obtain on any one card within 24 hours when using EFTPOS facilities in a gaming machine venue to be regulated.

With regard to those Labor amendments, which were passed in the House of Assembly some three weeks ago, it sets that legislated maximum at a $50 note denomination for the note acceptors. It also ensures that gaming machines cannot be operated on Christmas Day and Good Friday. It inserts a statement of parliamentary intention to reduce the gaming machine numbers.

It allows amalgamated clubs to hold a maximum of 60 gaming machines. It limits cash facilities and transactions to a daily limit of $250 technically, although there is some dispute whether or not that limit in practical effect would apply. Where a gaming facility has 30 or more machines that accept banknotes those particular places with the note acceptors must then operate a facial recognition scheme.

It also enables the ability for the commissioner to approve facial recognition systems and provides provisions for the regulation of those facial recognition systems. But I note there is scant detail on that in the act and that is all to be done over a 12-month process entirely through regulations. I note that the ALP has no conscience vote on this matter, although both parties have in the past had conscience votes on these matters, and the Libs indeed. The Liberal Party more recently has been very proud of exercising their conscience vote on all issues, certainly in most recent debates.

But this time, I understand, through a joint party room decision, the Liberal Party has no conscience vote. Indeed, seemingly there is little consciousness left either, with a mind-numbingly scant 133 words and 397-word speech to these companion bills. The opposition speeches are bland to the point—speeches, plural, being the only member prepared to come into this place, the single Labor member who spoke to either of these bills—of being a word blancmange, bereft of any substance or structure and certainly with no detail about how their Labor amendments made in the other place would actually minimise gambling harm.

That is not to say that the amendments cannot be put to that purpose but in the final wash-up there is no guarantee that those much heralded safeguards that Labor has apparently secured do anything other than actually salvage the remnants of their dignity or their decency on this issue. Indeed, the opposition benches should look more to their predecessors such as the former premier Lyn Arnold for an example on conscience and consciousness in this debate.

At this point, I particularly wish to point and turn to facial recognition technology, something that has been heralded by the shadow treasurer as some sort of silver bullet, a panacea. In exchange for accepting the banknote acceptors, the Labor Party has saved the day with the Trojan Horse, I would say, of facial recognition technology. Privacy concerns aside—and there are many privacy concerns when it comes to this technology, but that debate is for another day—casinos and gaming rooms are already subject to expensive security CCTV and the like. In that respect, that privacy concern is not the nub of this debate.

The casinos' likely use of object recognition, or facial recognition, and the consumer's privacy have already been sacrificed in many of the debates and, indeed, are already sacrificed in this day and age with the extensive use by people of social media. People will give up their information and allow casinos to film them just for the chance to win money, just as they will allow Facebook to access and disclose their data just so they can wish their friends happy birthday on a time line.

Let's look at what facial recognition technology is. It is one of the most commonly adopted forms of biometric authentication. Its use is becoming very commonplace. It is applied in day-to-day tasks, like unlocking your phone. It is also used in retail, where facial recognition can basically ensure that you never need leave the house to empty your wallet. Your credit card details can be associated with your facial recognition profile should you leave the house, and your payment can be made simply by presenting your face within a retail store.

It is also used in the hospitality industry, in ATMs and in digital advertising. Particularly, I would like members to pay attention to the fact that it is used for personalised customer experiences, that is, helping retailers to identify their most loyal customers or perhaps to work with border control or national security to identify potential threats. It has been changing the game across a wide range of sectors, and casinos do have the potential to use facial recognition technology to spot problem gamblers.

I draw members' attention to the reports that The Star Casino in Sydney has decided to deploy facial recognition technology, but they did so after a croupier was caught by CCTV, the cameras directly above his head, when he was attempting to steal a $5,000 chip and hide it in his sock. That facial recognition technology was used to catch him in that act. I understand that the report after that attempted theft is that some $10 million in security upgrades will be made for that facility.

But here is the kicker: in addition to the use of the technology to address that staff theft problem, The Star's surveillance chief, Catherine Clark, added in a report to the media that the biometric technology:

…will also be incorporated into our customer service where we can recognise customers and welcome them back personally, telling them their favourite drink is waiting at the bar.

This has also been evidenced in a showcase in Las Vegas and was reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal by journalist Bailey Schulz. The industry showcase there outlined how the facial technology would be used in what they have called 'new Vegas'. The displays will show the title of the game and easily blend into the background amid the lights and sounds of slot machines.

But with the press of a button, live camera footage of you as the player can appear on the screen, with digital dots lining your mouth, eyes and face. You will not see it, but behind that technology will come the information 'existing user found', with your details that—in the case of this particular article—you are male and over 21.

You would not see it, as the patron. It is designed to provide a very smooth experience that integrates with the rest of what is happening on the casino floor, but it could be a game changer in the industry.

Indeed, operators are very excited about the money-making potential of this. It has, as I say, been touted as bringing back old Vegas. It will apparently bring back the potential to have the old Vegas feel when that technology can track how often a player has been to the property, how much money that person usually spends, and which in-house restaurant that person likes to frequent and has frequented.

All these details are also sent to the casino hosts to make that player's experience more satisfactory. One industry player was quoted as saying, 'The staff will know exactly where you are, say hello and could offer you the thing that you would like to eat.' The hosts will be the key to a lot of that old Vegas vibe. They will know people on sight and use that new technology to bring back the old Vegas.

With that, casinos will be able to gather more data than ever before. Instead of just tracking players with a loyalty card, they may be able to track players who forget their cards at home or even those who are not enrolled in rewards programs. In fact, another industry figure has stated, 'Right now, casinos don't have a way to incentivise an uncarded player', and that facial recognition technology 'opens it up so they can start reinvesting in and understanding those players'. Those reinvestments could keep those players coming back for more and, indeed, industry players have observed:

There's definitely some lift in revenue (for casinos) in doing this. There are new opportunities once you get this data to make people feel special and get them to come back and stay at the facility.

In this bill and with these Labor amendments, the technology has been touted as a harm minimisation measure. The reality is that it is not just that, it is also something that, of course, will benefit the industry and bring in profits. Indeed, it could be a benefit to regulators: the devices could be able to alert staff when players are spending too much money, or should those players choose to be self-barred, they can help them stay away from these casinos and other venues.

With this kind of technology, you can indeed employ responsible gaming and you can keep barred people out of pubs, clubs and casinos, but it is clearly not the only role it can play. It may well turbo charge the potential for gambling harm through technology.

New Zealand has been pointed to in the briefings and I note and point people to the examples given there. I know that they are still finetuning the technology there. There have been, as I alluded to in the previous bill debate, situations where racial profiling in particular has shown that this technology and the algorithms are not perfect. It is not fail safe and it is not the silver bullet; it can be used to minimise gambling harm, but it also can be used to create gambling harm, and I know where the profit is for those who will be putting in this technology.

There is a quote by William Gibson that, given the early hour, seems even more appropriate than it did four hours ago when I found it. That is:

I think that technologies are morally neutral until we apply them. It's only when we use them for good or for evil that they become good or evil.

This bill will decide how we use that facial recognition technology, whether we use it for good or allow it to be used for evil. The current version of the bill does not prohibit the use of facial recognition technology for evil. It does not prohibit its use to create gambling harm. It does not require that it only be used in the way that it has been portrayed—as a harm minimisation measure—and it certainly leaves this technology wide open to being exploited by those who seek to make money and create more gambling rather than less. Technology cannot be value neutral unless we make sure that it is not used for the purpose to promote rather than prohibit gambling and cause gambling harm, and we will only have ourselves to blame when it is.

We know, according to the Australian Institute's polling this week, note acceptors are overwhelmingly rejected by the South Australian community. Four out of five South Australians are scratching their head and wondering why this parliament is introducing note acceptors.

Only 13 per cent of South Australians say that poker machines should accept any money in the way that is put to us in this bill. Indeed, two in five South Australians believe poker machines should be banned, and a further two in five say poker machines should only accept gold coins.

Those figures do vary across the political parties, but I point out to the Labor Party that 45 per cent of Labor supporters believe poker machines should be banned; 36 per cent believe they should only accept gold coins; 12 per cent believe that any money could be accepted, which is what is put before us in this bill, and some 7 per cent were unsure. Of Labor voters, 82 per cent believe that poker machines increase harm; 1 per cent believe that they decrease harm; 15 per cent believe there is no effect; and 3 per cent were unsure. I am not sure who Labor is representing in this place today, but they are not representing Labor supporters.

With those words in these late, early hours of the morning, where I feel a little like I am in the Casino because there is no natural light, and we have no real indication of what time it is except for that clock on the wall behind me rather than in front of me, I do not commend this bill to this place. I urge Labor members to question the deal that has been done in their name. I urge all members of this place to consider why they do not have a conscience vote on this issue and why they have not been allowed to negotiate on crossbench amendments in this debate. Quite reasonable crossbench amendments were put up in the last bill, many of which will be put before them when we resume this debate later today.

The Greens' amendment that I particularly highlight, but we do have many, is a provision to ensure that facial recognition technology, which has been inserted into this bill with a Labor deal with the Liberal government, is not used to create gambling harm, that it is in fact only a technology employed to minimise harm.

It is a simple request of the Labor Party to examine their consciences. They have said today that they have no time to go back to a shadow caucus, and yet we have seen many debates where a shadow caucus can be brought on at the drop of a hat, within an hour. We have seen many debates where the lead speaker for the Labor Party, with all of the discipline that they have, is given power to negotiate on what are quite reasonable amendments. We have not seen that so far in this debate.

As we enter the wee hours of the morning, the Greens will be opposing this bill. We will seek to minimise harm where we can, and we will raise a concern about facial recognition technology that has been put up as a panacea but in fact could cause far more problems than the note acceptors themselves, because it will allow technologies in our pubs and clubs, in our casino, to provide what is called that old Vegas experience, where that technology tailors an experience to groom people to gamble more. I do not commend the bill to you, Mr President.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (01:24): I thank honourable members for their erudite, articulate and, on occasion, lengthy contributions and look forward to the continued debate later today in the committee stage.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 14

Noes 5

Majority 9

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

At 01:29 the council adjourned until Thursday 5 December 2019 at 11:00.