Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the briefing that I attended on Monday afternoon, I asked those present—and I do thank them for that briefing, although I also note that while I asked for all of the submissions that were made to these pieces of legislation, not a single one of those submissions was provided. One of the answers I did get was in regard to a question the Hon. Connie Bonaros raised in regard to whether the modelling had been done on the revenue intended to be raised from this bill in the series of the three gambling bills, if you like, that have been before this council this week.

The answer that I got to the question with regard to modelling on revenue was: 'Modelling has been done on this bill, as with all pieces of legislation. This is a matter for the Treasurer.' So as this is a matter for the Treasurer, can the Treasurer please outline what modelling has been done for these bills?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the member for her question. The advice I have received from Treasury is that the expected increase in revenue starts off at about 2 per cent, which is equivalent to about $6 million extra, and then by I think it is the third year of the forward estimates it is $9 million, which is 3 per cent. Current revenue, in ballpark terms, for gaming machine revenue to the state budget it is about $300 million; I think it is a little bit less or a little bit more, depending on which particular year of the forward estimates.

The reason for what I might call the ramp-up in revenue terms is that clearly not everyone will move to the situation straightaway. That is the assumption. The long-term stable prediction is a revenue increase of about 3 per cent on the $300 million, which is approximately $9 million, and that will be the number that will be factored into the Mid-Year Budget Review on the assumption that the legislation was to pass the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you for that answer. Can the Treasurer provide a breakdown in regard to the increase of that 2 per cent of $6 million and then, in later years, the 3 per cent of $9 million? How much of that is predicted to come from the Casino and how much of that is predicted to come from clubs and hotels?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to provide that level of detail. In terms of the Mid-Year Budget Review aggregates, we are looking at the total revenue collection from gaming machines collectively so the only number I have—which was the question that was asked in relation to the modelling on revenue—was the total revenue. As I said, it is estimated to be $9 million or 3 per cent on the total receipts.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Treasurer for his answers. A little more detail that I would be very interested in is: can the Treasurer refresh the council's memory about the various different percentages, if you like, of revenue that we see received from the machines in the Casino—I think there are two tiers: the VIP and the broader Casino, but I am operating on memory there—and the clubs and the hotels. What percentages do each of those electronic gaming machines provide back?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that question on notice. The advisers that I have available to me are essentially non-Treasury advisers. They are the Attorney-General Consumer and Business Services and the policy people. The people who crunch these numbers are the Treasury people. I am happy to take it on notice, but it will be clear in the legislation in terms of the gaming machine legislation what the percentages are. I am a bit like the honourable member. I have a recollection, but they are not the sort of numbers that I commit to my memory. We are not changing the percentages. They are in the legislation, but I am happy to take it on notice and provide an answer to the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is actually the nub of my question. Why has the government not looked at the different tiers, if you like, of those particular takes to government from that gambling revenue and perhaps tweaked that, given the Casino and the hotels and pubs and clubs will all be affected in various ways by this? Some have more to gain than others, and perhaps some should be paying more than others. Did that question attract the government at any stage in terms of changing, perhaps, the percentage that the Casino returns to this state to a higher level than it currently is?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am sure at varying stages the issue may have been raised by some of the stakeholders. I know, for example—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I imagine the AHA would have raised it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, clubs are the one that I was going to say. Clubs have continued to highlight to me and those of us who go to the Clubs SA annual dinner—and they had a wonderful function this year, their 100th year or whatever it might happen to be—the parlous nature of clubs and the fact that they do need what they would see as additional incentives or benefits or inducements. At varying stages, I know, informally they have raised with me, and I suspect therefore with other members of the government on occasions, that they would like to see further taxation concessions or benefits. Other stakeholders similarly might have.

We are not really getting into too much detail about debating the taxing arrangements in relation to the Casino, because they are not covered in the bill, but I am happy to respond generally. As someone who has been in opposition when the Casino arrangements came in, and now in government again, I am reminded that there are quite complicated provisions in the contractual arrangements that the state has with the Casino and that if certain things occur, compensation has to be paid.

I am not entirely clear whether or not the taxation arrangements in relation to gaming machines fit that bill or not, but I do know in relation to certain areas that there are tight contractual requirements that the state has. I know, for example, in relation to the exclusivity or the monopoly status of the Casino, if the government or the parliament were ever to take a decision there are provisions that relate to that in their contract, etc. I am not suggesting definitely it is in relation to gaming machines, but I do know there are complicated provisions.

The simple answer to the honourable member's question is that this review is largely being driven by Attorney-General and Consumer and Business Services. I was obviously actively engaged by the Attorney in terms of the ongoing discussion, but the principal purpose was in relation to a whole range of regulatory issues, etc. Treasury was not, and I was not as Treasurer, driving the opportunity to restructure completely the taxation arrangements between the Casino, hotels and clubs.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Again, I thank the Treasurer for his answer. I will ask a question on notice, given he has raised this, but I do not expect an answer now. It would be of interest to know when that contract with the Casino expires and what the time frame of that is. I understand that I am unlikely to get further details, necessarily, of the contract itself, but I would appreciate the date that it expires, in terms of that particular contractual arrangement.

I would like now to move onto the modelling that was done on the additional $1 million to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund existing, being $3.84 million of gaming machine revenue that is hypothecated to this fund, with a $1 million increase, which sees, in the answers that were given to us, a stated 25 per cent increase in existing contributions to that fund. Given we now are set to have an increase of 2 per cent and then 3 per cent in gaming machine revenue to the state, will the GRF continue to be increased accordingly?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to this, this was a policy decision that the government took. I think it is actually about a 25 per cent increase in existing contributions already made to the fund, albeit that the total revenue collections coming to the state are an increase of 2 per cent and then 3 per cent eventually. So certainly the increase in the amount of funds going into harm minimisation measures is significantly greater than the quantum, percentage-wise anyway, coming into the budget. In terms of the background to that, it was simply a policy decision of the government in terms of what, we believe, seemed to be genuinely a significant increase in the level of funding—as I said, a 25 per cent increase in the level of funding going into it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I know that the Treasurer is much better at economic modelling than all of us, so I am just going to ask him to confirm: what proportion of total gambling revenue for the government does the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund equate to? Also, regarding the payments that are made into that GRF by the hotel lobby and by the Casino, can the Treasurer confirm whether any of those payments are mandatory payments as opposed to voluntary payments, and has there been any discussion in relation to further increasing their contributions to the GRF?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the stakeholders—the Casino, hotels and clubs—put in $2.4 million. I think the honourable member's first question was: what is the percentage of the GRF? Well, the $3.85 million, which is $4 million, it would be 1½ per cent or something, approximately, of the total receipt, because total receipts are about $300 million in terms of the state. If you add the $2.4 million in from stakeholders, if you want to put it that way, that takes it up to about $6½ million out of $300 million, so it is a bit over a couple of per cent going into it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So confirming the government's contribution to that fund is around about 1½ per cent; my next question was: are those contributions that the Treasurer has referred to from the Casino, hotels and clubs, made on a voluntary basis, or are they mandated by legislation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They are on a voluntary basis, but the government has no concerns at all that the industry, acting in good faith, has demonstrated their commitment to making those voluntary contributions as an understanding. They continue to do so, and the government has faith that they will continue to make those particular commitments. So the answer to the honourable member's question is it is not mandated; I think the honourable member might be seeking to mandate it. When we get to that amendment, the government will be opposing the mandating of it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer provide a breakdown of the contribution that is made by the Casino, the hotels and the clubs in terms of their contribution to the GRF?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I might have to take that particular aspect on notice. I am able to share, as I already have, that the total quantum is $2.4 million. I suspect the clubs component would be a relatively smaller percentage of the total, given their capacity to make contributions, but I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer also confirm whether or not any discussions have taken place during the course of this debate or prior in relation to the Casino, hotels and clubs increasing their contribution to the GRF?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is, no, that has not been the nature of the discussions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer confirm in relation to the Casino and its licensing agreements and contractual arrangements with the government, what basis does the Casino's contribution to the fund have when those agreements are up for renegotiation with the government?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to have my answer checked but, given the advice that I have received, these are voluntary arrangements, therefore I would be pretty confident they are not tied up in any licensing agreement or anything like that in terms of the quantums that are provided. The advice I have been given is that they are voluntary contributions which have been entered into and agreed. The government has no concerns that the Casino and the Hotels Association will not continue in good faith to make those contributions. We have no evidence to the contrary.

I think everyone has a shared concern in terms of problem gamblers and the need for harm minimisation. Everyone needs to put their shoulder to the wheel in terms of providing funding. These stakeholders have demonstrated a willingness to do that and the government does not have any evidence to the contrary.

The Treasury officers are obviously riveted to the live coverage. In relation to one of the earlier questions, the Casino has a licence until 2085 and it has exclusivity until 2035. So it is certainly going to be well beyond my term in this parliament, perhaps not the honourable member's. Can I clarify that I have now been provided with advice that the total contribution from stakeholders is not $2.4 million. It is $2.75 million; it is actually higher. The AHA and the clubs together put in $2.4 million, which is the original figure. The Casino puts in $300,000 and the independent hotel group, whatever that is—I assume that is separate to the AHA—puts in $50,000. In ballpark terms, it is $2.75 million from stakeholders.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer confirm when the Casino's contribution to the GRF was last increased and by how much?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, but I am happy to take it on notice and see what information I might be able to provide.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Specifically, can the Treasurer also confirm whether the timing of that increase correlates with the previous agreement that was reached with the Casino for their extension?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice to see what information I might be able to provide.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is my last series of questions at clause 1; there may be one, there may be a few more, depending on where the answers go. In regard to the modelling on the intended revenue from these pieces of legislation, I am interested in when that modelling was done, whether it was done before or after facial recognition technology arrangements were made with the Labor opposition as an amendment to the bill in the other place, and whether facial recognition technology will alter that modelling in any way if so or whether modelling is intended to be done with the changes of facial recognition technology if it was not in the first place. I hope that is a convoluted question so as to avoid a series of questions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is alright; I am easily convoluted. The information I have placed on the record is the information that will be included in the Mid-Year Budget Review should the legislation pass; therefore, it is based on the current structure and nature of the bill, which obviously includes facial recognition technology. At varying stages over the last 10 or 15 years, I remember supporting note acceptor amendments that were unsuccessful in this chamber. I think it was 25 years ago, so I have been a long-term supporter of note acceptors, personally.

I am sure that, at varying stages, treasuries in the past have done varying estimates, but the estimate that I put on the record here today is the estimate on the basis of the current bill, which includes facial recognition technology. I do not know whether or not that has changed the estimate from Treasury from what they might have done previously. I am not in a position to assist the member there. I think most importantly the question is: should this bill pass, what is the estimated revenue? The best estimate that Treasury comes up with is the $9 million figure eventually that I have placed on the public record.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That might be the Treasurer's most important question. I think my most important question is: did facial recognition technology alter, in any way, either up or down, the expected revenue from this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know. I am happy to take advice and see what information, if any, I am able to provide.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I want to place on the record some comments here at clause 1. This of course is a government bill that we are discussing but, when it passed in the other place three weeks ago, Labor successfully had some amendments made that have now formed the basis of the bill we are discussing. A number of those were designed to ensure that there was the maximum amount of harm minimisation in this bill. We think that a lot of improvements were made through that process to give us the bill that we have today.

Some of the amendments that were passed in the other place include legislating a $100 credit limit on the amount that a player can add to a gaming machine, which is down from $1,000. It will be the lowest in the nation, along with Queensland. I am advised, for reference, that the limit in Victoria is $1,000, and in New South Wales it is $9,980. This credit limit of $100 is, as I mentioned, the lowest in the nation.

Other amendments include mandating a maximum banknote of $50 for gaming machines, limiting EFTPOS cash withdrawals at gaming venues to $250 per 24-hour period, rejecting the changes that would have allowed gaming on Christmas Day and Good Friday, opposing changes that would have allowed 60 gaming machines in clubs and introducing mandatory facial recognition technology in every gaming venue with more than 30 machines within 12 months. That is one of the things that we have had some discussion on already. It should go a long way to ensuring a more effective and efficient mechanism to ensure that problem gamblers who have been barred cannot re-enter and face more problems by continuing to gamble.

Another successful amendment was to retain the gaming machine reduction target. The reduction target, we believe, is an important process. It was due to be removed, but the amendments that are now in the bill, which we are considering as part of the bill, will retain the gaming machine reduction target. It requires the government to develop and introduce a new reduction strategy and trading system, also within 12 months.

One of the most important parts of the bill relates to online sports betting. Online gambling, as was mentioned by the Hon. Frank Pangallo in one of his contributions on these matters, is a very large, growing problem. It is expected to outweigh many other sorts of gambling in the years to come. The amendments that Labor was successful in having moved and adopted in the other place will reduce online sports betting on amateur sports and it will ban altogether online sports betting on junior sports. It is strengthening plans to reduce the number of amateur sports that can be bet on, which is an important part of that. For members' reference, junior sports will include participants under 16 years of age.

The government has also committed to Labor that it will establish a parliamentary select committee inquiry into online gambling and sports betting, given that these are the likely issues of the future. They are already emerging as significant issues and they are overtaking many other sorts of gambling, particularly gaming machines, so we need to make sure that we are looking at the issues as they arise in advance of the most severe and significant negative impacts. Having a look in detail at online gambling and sports betting will be very, very important and a crucial part of setting the scene as we go forward in our state.

It requires online gambling companies and sports betting companies to provide detailed data on online gambling and sports betting by South Australians, as well as on South Australian events and fixtures. Again, without that kind of data, it is very difficult to ascertain what the level of problem gambling is in online gambling and sports betting, and so that data and the insistence that we require gambling companies to provide that information is a really important part of progressing harm minimisation in South Australia and understanding the risks and problems of online gambling.

It also requires an annual report from the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner setting out the amount of gambling in South Australia, including on gaming machines and via online gambling and sports betting. Having that annual report, which was one of the changes within this set of changes in terms of the gambling legislation, is also very important. The changes that the opposition successfully moved in the other place increase the focus on what is the growing problem of online gambling, which is a severe threat for problem gamblers, whilst also addressing some of the existing issues.

As I mentioned, this bill is a government bill and it was passed in the other place three weeks ago. Yesterday, in a meeting the shadow treasurer had with crossbenchers, which he agreed to as soon as it was requested, which was yesterday, he was asked by members of the crossbench whether the opposition would consider crossbench amendments to the government's bills.

I am advised that the shadow treasurer indicated that of course the opposition would consider any amendments, but also he went on to explain that, given how late the crossbench agreed to be briefed and how late it filed its amendments, the opposition is unable to form a position on them, let alone support them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: 'agreed to be briefed' is a slight upon the behaviour of myself and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. We were not ever in a position where we refused a briefing from the opposition. I ask that the member withdraw that because it is a slur and a negative imputation on our behaviour and an outright misleading of parliament, because it is a lie.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, you are contesting the version of events to which the Hon. Ms Scriven is alluding. The Hon. Ms Scriven can respond.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I said that I am advised that, given the lateness of when the amendments were filed, the crossbench, or at least SA-Best, was offered a number of opportunities for briefings. In fact, I think the Treasurer alluded to that in his contribution earlier in the week. Be that as it may, the lateness of all of those—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Point of order.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the member is going to make the claims that she is making now, I would also like her to confirm—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, she is not making claims; she is giving her understanding. You may dispute the understanding, but your point of order has no validity.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In her—

The CHAIR: No; I have ruled. We all might dispute what came out of the different accounts, and you have every entitlement to say that it is true or not true, but the Hon. Ms Scriven is using the language that it is her understanding and it is coming from someone else. That may be in dispute; that is fine. We can have it in dispute in the chamber, but it is not necessarily a point of order.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order on that ruling, Chair: I stated 'point of order' at the beginning of my interjection and then I moved on to use the words 'personal explanation'.

The CHAIR: I appreciate that. I am not overruling the point of order; I am just taking it on board. My view is that, when someone is relaying what they understand, it may be in complete dispute with other members, and that is fine, we can have it out in the committee, but I did not read into the member any spite or reflecting poorly on other members. There are two different accounts of a particular meeting. The Hon. Ms Scriven, you have the call.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Hopefully, we can return to the main issue, which is the fact that the shadow treasurer advises me that he told the crossbench that the opposition is unable to form a position on the amendments that the crossbench may be proposing let alone support them. So it is simply not correct to imply that there is some commitment from the opposition to support any crossbench amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I would like it—

The CHAIR: I do not know that it is necessary. We are in committee. You can make any statement you wish.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Okay; I would like to make a statement in response to—

The CHAIR: You have the call.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you. In response—

The CHAIR: I will just explain it. The difference between committee and us sitting as the council is that you are free to speak any time you wish, so if there are matters which you wish to dispute, go for your life.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, and I will dispute those matters. I would like to place on the record the number of conversations that I have had, which I have already referred to. I would like the member opposite to confirm the number of conversations that I have had on this issue with the Leader of the Opposition and his staff specifically in relation to all the matters that she has outlined because those conversations have taken place. I have attended his office and I have had those discussions. We have discussed these very issues specifically—specifically—in the absence of the shadow attorney-general in this chamber.

Given that this bill has been dealt with by the Attorney-General in the lower house and not the Treasurer and given the absence of the shadow attorney in this place, I was well within my rights to take my concerns to the Leader of the Opposition, as I did on multiple occasions. I would like the member to confirm whether she is advised of those meetings and those discussions that have taken place over the last couple of weeks.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure why the honourable member thinks I am disputing that she met with the Leader of the Opposition. I was simply referring to a meeting that the honourable member had with the shadow treasurer yesterday, which was the day that a briefing was asked for. The shadow treasurer issued a media release, for example, about the gambling package on Wednesday 16 October. He is the one who has been able to deal with this in the other place. He is the one who is able to give the most information in terms of the details of the package. I am not quite sure what actually the member is disputing. I am happy to take any further inquiries.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What I am disputing is the assertions being made in this place that we have not done our due diligence on this bill and approached the opposition in respect to their position. If they are the assertions that are being made, then I expect that they will be corrected for the record.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have made no commentary whatsoever on due diligence.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It has taken the committee stage of the third bill of this particular debate—but, come in spinner! We finally have a second reading speech from the opposition on this issue, with scant detail but a lot more than that 131, I do believe, words that the honourable member previously contributed to this debate. We still do not have the composition of the select committee. We have been told it might be a joint committee but we do not know what the membership will be. We do not know what the terms of reference are.

We still do not have any detail on how facial recognition will work, and whether or not the government has actually been given the opportunity to give the Casino, the AHA and the clubs that have these poker machines the biggest Christmas bonus, the cherry on top of note acceptors: facial recognition technology. Casinos, pubs and clubs across the world want to create, to groom gamblers so that they can provide a personalised experience to people who are not necessarily members of their clubs, who are not cardholders, so that they can develop these customers to get them to gamble more rather than gamble less.

We have not a single skerrick from the Labor opposition about how their supposed silver bullet solution to the note acceptors problem will, in fact, reduce harm rather than increase the propensity for those venues to procure people to gamble more. But, come in spinner: we finally have a second reading speech from the Labor opposition. I am looking forward to the further stages of this debate.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 45 passed.

The CHAIR: We come to amendment No. 1 [Franks-1], which is seeking to insert a new clause 45A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to raise a potential amendment. In the other place there were amendments made in regard to the inclusion of Good Friday and Christmas Day in terms of a suspension of trade. I guess what is reasonably obvious to those who are concerned about gambling harm—I think the statistics are one suicide a day—is the high rate on, in particular, days of importance.

I would say Christmas Day is one of those days where expectations in a community are raised, where loneliness and loss hurt more than normal, but there are other days as well that are often seen as sacrosanct. Of course, ANZAC Day is the one day of the year where two-up is a promoted and allowed gambling activity. It is something that is a little bit more social than the pokies, a little less manipulative than the pokies, and certainly does not fleece people out of their money using technology and trickery in the way that the pokies can.

I put this forward because I am interested as to why other days were not considered as sacrosanct. Why was ANZAC Day not considered? Why was, in particular, Easter Sunday, one of the holiest days in the calendar, not considered? Why was it only Christmas Day and Good Friday that the Labor Party thought were potentially the days of harm? When the Labor Party did acknowledge that there are particular days that are of a status and, indeed, I think of a significance that leads to the likelihood of harm being increased, why were other days not considered?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding, which perhaps the Treasurer can confirm or otherwise, is that the original bill proposed to remove the existing provision which did not allow gaming on Christmas Day and Good Friday, and so the amendment was simply reinstating what was in the current act. I am happy to have advice to the contrary, if that is incorrect, from the Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that what the Hon. Ms Scriven has indicated is broadly correct. I am not sure how long, but evidently for some period of time, the two days of not allowed trading—it may be even from the start of the legislation; I am not sure, but we can have that checked. I suspect it was probably from the start of the legislation, so whoever drafted the original legislation may well have decided that those two days should not have gaming machine gambling. The government's original proposal was to change the amendments that were moved, and in another place agreed, and reinsert the status quo, I guess if you put it that way. The status quo has obviously existed, if not for the whole term of gaming machine legislation, for a very long time anyway. Essentially, what we have arrived at is the status quo.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That was some clarity and a response that we had not had put on the record until this point, and I do not intend to progress this amendment.

Clauses 46 to 55 passed.

Clause 56.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 26, after line 30 [clause 56(1)]—After inserted subsection (3b) insert:

(3c) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not, on or after the relevant day, provide any gaming machine unless the maximum jackpot able to be paid out to a person playing a game on the machine is $500 or less.

(3d) In subsection (3c)—

relevant day means the day falling 6 months after the commencement of the subsection in which the expression appears.

The effect of the amendment is to make it a condition of the Casino licence—and I should add that the same also applies in relation to other venues further in this group of amendments—to not provide any gaming machine unless the maximum jackpot able to be paid out to a person playing such a machine is $500 or less. That is to say, on all gaming machines, jackpots will be limited to $500 or less irrespective of any other limitations—if you can call them that—that apply to those gaming machines.

This is a particularly important amendment and one that we have advocated for for a number of years. It is entirely consistent and in keeping with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. Given that 90 per cent of recreational poker machine players do not put into machines more than $1 amounts per spin, it will have a negligible impact on most players.

If, as the government and the previous government have claimed for consecutive years, poker machines are a form of entertainment for the majority of the community for those individuals who are able to control their spending on poker machines, then there is no reason why for that form of entertainment, which is used for recreational purposes—not because anybody is chasing any wins—a harm minimisation measure like this should not be coupled with the other harm minimisation measures that have been proposed to ensure that those machines are less addictive, particularly for those vulnerable members of the community who spend most of their time on poker machines chasing jackpots.

They chase incentives and they chase jackpots, and those jackpots can be extremely luring. The machines have the ability to make somebody pour more and more money into them because there is always the chance that they will strike it big on a jackpot. In its report, the Productivity Commission confirmed that that is an issue amongst problem gamblers and gaming addicts because they are always chasing the next big win. They may pour hundreds if not thousands of dollars into a machine plainly and simply because the jackpot that is being offered is so enticing.

If we are going to come to this place and argue that, for the majority of the members of the community, this is a form of entertainment and exists for recreational purposes, then for those members of the community who are completely and utterly ignored during this debate, for those members of the community who will inevitably have access to note acceptors on machines, which will see their losses increase dramatically, the least we can do is ensure that they do not spend their hours on poker machines chasing jackpots.

It is a very simple amendment, and I make the point again that it is entirely consistent and in keeping with the recommendations that have been made by the Productivity Commission, not once but twice, and it is an entirely accepted harm minimisation measure. When we talk about harm minimisation measures, what we need to keep in mind during this debate is that they do not work in isolation; they work together.

There are some harm minimisation measures that stand out as more beneficial than others. The prohibition on note acceptors, as I have said, has been one of those single most effective harm minimisation measures, but if we are going down the path of the allowing note acceptors in this jurisdiction, then we should be taking every step to ensure that those other harm minimisation measures, which complement each other, are a requirement under law and that those most vulnerable members of our communities who can afford it the least, those members of the community who have machines concentrated in their localities in the least affordable areas of our state, have every protection afforded to them against the dangers of poker machines.

And they are dangers; that is not my view, that is a well substantiated view. It is the view of the Productivity Commission, it is the view of every industry expert—not the AHA and Clubs SA, of course, but every other industry expert who has even an ounce of qualification or experience in the area of gambling addiction. They will tell you that these sorts of measures, usually coupled together, serve a very beneficial purpose.

It is for that reason that I am moving this amendment, not to the detriment of those individuals who play these machines for recreational purposes, not to the detriment of the person who goes to the Casino or to a club once a month or once every three months or once every six months and puts 10 bucks into a poker machine and is able to walk away from that machine. They are there for the benefit of those individuals who sit at those machines for hours and hours on end, chasing jackpots and chasing their losses.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. Whilst I am prepared to concede that the honourable member is much more likely than I to understand the psyche of a problem gambler, I certainly do not accept that she is more likely than I to understand the psyche of a recreational gambler, because I suspect the honourable member is not a recreational gambler, but I will not put words into her mouth.

The honourable member's characterisation of what drives a recreational gambler is her view of the world; it is certainly not mine. When one looks at the various forms of gambling, for example, there are attractions for the recreational gambler in lotteries, and the Hon. Mr Pangallo in his 5½-hour magnus opus referred to various Powerball numbers and Lotto figures that attracted people to lotteries.

In relation to Keno and a variety of other gambling options, the attraction to the recreational gambler is being able to win more than $500, which is the limit that the honourable member seeks to put on gamblers collectively, recreational, problem and otherwise. It is similar for very many young people. I certainly have some experience with young people's attraction to sports betting and online betting in particular, and one of the great attractions for them is what are called multiples: being able to pick a combination of the World Cup, the World Series and three or four other events over a 12-month period, for example; being able to fluke the results of that and investing money in that particular pursuit for the ultimate reward—albeit slim in terms of their likelihood—of making considerably more than $500.

So the government does not support the honourable member's amendment. As I said, I do not believe she accurately reflects the psyche of the recreational gambler at all. She certainly has a view, and she is entitled to that view. I do not personally, and the government does not either, accept that that is the view of what drives recreational gamblers. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the sake of clarity, Chair, we will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment.

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 26, after line 30 [clause 56(1)]—After inserted subsection (3b) insert:

(3c) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licencee must not, on or after the relevant day, provide any gaming machine unless the tray or container into which coins are delivered on a winning bet on the machine, and any associated slide, tube or delivery mechanism, are lined with felt or treated in some other way that reduces the sound of the delivery of the coins.

(3d) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not, on or after the relevant day, provide any gaming machine that emits any audible sound.

(3e) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not, on or after the relevant day, provide any gaming machine that allows the operation of a game—

(a) that has other than an equal number of each type of symbol displayed on each reel; or

(b) that operates such that the player may be induced to believe that they have won a game when that is not the case.

(3f) In subsection (3c), (3d) and (3e)—

relevant day means the day falling 12 months after the commencement of the subsection in which the expression appears.

This amendment is the first of a set of amendments that goes to the lighting and sound effects that are employed that have a conditioning effect. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo because he saved me the need for a lengthy speech with his contribution in previous parts of the previous bill that we debated before this one.

Indeed, I refer to near misses and losses disguised as wins having that same reinforcement, that Pavlovian effect, as actual wins. The expenditure and expertise put into this technology—and I think in some cases the extraordinary levels of technical brilliance put to a purpose that is not one I would support—are astounding. Using win sounds for losses disguised as wins, enabled in these machines, grooms gambling. They perpetuate harm. This amendment seeks to remove that sound, that technology that is used to trick people into thinking they are winning when, in fact, they are slowly losing. It is similar technology that has been prohibited in Queensland.

It is a harm minimisation measure. I put it before this place because it is just one of the range of harm minimisation measures that should have been considered by the Labor opposition in their dirty deal with the government to do away with protections against gambling harm in exchange for accepting note acceptors and the patronage of their masters. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. This will be a fundamental change, and the honourable member acknowledges that, in terms of gaming machines and the attraction for many recreational gamblers in relation to gaming machines—the thrill of the chase, the clink of the coins, in some cases.

I think the member's amendment is quite detailed. That is, it has to be lined with felt or treated in some way that reduces the sound of the delivery of the coins so that the wonderful joy for those who experience it of hearing the coins hit the tray is intended to be changed by this particular amendment. The government's position in relation to these particular provisions is as I said earlier. We need to do as much as we need to do in relation to the very small minority of gamblers who are problem gamblers, but the recreational experience for the 99 per cent of recreational gamblers who do not find themselves in the same degree of difficulty as the problem gambler should not have the enjoyment of their recreational experience restricted or inhibited in this particular way.

The honourable member indicated that the Hon. Mr Pangallo entertained us with some detailed exposition of research by Mr Livingstone, I think it was—Charles Livingstone, I presume—and indeed others on these particular issues. As interesting as that research was, read at length onto the public record, it was insufficient to convince either me or the government in relation to changing our position on this particular amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I rise to indicate that obviously we will be supporting this amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I intend to put the question that the amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks be agreed to.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Acting Chair, I did indicate that I will not be seeking to divide but, if we do not know the numbers in the room, then we may have to divide.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived.