Bills

Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 26, lines 31 and 32 [clause 56(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment opposes the provision that allows note acceptors for the Casino. I note again for the record that there is a similar amendment when we come to those provisions dealing with other licensed venues. Just for the record, clause 56 of the bill relates to the provisions relating to authorised gaming machines and automated tables. These provisions in the bill deal with the provision of note acceptors and also the limitation that applies to the amounts that can be provided on note acceptors.

This morning when I spoke on this issue, I referred to a report that was published on 4 December 2019 regarding South Australians overwhelmingly rejecting allowing poker machines to accept notes. The key findings of that report are that four in five South Australians—that is, 80 per cent—believe that 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—that is, 82 per cent—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; and 41 per cent wanted poker machines to be banned entirely. There was only 13 per cent of the population surveyed who thought 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.

Again, as I said, as the Director of the Australian Institute of SA pointed out, the research shows overwhelmingly that the community is opposed to the government's reforms, and that opposition 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.

It was a very timely report provided by the Australian Institute, given that this debate is underway at the moment, but it is certainly, without any question, a reflection of the community's view on the issue that we are voting on in here, a view that has been absolutely ignored during this debate, especially as it relates to note acceptors.

I will point again to the correspondence that was sent to the Hon. Stephen Mulligan MP, the shadow treasurer, on 16 October, well in advance of the debate that we are having in this place today in relation to this issue. That correspondence said very clearly that:

…evidence points to high use by problem gamblers and at risk gamblers of note acceptors and for that reason SA's decision to not allow note acceptors [here] was a smart decision. Note acceptors are also used to 'wash money' as they are a fast way of doing so. We have seen in ACT clubs Vietnamese groups feeding $50 and $100 bills into machines located in venues and operating several machines for [extended periods of time]…

This is purely and simply to 'wash money'. So it has nothing to do with recreation. It has nothing to do with, potentially, gambling addiction. This is used as a money laundering tool in our communities. 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, therefore, the associated losses.

It is not true to say that all states allow note acceptors; in fact, this is something I will touch on in a moment. We have heard during this debate that allowing note acceptors will bring us into line will all other jurisdictions. In fact, what we have not done in this debate, at all, is compare apples with apples when it comes to any of the measures that we are debating, and we are certainly not comparing apples with apples when it comes to the argument about the introduction of note acceptors in this jurisdiction.

'It is hardly a risk minimisation measure' is what the letter to the shadow treasurer says. Notwithstanding any proposal to establish facial recognition technology, SA is now alone in accessing cash inside an actual gaming room. I provided the reasons for that yesterday on the record; I will not repeat those, but again it is important to consider these measures as a package and not in isolation.

We know from all the evidence that has been provided to every single member debating this bill, whether it be by me or industry experts, that the prohibition of note acceptors in this jurisdiction has been the single most effective harm minimisation measure that has been implemented, and we have managed to hold the line and to resist every temptation that has been put to consecutive governments to remove that harm minimisation measure, and now the government, with the overwhelming, absolute majority support of the opposition, is seeking to implement in South Australia the one measure that is considered to be to the detriment of people who play on poker machines the most.

It will target, of course, those in our communities who can afford to play on poker machines the most. It will target those individuals who are vulnerable, who live in our poorer socioeconomic areas where most of these machines are concentrated, the individuals in our communities who can least afford to walk into a venue and pour their money into a machine. Of course, now they will not be hearing the pouring of coins. They will be going to the EFTPOS machine and to the ATM machine and they will be withdrawing notes, and they will be feeding those into the poker machines.

I do acknowledge the $100 limit that has been placed in terms of credits on the machines but, again, and as I have said time and time again throughout this debate, you have to consider all these measures together. Allowing somebody to have a $100 cash limit does not mean they are not going to sit at that machine for hours and hours and hours on end, in lots of cases without being detected by somebody at that venue who ought to approach them and say, 'Are you okay? Do you think you should be here gambling?'

We know that in the main that just does not happen. We know that in the main the individuals who work in these premises, who have received very limited training, are reluctant, and it is often reported that their bosses tell them, 'Don't do that, don't go and approach them.' In fact, they are welcomed into venues with open arms, and they sit there for hours on end—up until now pouring coins into a machine and now they will be able to pour notes into machines. That is probably one of the biggest travesties of this entire debate, if not the biggest.

Every industry expert will tell you that note acceptors are the most retrograde step you could make when it comes to poker machine laws. There is nothing that comes close in terms of increasing the damage that will be caused by these machines—and that is precisely what we are proposing here today. It is for those reasons that I am moving this amendment, and I indicate in the strongest possible terms that we will not have a part of any arrangement struck by the government and the opposition to allow something that is going to wreak havoc on our communities as a result of that deal struck between the government and the opposition.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this amendment. From the government's viewpoint—and I am not sure whether the Hon. Connie Bonaros would be accepting of this—this is part of a package of amendments. She has just spoken to the general principle of note acceptors, and I think it is quite clear that this amendment is part of the package of amendments. From the government's viewpoint we would treat this as a test, I guess, as to whether or not the majority in this committee support the member's position that note acceptors should not be allowed. This is the first test of that particular issue and we will treat it as a test.

The government's position is absolutely clear. We have made it obvious, as has the honourable member in relation to her position, that in terms of note acceptors the government supports the option of note acceptors. Indeed, that is one of the provisions that have been included in the bill, and it has been well debated both in the parliament and publicly.

As to the specific nature of the level of note that should be able to be used in note acceptors, my advice is that in Victoria there is a $50 limit and in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales I am advised there are no restrictions at all; notes of higher denominations can be used in those jurisdictions. On this specific issue the government thinks it is a reasonable provision but, in relation to the overall issue, it is the government's view that this is a test as to whether or not the majority of this chamber supports note acceptors as part of the government bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Treasurer may well call it a reasonable provision, I will call it what it is: simply a reckless reward that is not based on evidence—and there is ample evidence that shows the damage caused by these note accepting machines. I refer back to a paper prepared by Associate Professor Michael O'Neil at the SA Centre for Economic Studies, where he says:

There are a number of reputable studies that evidence the availability of easy access to cash and that the availability of note acceptors increases the potential for gambling harm.

One Australian study—and I referred to this in my opus the other night—conducted in the Northern Territory following the introduction of note acceptors, entitled 'Evaluating changes in electronic gambling machine policy on user losses in an Australian jurisdiction', concluded:

The analysis demonstrates that reductions in how much money gamblers can insert into an EGM [that is the load-up limit], and/or the abolition of note acceptors…is likely to reduce harm from EGM use.

The availability of note acceptors and load-up limits were reported to contribute to a 47 per cent increase in user losses in the four years following their introduction, compared to a decrease in losses in the four years beforehand. The Australian Productivity Commission has previously recommended restricting load-up on EGMs to just $20 because of the likely impact on gambler losses.

The Northern Territory changes allowed for a maximum load-up limit of $1,000. I would not be surprised, if this bill does pass, that eventually there will be some provision through regulation that will enable the limit to be lifted. I will go on further to what Associate Professor Michael O'Neil said, and he points to a ban on note acceptors in Norway which started on 1 July 2006 and resulted in a 17 per cent reduction in gross turnover in the first six months. Most importantly, this was associated with a 62 per cent decrease in the number of gamblers and relatives making calls to the national helpline.

The association of a declining gross turnover and fewer helpline callers suggests that the ban on note acceptors is a positive harm minimisation measure and, hence, should be sustained in South Australia, but that is not the case here. All these operators, concerned that their revenues are declining, have had to look at some measure that is going to hoover up more money for them. What best thing to use than note acceptors, and they know that, because there is an evidence base that shows that gamblers will actually spend more and lose more.

Victorian hotels and clubs permit note acceptors but, at the same time, they have serious policy initiatives relating to the location of ATMs, the location of EFTPOS in venues, and limits on transactions and daily withdrawals from EFTPOS that effectively inhibit or slow down access to money note denominations to be fed into note acceptors. South Australia has absolutely none of this—nothing. Other states have made attempts, via regulators, at harm minimisation, which South Australia does not have. Queensland stipulates that ATMs and EFTPOS machines are not located in or in close proximity to an area of the licensed premises used for gambling. The ATMs accept debit cards only.

Tasmania does not permit note acceptors for EGMs in hotels and clubs. All jurisdictions do not permit 24-hour gambling in hotels and clubs. Western Australia, without EGMs in hotels and clubs, has the lowest rate of reported problem gambling and the lowest rate of per capita losses. New South Wales permits load-up limits of up to $7,500, which is soon to be reduced to $5,000, and has the highest rate of problem gambling and the highest losses per capita. So you already have the evidence of how damaging these things really are and yet here we are with a Liberal government, in cahoots in that unholy alliance with Labor, that is quite prepared to allow this to happen and impose more social harm in the community.

I will now go to responses to the arguments for note acceptors. The first argument is that online gambling is more harmful. This is true, but the reality is that the vast majority of gambling harm in South Australia still comes from poker machines. That is not to say that we do not need greater regulation of online gambling.

The second argument is that note acceptors will create jobs. This is not true. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies has shown conclusively that pokies deliver a very small number of jobs and note acceptors will actually reduce jobs even in pokies rooms as no staff will be needed to change notes for coins in pokies rooms. As we know, next door, the Casino is proceeding and going gangbusters in building its Midas tower that will contain hundreds of these new poker machines, but there is no guarantee that it is going to increase jobs at all.

Another one of the arguments for note acceptors is that allowing note acceptors will bring South Australia in line with the rest of the Australia. This is not true either. There are no poker machines beyond the casino in Western Australia, as I have pointed out, and no note acceptors in Tasmania. Victoria does not allow ATMs in gambling venues, while South Australia does. The rules are different in every jurisdiction and South Australia should not be leading the race to the bottom for gambling harm.

So there you have it. You would think that this type of policy that is being included in this bill would have a skerrick of evidence to support it, but there is not. The evidence—a lot of that evidence—points exactly to the opposite. I would say that, in a few years' time when perhaps the Treasurer is not here and we can survey the damage that has been caused by this, that he and other members of the Liberal Party, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and all the others who have voted for this should really hang their heads in shame—they really should.

I cannot understand how they, and particularly Labor, will be able to look people in the face, particularly in those areas that have long been considered their heartland in the working-class areas. Obviously, SA-Best will be supporting this amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): As the Treasurer has indicated the government will view this as a test clause, I would ask other members to indicate their positions, please. The Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I have stated I think three times in this debate, given the lateness of the filing of the amendments, the Labor opposition is unable to form a position on them and therefore we cannot support any of the amendments. That has been now said a number of times. I think we have indicated our position very clearly.

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 26, after line 32—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Section 42B(7)—delete '$5' and substitute '$1'

This amendment, for reasons very similar to the previous amendment, seeks to implement $1 maximum bets per spin on poker machines. This is again entirely consistent with, in fact, the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and again, given that 90 per cent of recreational players who play poker machines do not put more than $1 per spin in a machine, it has been clearly established that it will have a negligible impact on most players.

Regarding the same players whom I described earlier as chasing jackpots, chasing their losses and chasing their next big win, of course we know that those next big wins rarely come. In fact, overwhelmingly, what we know is that somebody is going to lose far more than they are ever going to win, but that does not feed into the psyche of somebody who is playing one of these machines, because these machines are designed to keep somebody addicted.

All the logic in the world about chasing your wins, chasing a win, chasing a jackpot or chasing your losses goes absolutely out the window when you are dealing with an individual who has no control over their gambling behaviour—not the individual who goes down there to put $10 in and walk away happily, or even $100 and walk away happily, knowing that they have lost 100 bucks and they are happy to keep going, but the individual who will sit there for hours on end trying to win their money back and trying to win any jackpots on top of the money that they have put into a machine. That is the group of individuals that this amendment is targeted at, and there is overwhelming evidence in support of the need for, and the benefits of, a $1 maximum bet.

Dr Charles Livingstone, whom the Treasurer referred to earlier, has provided ample research on this very issue. What we do know, of course, also and what the government knows only too well is that in the last raft of amendments that went through this place, maximum bets were decreased to $5 dollars. That has had a huge impact on the revenue that is reaped by the hotel, clubs and Casino lobby in this jurisdiction. We know that compared with a decade ago the revenue the government gets has plummeted by about $23 million.

We know from the discussions that have taken place with members across this place that the reason these measures are being debated now is that the pokies lobby is trying absolutely everything they can to maintain their market share, which ultimately results in revenue, and they are doing so with callous disregard for those individuals who are impacted by poker machine addiction.

I am not going to speak to this amendment at length, because it speaks for itself. The Productivity Commission's findings speak for themselves. If we are genuinely concerned about protecting those people who cannot protect themselves and about implementing harm minimisation measures that will go a long way towards that, there is zero reason why the government and the opposition should not be supporting this proposal.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the proposal. This particular issue has been tested in the parliament on a number of occasions, certainly in recent memory; I am not sure how far back it goes. It is a position which has been tested in this chamber and in the parliament, and there has been precious little support for the proposed amendment in the past. Certainly on this occasion again, the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Again, the government's position in relation to these issues is that for the overwhelming majority of gamblers, recreational gamblers in particular, 99 per cent of them are very capable of managing their recreational gambling with the current arrangements as they exist, which include this particular provision. They do not need the additional protection that the honourable member seeks to impose upon them.

Regarding the particular requirements of the less than 1 per cent, the learned research quoted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo in his magnus opus the other evening indicates I think the prevalence factor of 0.7 per cent; in 2012, I think it was 0.6 per cent. Those were the two measures he quoted during his speech. As I have indicated on many occasions, that 0.7 per cent, or less than 1 per cent of people, will crawl over cut glass to get to a gaming machine. The nature of the gaming machine does not matter; they have a significant problem.

We need to identify them and do whatever we can to provide assistance to them, to prevent them, bar them—all those other things that this particular bill and others seek to do—but the government's position is we do not need to restrict or inhibit the enjoyment of 99 per cent of recreational gamblers who do not have that particular problem. So for those reasons—again, like the Hon. Ms Bonaros, I will not repeat at length the government's arguments against it on this occasion or indeed on many previous occasions—I repeat the position that we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens strongly support this amendment. Indeed, it is the silver bullet. If you are looking for a solution to problem gambling, the Productivity Commission tells us, the research tells us, the experts tell us it is dollar spins. A dollar per spin will only affect those people who really do have a problem; 88 per cent of recreational gamblers already spend less than a dollar a spin.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have been supporting $1 maximum bets for 12 years and I continue to do so.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We now come to amendment No. 3 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I believe this is consequential.

Clause passed.

New clause 56A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 27, after line 9—After clause 56 insert:

56A—Insertion of section 42BA

After section 42B insert:

42BA—Coin machines not to be provided

(1) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not, on or after the prescribed day, provide, or allow another person to provide, a machine on the casino premises that is designed to change a monetary note into coins.

(2) In this section—

prescribed day means the day falling 1 month after the day on which the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Act 2019 is assented to by the Governor.

This amendment simply provides that—and, again, a similar amendment will be moved in relation to gaming machines outside of the Casino—those venues should not have coin machines in their facilities. If we are going to allow EFTPOS, if we are going to allow ATMs, if we are going to allow note acceptors, then there is absolutely no reason why we need to add to the access to cash by allowing coin machines in venues.

In fact, it flies in the face of the argument put up time and time again in this place by the government and the opposition who have both argued that what those who gamble on poker machines need is a break in play and the ability to access somebody behind a counter and say, 'Can I have $50 more worth of coins?'

If you are saying that you need to be able to approach an individual in order to access cash, then there is no reason why there should also be coin machines. Given the ample amount of cash that is going to be available in a venue, and that is currently available in a venue and in a gaming room, there is no reason why we should make that any worse by allowing them, in addition to the available measures, to be able to access cash through coin machines. Coin machines do not require somebody to sit next to them and ensure that the amount of money being withdrawn is monitored by those staff who are apparently trained to identify problem gamblers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. My advice in relation to coin machines is that—and I am sure the honourable member understood this as she spoke to her amendment—they are obviously not attached to the machine. The player gets up from the machine that he or she is playing, goes to the coin machine, puts in their note, gets the coins and then returns to the machine.

For those who argue about the break in play, it does require a break of play to get up from the machine to go to the coin machine. In the absence of a coin machine, you would get up from your machine and I assume you would go to a teller to get the coins from the teller. In both circumstances you get up from the machine, you go somewhere and convert your $50 note, or whatever it is, into coins so that you can go back to your machine and you can play. Anyway, now that I have stunned everyone with my knowledge of coin machine locations within gaming machine establishments, I indicate the government is opposed to the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 57.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 27, after line 22 [clause 57, inserted section 42D]—After subsection (2) insert:

(3) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not use information obtained by means of operating a facial recognition system—

(a) for a purpose other than identifying a barred person within the meaning of Part 6 of the Gambling Administration Act 2019; or

(b) other than is necessary for the purposes of reducing the harm caused by gambling.

This, at clause 57, page 27, after line 22 in inserted section 42D, applies in particular to the Labor-negotiated agreement to allow for facial recognition technology. After subsection (2), it will insert a protection provision, being:

(3) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not use information obtained by means of operating a facial recognition system—

(a) for a purpose other than identifying a barred person within the meaning of Part 6 of the Gambling Administration Act 2019; or

(b) other than is necessary for the purposes of reducing the harm caused by gambling.

I note that further on there will be a similar amendment that will apply to the additional uses across pubs and clubs. Facial recognition technology, as I touched on last night, is new technology. It is technology that is not always accurate. It does racially profile, it does have security concerns, but they are not my concerns here today.

My concerns here today are that we have very unclear provisions around protections against this technology being used to groom gamblers rather than only applying, as the Labor Party has purported that they will, to create harm minimisation and apply to those people who are barred. I outlined last night in my second reading speech to this bill the uses of facial recognition technology. In particular, as I noted, in the casino in Sydney, they were installed where a staff member had stolen a chip and put it in their sock.

Overseas, the Las Vegas showcase that I outlined to members last night regaled this technology as the return of 'old Vegas' where, through the technology, those players who walked into a venue could be provided with a retail customer-fitted experience to keep them there longer, to make them feel welcome, to suggest that their favourite drink was now at the bar and to remember their names so that the staff may continue to groom them to keep gambling.

In fact, it was at a showcase for casinos that these claims were made because the gambling industry wants this technology to groom gamblers, to provide that fitted retail experience and to provide for them to gamble more, not for them to gamble less. Yet the Labor Party, in their supposed solution to the harms that the community quite rightly asserts will be created by note acceptors, comes up with a solution that is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Facial recognition technology, the Labor Party tells us, will be the silver bullet; it will protect against gambling harm. It is the trade-off that the Labor Party has made for the acceptance of many of the provisions of this bill, yet it is a trade-off that I have to say must be like Christmas for those in the gambling industry who want to have more gambling, not less. It is the Christmas bonus that the shadow treasurer is now delivering to the gambling industry in this state. It is the Christmas bonus; in fact, the loss disguised as a win.

Come in spinner. Come in spinner, the member for Lee. It is bunkum to claim that facial recognition, in and of itself, is actually a harm minimisation provision. There is nothing in this legislation, nothing in this bill, that guarantees that it will be used for good and not evil. This amendment will ensure that it is used for good and not evil.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I speak on behalf of the government to indicate that we will be opposing these particular amendments. In indicating that, as the honourable member will acknowledge, at some earlier stage in the debate earlier in the week, I indicated that the government's position clearly was similar to the honourable member's; that is, facial recognition technology was intended by the government for good purposes as opposed to evil purposes. There is no intention from the government's viewpoint to enable or allow, to the extent that it can, either racial profiling or, as the member has identified today, grooming to attract problem gamblers.

I am authorised to indicate, whilst we will be opposing these amendments, the government believes that the issues that the honourable member has raised can and should be and will be addressed in terms of the regulations under the legislation. The Attorney-General and the commissioner will indicate that, should these amendments not be successful, they are prepared to work with the honourable member and indeed other stakeholders in relation to the intentions of the [Franks-2] amendments to see whether they can be tailored or amended to achieve what the honourable member wants to achieve and what the government wants to achieve as well. There is a unanimity of purpose; there is a different view as to whether the current drafting achieves that. It is a very useful exercise the honourable member has ventilated. We make no criticism of that.

We indicate, whilst we oppose the amendments, the Attorney and the commissioner will be prepared to work with the member, and indeed other stakeholders, to try to ensure what she wants to see achieved is the same as what the government wants to see and, I am sure, what the opposition wants to see achieved; that is, there is a good purpose to come out of the use of this particular technology rather than some evil purpose to come out of the technology.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Labor sought this amendment successfully in the other place to require all venues with more than 30 machines with note acceptors to have facial recognition technology. This would mean that the government will establish and control a database of barred problem gamblers that gaming venues will be connected to. If a venue's facial recognition system detects a barred gambler, it will alert venue staff, who will be required to remove the gambler from the premises. The opposition regard this as an important harm minimisation measure.

It will be far more effective than requiring individual venue staff to be familiar with a full list of barred gamblers and scan each person on entry to the venue and establish whether anyone entering is on the list. That is how the current regime is meant to operate. It is not hard to see how this regime can easily fail. Labor is advised by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling that requiring all venues with more than 30 machines with note acceptors to have facial recognition technology will mean approximately 75 to 80 per cent of gaming machines in South Australia will be subject to this new and more effective regime.

Labor appreciates the concerns raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks in regard to issues such as privacy, ensuring that the technology cannot be used for marketing and cannot be used for the grooming of gamblers. This is why the bill now requires the government to develop an appropriate regime over the next 12 months to be done by the commissioner. The government has assured the opposition that this will be done publicly, involving broad consultation and be established via regulation. Establishment via regulation will allow the parliament to have appropriate scrutiny and oversight over the facial recognition regime. I note the comments just a few minutes ago from the Treasurer about the government's intention to ensure that the positive purpose of facial recognition is indeed upheld.

Some members continue to be highly critical of the opposition for including this amendment, as well as criticising the opposition for not conducting what they regard to be sufficient consultation. These views ignore the requirement that is now on the government to establish this regime over the next 12 months, including full public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, as the regime will be established by regulation.

This is a government bill, now amended, to include a new, more stringent and more effective harm minimisation measure. It will be up to the government to consult on this and to ensure it will work. The opposition became aware of facial recognition being trialled in New Zealand over a year ago. My understanding and my advice is that that trial did identify a number of issues, some of which were referred to by the Hon. Tammy Franks in a related debate in terms of being quite effective in identifying Anglo-Celtic faces but less so in terms of other people. I am advised that those problems have now been overcome to a large extent.

It is clear to us that this facial recognition system will most likely prove to be a far better way to stop barred gamblers entering gaming venues. This was raised as a possible amendment, before it was passed in the other place, with the commissioner, who indicated that this could be effectively rolled out in South Australia subject to appropriate design, consultation and drafting. It is now a matter for the government to consult upon it and implement it appropriately. We look forward to that occurring.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just indicate for the record that I think the Hon. Tammy Franks has articulated clearly the need for this amendment. Given the hour, I will not be adding to that other than to say that perhaps, if that research had been taken undertaken prior to the proposal for this facial recognition technology to be implemented in the bill, the opposition would have been aware of the dangers associated with facial recognition technology. But, of course, that is something they failed to understand and appreciate because there was no appropriate consultation in relation to the measures they put up on facial recognition technology.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would just like to point out that the Labor opposition is the opposition. We are not in government; therefore, we do not have the resources of government to undertake that full consultation. I would point out that if the honourable member does not support facial recognition technology she would have been welcome to move an amendment to remove it from this bill, but no-one appears to have done that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I wonder if I could ask the Treasurer about these facial recognition cameras once they are put into place. How and who will ensure that they are compliant?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The commissioner and his or her staff.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: And just how regularly will these compliance checks be undertaken?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There will not be a regime of a certain date, or whatever it might happen to be. The commissioner's staff, in a number of ways, when they visit venues will be having a look at it; they may well do it on a regular basis. If someone complains, they would respond to complaint. It would be part of their ongoing compliance process, not just in relation to the recognition technology but indeed many other aspects of the operations of gaming venues. Can I just indicate that I am mindful that staff and others would like to have their lunch. Are there a series of other questions?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman, for the record, I will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

Amendment thus negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:12 to 14:15.