HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Gambling Administration Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (19:45): Before the dinner break, I was going through not only the algorithms but all the other traps to get punters addicted to these electronic gaming machines. I am sure that, so far, I have enlightened many of the members on both sides of the house about how complex and sophisticated these machines are in order to have people addicted to them. I will continue on the general characteristics of EGMs:

Despite the modest state of knowledge around specific game characteristics…there are some aspects of EGM structural characteristics for which good evidence is available. These include the effects of:

credit insertion;

bet size;

display configuration;

[wagering strategies];

'features'…

…'near misses'; [and]

'losses disguised as wins'…

As for credit insertion with coins, notes, Ticket-in Ticket-out (TITO) and cards:

Contemporary EGMs permit the insertion of either coins (generally $1 coins) or banknotes to load credits. Most Australian jurisdictions allow banknotes to be inserted into EGMs, although South Australia has not permitted the installation of banknote acceptors…on EGMs in clubs and hotels [yet]. In some venues in some jurisdictions, 'ticket-in ticket-out' (TITO) systems allow users to insert a ticket or slip with a printed scan code to load credits.

I am not sure whether we have that configuration of machine to come into South Australia. It continues:

If a user cashes out of such a machine, the TITO ticket can be inserted into another machine or 'cashed out' via a cashier or terminal. 'Tokenisation' of gambling has been associated with loss of connection to actual value, and TITO systems may have a similar effect…

So you do not realise just how much you have blown on those machines. It continues:

Load up limits and note configuration

Australian jurisdictions prescribe different limits for 'load up' (the amount of money that can be loaded as credits at any one time) and for denomination of notes.

NSW permits a load up of $7,500, and the insertion of all Australian banknotes. Victoria has a load up limit of $1,000, with the largest denomination note permitted being $50. In Queensland, the load up is $100, and in the ACT, NT and Tasmania it is not specified. In South Australia, the load up limit is not specified but banknotes are not permitted on EGMs in clubs and hotels [yet]. Large load up limits with high denomination banknotes permit very rapid expenditure.

Already, you can see the alarm bells should be ringing about these machines. It continues:

The Productivity Commission recommended that the load up limit for EGMs should be $20…

What we have at the moment, I think, is $50. It continues:

Card-based gambling

Some jurisdictions in the US and elsewhere permit EGM users to load credits directly onto EGM games using a credit or EFTPOS card. This is not permitted in any Australian jurisdiction.

Not yet, anyway, but I imagine, once they get their way with the note acceptors, we will then see that these types of machines will soon make their way into clubs, pubs, casinos and other venues. It continues:

Victoria and NSW permit EGM venues to offer systems whereby users may load value on to a card or an account accessible via a card; the card is then inserted into a reader built into or added to the EGM...This is distinct from a pre-commitment system.

The exact implications of this system are unclear but may involve a more 'abstract' approach to the cost of gambling: that is, it may allow EGM users to distance themselves from the experience of losing their money. The consequence of this may be to 'facilitate spending and make it harder for people to keep track of their expenditure'…Reduced cash handling and lower risks of robbery may also be by-products of cashless EGM gambling…

The quantum of bet size obviously is of interest to regulators seeking to reduce harm to gamblers experiencing problems…

The quantum of a maximum bet varies between Australian jurisdictions. A $5 maximum bet (that is, the most that can be wagered in one 'spin') applies in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Queensland. Maximum bets of $10 can be wagered in NSW, the ACT and the NT. In casinos, however, many jurisdictions permit unrestricted maximum bets, though in some cases with the proviso that insertion of a loyalty card is required to permit this. The Productivity Commission…recommended a reduction in the bet size to $1.

A 2001 study…indicated that reducing the maximum bet size to $1 would reduce harm to gamblers experiencing problems while not impinging on the enjoyment of 'recreational gamblers'.

But, of course, this is not what the government or Labor want. They want gamblers to actually be able to put in amounts of up to $50. It continues:

The scale of a minimum bet is a direct function of the credit value of the game. A 1¢ credit value EGM will have a minimum bet of 1¢ where one line is bet at minimum credits. However, such a game could also permit bets up to the level of the maximum bet, depending on the number of lines used and the use of multiple credits per line. A 1¢ credit value game with 50 lines and a capacity to bet 10 credits per line will permit a $5 maximum bet. A 2¢ game with the same characteristics will permit a $10 maximum bet. See 'The reality of player returns', above, for more information on different betting strategies.

Scaling up bets

Increasing the credits wagered per line is achieved by pressing the relevant button on the machine's fascia panel, or in some cases its touch screen. If '10 credits' is selected, this increases the size of the bet tenfold, and so on. Increasing the credit value of the wager also increases the potential payout, which is a multiple of the credits wagered. If the bet is increased by a specific factor, any reward from that spin is also increased by the same factor. However, the rate of losses is also increased by the same factor…

The display of most contemporary EGMs is via a LED or similar screen, and in many cases these incorporate touch screen characteristics. Some displays utilise large, wrap around displays incorporating curved and immersive screens, and some feature elaborate housings. However, most EGMs in hotels, clubs and casinos in Australia are [currently] stand-alone devices with a relatively traditional appearance, generally lined up in rows and sitting on boxes or stands that permit their operation by users standing, or more commonly sitting on high bar stools…

The reels appearing on contemporary electronic EGMs are a simulation of mechanical reels of older-style mechanical gambling machines.

The effect of reels 'spinning' is an illusion generated by the game software. The outcome of the event is known immediately after the button has been pushed.

The order of reel symbols on games authorised for use in Australia must remain constant, mimicking mechanical reels. For example, if the reel displays the symbols A, B, C,…X, Y, Z, in that order, they must always be displayed in that order. So-called 'progressive games' (distinct from progressive jackpots), which are triggered by a specific set of symbols appearing on the main game, may incorporate a different order of symbols when compared to those appearing on the main game. However, these must also maintain a constant order of symbols for the duration of the 'progressive game'…

There is no requirement for the same number of symbols to appear on every reel, nor for the same arrangement or type of symbols to appear on each reel. Thus, a game may have four reels of 30 symbols and a final reel of 44 symbols (which occurs on the game Dolphin Treasure). Currently the user has no way of knowing the length of each reel. This is not generally understood by users, and is not detailed in information screens (where these are available)…

The winning symbols on the reels may be disproportionately placed on specific reels.

For example, Dolphin Treasure has one 'King' symbol on the first reel, two King symbols on the second reel, four on the third, five on the fourth and three on the fifth. The effects of reel 'starving' (industry nomenclature) in generating 'near misses' are discussed—

in an article below the article I am reading. It continues:

Again, this is a characteristic of EGM games that users are not familiar with, and which is not described on information screens, where available…

Typical EGM wagering centres on the ability for users to lay bets on the combination of symbols appearing on one or more 'lines' (rows), and in some cases reels (columns)…

Contemporary EGMs almost invariably permit wagers to be made on multiple lines. The default single line option is the line of five symbols across the centre of the screen. The two lines above and below the centre line can also be used, as can a large array of other arrangements…Wagers may be on a single line, on all available lines, or on some subset of the available lines.

It is common for contemporary EGMs to allow bets to be placed on up to 50 (and in some cases more) lines. Livingstone and Woolley (2008) analysed South Australian EGM game-level data, which indicated that multiline games were successful in encouraging users to wager relatively high average bets…

Reel betting differs from line betting in that the winning symbols are displayed on a combination of reels…and lines. The default combination for Aristocrat's ReelPower games is the first reel plus the middle line. Increasing the combinations upon which bets may be placed brings more reels and lines into play. ReelPower games allow up to 243 (or in some cases more) bets to be placed. The effect of this is to increase average bet sizes, and the rate of losses, quite substantially—

designed, again, to encourage gamblers to spend more and, of course, lose more. It continues:

EGM 'features' are triggered by the appearance on the screen of a series of symbols, often as 'scatters' (i.e., not necessarily lined up along a line in use). When the necessary number of scattered symbols appear, they trigger a feature…

…(Livingstone & Woolley, 2008…found that features are very popular with regular EGM users, and may be associated with a transition to harmful EGM use…

A feature, which is triggered by a scatter of symbols, consists of a series of 'free' spins, which operate automatically once the user initiates them. In some cases, it involves a separate game or set of winning combinations. In other cases, the game is identical to that of the main game on the EGM, but rewards are multiplied—the extent of multiplication usually relating to the number of scatters that triggered the feature…

The RTP of any game takes into account the effect of features, so the spins are not 'free' as most users understand them to be. The cost and rewards of the feature spins is calculated into the game's outcomes and conforms overall to the game's RTP.

An EGM user who neither wins a jackpot nor major prize, nor triggers a feature, will achieve an average price of game use below the average RTP for that game, given that 'deductions' from RTP are required to fund these characteristics.

For conditioning purposes…features provide a specific and sought-after reward, so the likely effect of features is to provide an additional reinforcement, akin to a jackpot or large win…

Contemporary EGMs incorporate two structural characteristics known as 'near misses' and 'losses disguised as wins' which both generate a form of physiological response which is similar in nature to that exhibited from a win…Their effect is to add a cost-free (for the venue) reinforcement to the reward schedule of the game…

'Near misses' involve the display of a series of symbols which are perceived to come close to providing a reward, but which do not in fact deliver this. In Australia, the deliberate engineering of near misses is prohibited (i.e., the technical standards forbid game designs from deliberately programming near misses). However, by their very nature, any EGM must sometimes produce outcomes where a winning symbol is on the wrong line for a big win. It is not possible to have a standard gaming machine with randomly determined outcomes that does not on some occasions generate near misses.

I guess it is also known as 'the sucker spin'. It continues:

In the Dolphin Treasure game, the total number of symbols on each reel is not constant, and the number of King symbols varies per reel: there are fewer King symbols in the early reels…and more in the later reels.

The odds of obtaining five King symbols are 1/30 x 2/30 x 4/30 x 5/30 x 3/44 = 120/35,640,000 or 1 in 297,000.

Given that there are multiple King symbols on later reels…it is not particularly unusual to see a grouping of multiple King symbols on the screen i.e., the odds of seeing a King on the last three reels are 1/660, and on both the third and fourth reels they are 1/45.

Such combinations will therefore occur relatively frequently. However, the game pays rewards from left to right, and the odds of achieving three kings on the first three reels (and achieving the most modest reward for King symbols, a prize of five credits) is 1/30 x 2/30 X 4/30, or 1 in 3,375.

The odds of achieving a substantial win are reduced by the starving of the early reels. Lines pay out from left to right: nevertheless, the appearance of King symbols in the later reels may be interpreted as a near miss by a user. This will have a reinforcing effect on the user…

'Losses disguised as wins' [as described by Dixon in 2010] is a term that refers to the possibility of winning an amount less than that wagered via a spin of an EGM.

Contemporary EGMs almost invariably offer the choice of multiple lines or, on reel betting games, 'ways' of winning, which permit the user to bet on many lines.

If the user bets 1¢ on each of 50 lines, and one of those lines provides a modest reward (e.g., 5¢), the EGM will deliver a reinforcement via screen displays, sounds and other stimuli—even though the net result of this wager is a loss of 45¢.

So there you go. The design is so tricky to encourage players to keep going and lose more money. It continues:

Dixon et al. suggest that the consequences of this characteristic are to…increase the amount staked per spin, and thus to increase the overall level of gambling revenue; and…deliver reinforcement at up to twice the rate possible via a single-line game.

In sum, the reinforcing effect of losses disguised as wins serves to:

1. increase expenditure per user; and

2. establish behaviour that is more difficult to extinguish than that achieved by a single-line game.

These effects are not well understood by EGM users, nor by many policy makers. However, the Queensland iteration of the Gaming Machine standards uniquely prohibits audible sounds from accompanying [a loss disguised as a win]. The game may display the line where winning symbols occur and add the credit value to the 'win' register...

That is one report by Dr Charles Livingstone. He is quite an accomplished and respected academic at Monash University, a well-respected gambling researcher. His interest is in the relationship between poker machine gambling, socio-economic disadvantage and health inequity; and in the development and implementation of relevant harm minimisation policies and strategies. He has also researched the structural characteristics of poker machines and the relationship of these and the structure of gambling systems to the development of gambling problems.

His current research is focused on mechanisms of the gambling industry influence in relation to public policy and on regulatory issues around development of best practice gambling policy. Of course, Charles Livingstone is quite aware of the legislation currently before the Legislative Council and he, like others, including Professor Michael O'Neil, have been extremely critical of what has been proposed.

Another paper by Charles Livingstone, 'A blueprint for preventing and minimising harm from electronic gambling machines in the ACT', goes into extreme detail about these impacts. I will read from some of the report:

Gambling in all forms lawfully undertaken under the jurisdiction of the ACT in 2015-16 provided gambling expenditure…(equivalent to user losses) totalling $232.11 million in 2015-16. The ACT has the second highest EGM density in Australia (14.8 per 1,000 adults). It has two and a half times the EGM density of Victoria, twice that of Queensland, and other than NSW (15.5 EGMs/1,000 adults) has a higher density than all other states and territories.

That is extraordinary. The report continues:

In 2016-17, EGMs in the ACT provided [gambling expenditure] of $166.5 million—

these were 2015-16 values—

a decline of 1.4% from the previous year. In 2015-16, real [gambling expenditure] from EGM gambling in the ACT was $168.5 million. EGMs account for 73% of ACT gambling expenditure…

Per capita EGM expenditure in the ACT was $537 per adult in 2015-16. This ranked fourth amongst Australian jurisdictions, on par with Victoria but higher than the NT, South Australia and Tasmania.

About 20% of ACT adults used EGMs in 2014. On 2015-16 population estimates, this means there were 62,300 EGM users, spending an average $2,667 p.a.

Although extra-territorial gambling via the internet is not reported, the amount spent on this by ACT residents is likely to be in the range of $20 million per annum. About 8% of ACT residents reported internet gambling activity in 2014. The 25,000 estimated internet gamblers spent an average of about $812 in 2015-16.

Based on 2014 prevalence data, about 17,000 people (5.4% of adults) were directly affected by gambling harm in the ACT in 2015-16. About 4,700 (1.5% of adults) experienced harms at moderate or high levels. Using the Years of Life lost via Disability method developed by Browne et al, this means that the burden of harm (measured as Years of Life Lost to Disability, or YLD1) for the ACT was estimated as the same order of magnitude as alcohol harms for the ACT.

The burden of harm for gambling is equivalent to 92% of the YLD1 for alcohol harmful use and alcohol dependency, and on par with the burden associated with moderate levels of major depression.

Not all gambling-related harm is associated with EGM use. However, 76 per cent of CPGI 3+ gamblers reported using EGMs in 2014 and over 70% per cent of gambling expenditure in the ACT derives from EGMs. On that basis, between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of those experiencing harm from gambling in the ACT would experience it principally as a consequence of EGM use, as is the case in the rest of Australia…

That is from the Productivity Commission's 2010 report. It continues:

Harms from gambling affect more than simply the gambler. Goodwin et al (2017) estimate that each high risk gambler affects 6 others (on average), each moderate risk gambler 3 others, and each low risk gambler another person. Those adversely affected include children, other family, friends and employers, for example.

On that basis, over 47,000 people in the ACT are affected by gambling harms at any one time. This is equivalent to 11.8% of the total ACT population.

Browne et al (2017) estimated social costs of gambling harm at around $7 billion p.a. in Victoria in 2015. This study estimated the costs of harm at $6,304 p.a. per 'low risk' gambler, $15,507 per 'moderate risk' gambler, and $66,560 per 'problem gambler'.

Applying these estimates to the ACT situation produces social harm cost estimates of $214.2 million p.a.

The Gambling and Racing Control Act 1999 establishes the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission…to, inter alia 'administer the gaming laws' and 'control, supervise and regulate gaming in the ACT'.

The Act specifically requires the Commission to prescribe codes of practice for the conduct of gambling by licensees.

The Commission's 2016-17 Annual Report emphasis its commitment to a public health approach to gambling harm prevention and minimisation. The Commission also commits itself to improving its understanding of recent research in this area and to provide support and treatment for those experiencing gambling harm.

All Australian jurisdictions require adherence to a code of conduct or practice intended to provide minimum standards and to minimise harms experienced by gamblers. The code applying in the ACT differs from others in Australian jurisdictions by permitting licensees to initiate self-exclusion.

For the purposes of the code, a person has a gambling problem if they have difficulty limiting the amount of money or time they spend on gambling and this leads to adverse consequences for that person or another person.

The code is broadly similar to those operating in other Australian jurisdictions. It emphasises 'downstream' harm minimisation measures…but does not provide effective preventive measures.

All Australasian jurisdictions adopt the Australia/New Zealand Gaming Machine Standards in their regulatory arrangements.

Although these are purportedly national in scope they allow each jurisdiction to adopt distinct parameter settings.

Parameter settings describe some important structural characteristics of EGMs. Structural characteristics can be understood as the 'building blocks' of EGM games. Structural characteristics of games can be used as a means of restraining the addictive potential of EGMs.

At present, parameter settings for the ACT are not well oriented towards consumer protection, and almost certainly exacerbate the harmful potential of EGMs.

Quite clearly, there are some serious issues also with EGMs in the ACT, and those figures indicate just the level of harm that they are causing in that community.

Another interesting article is by Charles Livingstone and Matthew Stevens and is titled, 'Evaluating changes in electronic gambling machine policy on user losses in an Australian jurisdiction'. As Drs Livingstone and Stevens say:

Electronic gambling machines (EGMs) are a ubiquitous feature in community venues (hotels and clubs) across all jurisdictions in Australia, except Western Australia. Hotels, also known as pubs in Australia, are commercial for-profit businesses, while clubs are not-for-profit incorporated associations, and usually attached to a sporting club or clubs. EGMs are also located in the thirteen casinos spread across all jurisdictions, with Queensland housing four, two each in Tasmania and the Northern Territory (NT), and one in each of the other jurisdictions.

Of course, there is one here, and one in Victoria and New South Wales. They continue:

As a form of gambling, EGMs have long been known to be the gambling product most associated with problem gambling risk and associated harms in Australia. The higher risk for EGM gambling is linked to a range of features including the rapid or continuous speed or 'event frequency' at which users can gamble, and other structural characteristics including 'near misses' and 'losses disguised as wins' (LDWs), and in their accessibility in community venues. Interestingly, the link between LDWs, heightened arousal and more frequent gambling was established as far back as the 1980s.

Before going in to regulatory approaches that can influence harms associated with EGMs, it is worth highlighting changes to the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics that place gambling disorder in mortality and morbidity statistics. The World Health Organisation (WHO) only recently included Gambling Disorder in the International Classification of Diseases…under 06 Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders, 06C Disorders due to addictive behaviours, 06C50 Gambling disorder. This addition to the ICD coding system brings it more into line with definitions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and places gambling alongside Gaming disorder and acknowledges that it can contribute to mortality and morbidity. The inclusion of gambling (and gaming) in the health statistics framework is welcome, and comes behind a growing evidence base that problem and moderate risk gambling contributes to the burden of disease in Australia and New Zealand at similar levels to severe and moderate alcohol disorder. The slowness of government health departments to allocate resources to gambling harm is far from ideal, given the ubiquitousness of gambling products in Australia, and particularly EGMs, given they are currently the riskiest form of gambling available in Australia.

So despite the already acknowledged health impacts on gamblers, what the authors are saying is that governments are reluctant to throw more money at trying to curb these problems. They continue:

EGMs must conform to a set of national standards for Australia and New Zealand, but each jurisdiction can apply different guidelines around parameter settings on the EGMs, such as return to user ratio, maximum bet per spin, near misses, LDWs—

we know what that is: losses disguised as wins—

and how much money can be loaded into the EGM (the 'load-up limit') and in what denomination of notes or coins. However, these jurisdictional differences are not well publicised. Such regulatory differences can affect gamblers' style and risk of gambling harm. For example, Leino et al. found that LDWs increased the odds that a gambler will continue to gamble, compared with a loss—

so losses disguised as wins act as the sucker bed to keep them at the machine—

but that this effect was less than the likelihood of continuing to gamble after a win. In Queensland and Tasmania, EGMs are not permitted to reward LDWs via reinforcement effects such as 'winning' sounds or messages. This is not the case in other jurisdictions. Other features of EGMs such as maximum bet per spin, the load-up limit, and the denomination of notes accepted may also affect user losses, and varies across jurisdictions in Australia.

For example, in New South Wales (NSW), EGM gamblers can load up to $7500—

although this was reduced to $5,000 prior to the report that was compiled here; they were able to put that amount into an EGM at one time—

while in the Northern Territory (NT) up until December 2013, note acceptors were not allowed on EGMs in community venues (hotels and clubs), and gamblers loaded $1 coins into the machine, with a maximum amount of $250. However, in May 2013 the NT regulation was changed, with no consultation with either community, counselling services or academics.

Does that ring a bell? No consultation, just like we had here. The authors continue:

EGMs in community venues were subsequently modified for a load up limit of $1000 in any note denomination. The reasoning behind the change made by the NT Government was not clear, and goes against the latest evidence base, with a recent systematic review in Canada finding that removal of large note acceptors from EGMs to be one of the most effective strategies to reduce consumer harm associated with this gambling product, and the recommendation of a maximum $20 load-up by Australia’s Productivity Commission.

So here we have it: lots of evidence to indicate that one of the best harm minimisation methods is to remove these note acceptors, but in South Australia we are about to put them in.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: We're not; they are.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: They are, yes. Thank you, the Hon. Tammy Franks. The report continues:

Additionally, the previous caps on numbers of machines in community venues were lifted in early 2015 from 10 to 20 for hotels and 45 to 55 for clubs. Venues were required to complete a social impact assessment to demonstrate that the introduction of new machines would not cause additional harm to the surrounding communities. All applications for increases in EGM numbers by community venues were approved leading to increased EGM numbers from December 2015. This fortuitously occurred just after the 2015 NT Gambling Prevalence and Wellbeing Survey was completed in the field...The NT Government has now commissioned a repeat of the survey, to be conducted—

in fact, it has probably been completed by now, according to this document. It continues:

The presence of EGMs in community venues has been a politically contentious issue in Australia, with the two major political parties in the 2018 Tasmanian election having opposing views towards EGMs in community venues, with one major party's policy [the ALP] to remove all EGMs from community venues. The 2005 NT Gambling Prevalence Survey found that 49% of NT adults support a decrease in poker machines in community venues, while the 2015 survey found 53 and 50% of adults endorsed a decrease in EGMs in clubs and hotels respectively, though this result was not available to government until after the policy change lifting the cap on community venue EGMs in early 2015…

I just wonder, if we conducted a survey in South Australia, what the result would be, particularly with the projected introduction of these machines that will handle notes. The report goes on:

Across Australia introduction of indoor smoking bans led to declines of between 5 and 10% in EGM user losses across all jurisdictions when introduced, with Victoria being the first to introduce bans and see reductions…and reductions observed across all jurisdictions…Paradoxically, it was this policy that has led to the biggest reduction in EGM user losses, and likely the most successful in reducing rates of problem gambling.

Reducing smoking has been the most effective thing, not the harm minimisation programs. The report continues:

The EGM user losses from the NT's two casinos provide an interesting comparison, and a natural policy experiment, as the casinos' EGMs have always had note acceptors. Over this same period, user losses in the casinos dropped after the smoking ban and then user losses have remained stagnant (or decreased in real dollars) and did not show an increase from 2013, as was observed in community venue user losses…The two most recent reports from the NT Director General report that community venue EGM user losses continued to grow after the introduction of note acceptors, followed by a doubling of EGMs permitted in hotels, and a 20% increase in clubs…

Changes in EGM user loss can reflect policy changes, consumer preferences, or changes in accessibility to venues, and machines within venues. There were four changes to policy and regulation over the period 2003 to 2017 that have likely affected user losses and the number of EGMs operating in the NT over the last several years:

Smoking ban in all venues started from 1 January 2010.

Note acceptors allowed in community venues (hotels and clubs) from 28 May 2013, allowing users a maximum loading limit of $1000 using $20, $50 or $100 notes. Previous caps of 10 EGMs per hotel and 45 EGMs per club were lifted in July 2015 to allow hotels up to 20 EGMs and clubs up to 55 EGMs, though no new EGMs were installed until after social impact assessments were carried out and reviewed by the government, which occurred in December 2015 and early 2016).

Minimum percentage return to player (RTP) was amended on 21 September 2015 for casinos from 88 to 85%, which brought them into line with community venues.

Interestingly, EGM data obtained from the NT Government and published in the 2015 Gambling Prevalence and Wellbeing Survey report showed that RTP in community venues has, on average, increased between 2003/4 and 2014/15 from 88.6 to 90.5%. For casinos over the same period the RTP was between 91.1 and 91.9%. Thus, although the change in minimum RTP standardises casino and community venue minimum RTP, the change does not reflect venue (casino and community) practices regarding RTP.

The inconsistency in EGM regulation across Australia, and the lack of finely grained data, has limited public health researchers’ capacity to evaluate EGM regulatory changes. However, the recent change in EGM policy to allow the installation of note acceptors and an increase in number of EGMs in community venues in the NT is a policy change that warrants investigation, given research has shown that removal of large note acceptors from EGMs can lead to reductions in problematic gambling behaviour.

Again, we have well-respected academic research that clearly shows the harm these machines can cause and that, by reducing them, harm is reduced; yet, here in South Australia, Labor and the Liberals are intent on bringing them in. They want to increase the problem gamblers in the state and problem gambling in our community. It is shameful.

[Problematic gambling behaviour] provides an opportunity to assess changes in community venue user losses and compare over time (before and after note acceptors and increase in EGMs) with user losses from casino EGMs (which have always had note acceptors).

This paper will evaluate the effect of the installation of note acceptors and increased load amount in community venues in 2013, and the change in EGM numbers occurring in late 2015 on user losses (and user losses per EGM) by venue type (hotel, club and casino) and size (as measured by number of EGMs in the venue). The paper will also use data from the 2005 and 2015 NT Gambling Prevalence Surveys to estimate changes in user losses per adult (18 years or more), per EGM user and per EGM problem and/or moderate risk gambler as classified by the Problem Gambling Severity Index…

The NT Government Department of Attorney General and Justice provided two sets of EGM data for the research. The first included venue name, monthly user losses and number of EGMs for the years 2003 to 2017. The second data set was at the EGM level and included venue name, and the date corresponding to the first insertion of notes into the machine. This second data set was for the years 2013 to 2017, and was for the period following policy change allowing note acceptors into community venue EGMs.

The NT Gambling Prevalence and Wellbeing Survey was undertaken in late 2015 and was the follow-up survey to the 2005 NT Gambling Prevalence Survey. Full details for both survey designs are available in [a report by] Stevens et al. and Young et al. with a summary provided [in this report] The 2005 NT Gambling Prevalence Survey, conducted August to September, replicated the methods used in the Productivity Commission's 1999 national survey, and used a two-stage population survey with a stratified (age, sex, region), quota-based random CATI telephone sample of adults in the NT. All respondents were screened for gambling (all types) and categorised as non-gamblers, regular and non-regular gamblers, with regular gamblers being screened for problem gambling risk. A sub-sample of these groups then received the full survey (all regular gamblers and one in four non-regular gamblers, and one in two non-gamblers). The sample frame included all households with a telephone number listed in the NT telephone directory, with the last birthday method used to recruit respondents. The response rates were determined using the conservative method and the upper bound method, both of which calculate the response rate based on number of respondents who participated as a proportion of those eligible to participate, with the latter also including calls where there were no replies, answering machines or engaged numbers, and gave response rates of 32 and 37% [respectively].

The 2015 NT Gambling Prevalence and Wellbeing Survey used a similar two-stage population survey with a stratified (age, sex, region), quota-based random CATI telephone sample of adults in the NT. However, dual frame sampling was used with a landline frame and three separate mobile phone lists used to draw a random sample of mobile phone users, to capture adults who predominantly or only use a mobile phone. The three mobile phone lists were merged and de-duplication steps undertaken, and from this list, mobile numbers were randomly sampled. The 'last birthday' approach was again used to select a respondent within the household for the landline sample, though about midway through sampling, it was noticed that females were being oversampled, so interviewers changed to asking to speak with the male in the house who had the last birthday.

It goes on to state:

User loss is the amount of money lost on EGMs, or the difference between how much the user puts in the EGM and how much they take home after finishing the session. This is also referred to as Net Gambling Revenue (NGR). Conversely, from a venue point of view, user losses represent EGM [venues]. Number of EGMswas measured per venue and is reported annually, and is the average number of operating EGMs in each month. User losses per EGMwas derived by dividing the user losses for a venue by the number of operating EGMs…

So these were the criteria for them to conduct their survey. We will now go to the results, which show:

…the number of community venues (hotels and clubs) in the NT ranged between 71 and 87 over the period from 2003 to 2017, peaking at 87 in 2011, before declining again to 74 in 2017. The number of casinos operating EGMs in the NT was constant at two from 2003 to 2017. The number of hotels with EGMs increased from 38 in 2003 to 52 in 2011, and then declined to 40 in 2015, and increased again to 44 in 2017. The number of clubs with EGMs has been ranged between 34 and 36 between 2003 and 2012, and then declined from 35 in 2012 to 30 in 2017. The lifting of the EGM cap in 2015 is evident, with less hotels and clubs in the categories of venue size below the old EGM cap of 10 EGMs per hotel and 45 EGMs per club.

I will go to the conclusions of this report:

The recent regulatory changes in EGM policy in the NT have led to significant increases in EGM user losses in community venues, with the analysis providing evidence that the increase was very likely resultant on the change in EGM policy allowing note acceptors with loading of up to $1000 into community venue EGMs. The affect was most notable in hotels and clubs which already housed the maximum number of EGMs, with these clubs having greater capacity and resources to update their EGM stock. The effects of the increased caps will likely see EGM user losses continue to rise at levels well above inflation.

Australian jurisdictions continue to ignore recommendations made by the Productivity Commission and public health gambling researchers to implement appropriate harm minimisation measures for EGMs, particularly those located in community venues. The analysis demonstrates that increased venue size (via additional EGMs), and modifications to EGM characteristics have had a significant impact on expenditure and related harms. It is therefore feasible that altering such venue and machine characteristics would likely to have a preventive effect, although that would be likely associated with a decline in net gambling revenue. That is, the analysis demonstrates that reductions in the load up limit, and/or the abolition of note acceptors, and reductions in the number of EGMs in venues is likely to reduce harm.

You cannot have it any clearer than that. The report continues:

Reductions in EGM numbers in community venues were supported by more than 50% of NT adults in the 2015 survey. The reduction in the minimum return to user to 85% for casino EGMs in 2013 was an unusual policy change, given analysis by Stevens et al. showed that casinos return to user has consistently hovered around 91%, while community venues have been increasing the return to user on their EGMs from 87% in 2003/4 to 90.5% in 2015/16. However, research evidence demonstrates that EGM users have little comprehension of the 'price' of EGM gambling, and a reduction in the RTP means EGM gamblers lose money faster. Further, there is no legislated daily withdrawal limit on ATMs in community venues in the NT (currently it is the bank or ATM operator default). The introduction of daily withdrawals as imposed in Vitoria, for example, should be considered.

Additional harm prevention and minimisation interventions include reducing maximum bets; prohibiting LDWs; lessening accessibility through reduced operating hours of gaming rooms in venues; and mandatory use of pre-commitment options available set at low thresholds by default. Given the demonstrated inability for Australian jurisdictions to identify and implement effective harm prevention and minimisation interventions, a national approach to gambling regulation in Australia may be desirable.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, continue.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, Mr President. Perhaps I should have borrowed Nick Xenophon's pyjamas for tonight—

The PRESIDENT: No.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Please don't; just focus on your job.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Do you wear pyjamas?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What I wear in bed has nothing to do with you or this chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Let's get on with it, the Hon. Mr Pangallo. Don't engage about pyjamas with the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I withdraw that remark regarding the Hon. David Ridgway and what he does or does not wear in bed. Just going back:

A holistic public health approach to harm prevention and minimisation, could include transparency and consultation around gambling policy changes; data availability for consistent monitoring and evaluation; national co-ordination of research, particularly on EGMs and online betting; improved health promotion around harms associated with gambling; and ensuring services are available not only for those experiencing [a] gambling problem personally, but for those affected by other’s gambling.

The 2010 Productivity Commission report argued that 'governments have improved their policy-making and regulations with respect to gambling, but significant governance flaws remain in most jurisdictions, including insufficient transparency, regulatory independence and coordination'…If state and territory jurisdictions are unable to address these challenges, it is appropriate for the Australian government to do so.

That brings me to one of my favourite papers—

An honourable member: Another one? Here comes another one.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is one of my real favourites, 'Games of chance or masters of illusion: multiline slots design may promote cognitive distortions', by Kevin Harrigan, Vance MacLaren, Dan Brown, Mike J. Dixon and Charles Livingston. The authors say:

Problem gamblers often hold beliefs about gambling that are incorrect or distorted, and it is widely believed that such erroneous cognitions may be critical in the development and maintenance of problem gambling…The two cognitive distortions that have been most consistently shown to be higher in problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers are the illusion of control and the gambler's fallacy…Illusions of control may foster player behaviour that is intended to alter the odds of winning at the game. The gambler's fallacy is the belief that after a number of consecutive losses a win is 'due'.

The focus of the present article is the source of these two cognitive distortions in relation to modern multiline slot machine games. Although some authors and treatment providers attribute problem gamblers' faulty thinking about control and their belief in the gambler's fallacy to their misunderstanding of probability and random events, problem gamblers who play slot machines do not have an inherent tendency toward faulty thinking about these mathematical subjects that is any different from non-problem players.

In this article the authors use the term 'celebratory'—

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: If you can't say it you can't read it out.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I can read it. The authors use the term 'celebratory feedback rate'—it is a bit of a tongue twister, the Hon. Mr Stephens; I am sure your tongue has been twisted at times—to report what is typically reported in the gambling literature as hit frequency. They write:

Like hit frequency, celebratory feedback rate includes any spin that results in audiovisual feedback that indicates that a prize has been won. It is a more inclusive term because it includes winning outcomes where a prize is earned on the spin that is greater than the total amount wagered on all paylines for the spin, but also includes instances where the total prize is less than the total wager per spin. We report the 'legitimate win rate' separately as the rate at which legitimate wins occur with total prizes exceeding total wagers. This legitimate win rate will always be less than or equal to the celebratory feedback rate.

As has been shown previously…the number of paylines that a player places bets upon determines the schedule of reinforcement (i.e. the average frequency with which winning, or seemingly winning, outcomes are delivered). Counterintuitively, the number of lines played has no effect whatsoever on the 'hold' or 'house-edge' (i.e. the average proportion of the wager that is kept by the casino and not returned as prizes). Although the outcome of each individual gamble is randomly determined and unpredictable, when players place bets on many paylines on a single spin, they are effectively betting on multiple events simultaneously...The frequency of 'hits' can increase dramatically because the chances of winning a prize on at least one of the simultaneous bets increases with the number of bets that are placed. Thus a player can experience more frequent hits simply by placing simultaneous bets on multiple paylines.

When wagering on multiple paylines there is a tendency for many of the hits to be small credit gains that are obtained on one or a few paylines, but with the total number of credits gained being less than the total amount wagered on all of the paylines. These hits are still presented with audiovisual feedback to celebrate any prize that is won, even when the prize amounts are trivial. On such 'fake wins'…the sights and sounds that are presented are typically brief but have content similar to what is given following legitimate wins (i.e. when the amount won is larger than the total amount wagered, generating a net profit for the player). We consider this arrangement to be misleading to players and we prefer the term 'losses disguised as wins' (LDW) to denote this game design element that masks net monetary losses by presenting 'winning' sights and 'winning' sounds in order to blur the distinction between legitimate wins and LDWs. In Pavlovian conditioning terms, the audiovisual feedback that accompanies emotionally evocative legitimate wins also occurs on LDWs so that the two become subjectively equivalent. Conflating these two types of outcomes in this way allows LDWs to serve as secondary operant reinforcers. The frequent signalling of hits in multiline gambling may promote a subjective impression of very frequent winning that is illusory because many of the hits are LDWs. This creates an anomalous situation where players feel as if they are winning consistently, yet end up with no money in their wallet. The emotional equivalence of LDWs and legitimate wins has been demonstrated experimentally—both LDWs and legitimate wins trigger psychophysiological arousal responses that are significantly greater than full losses...Indeed, much of the increased reinforcement that is experienced when players opt to place bets on multiple paylines is directly attributable to the high frequency of LDWs.

The second way that players can exert some control over their gambling experience is to adjust the size of their wagers per line and, in so doing, adjust the size of the winnings that are realized. Slot machine games allow players to adjust the amount wagered per payline on each spin, so if they feel 'lucky' on a particular spin they can bet more and potentially win more, or if they are feeling more cautious they can bet less and potentially minimize their losses. In multiline slot machines, players use one set of buttons to select the number of lines they wish to play, and a separate set of buttons to choose the number of credits they wish to bet on each line. Playing more paylines and wagering more credits per payline means that monetary outlay increases multiplicatively. Experienced slots players typically use a 'mini-max' strategy…in which the amount wagered per payline is usually kept to a minimum but bets are placed on most or all available paylines which results in the maximum celebratory feedback rate for that game, and compared to 'max bet' this wagering strategy delays the depletion of funds and prolongs their 'time on device'. Players may also strive to win larger prizes by betting larger amounts…but this 'max bet' strategy depletes funds quickly if the hoped-for large prizes do not materialize. Importantly, players always have the option to bet larger amounts whenever they feel that a win is imminent, and this interactivity may foster an illusory belief that slot machines can be played strategically so that with practice and knowledge one can develop into a 'skilled' slots gambler…The problem with this faulty reasoning is that any effective strategy would have to capitalize on some predictable patterning of wins and losses. Such predictability is simply not possible when all spins occur at random and are independent of one another. Nevertheless, to discover an effective strategy of timing the size of one's bets to coincide with winning outcomes is the holy grail for problem gamblers.

When wagering on a single line, players will either lose their spin wager, or get a legitimate win accompanied by celebratory feedback. There are no LDWs. During single line play, gamblers will tend to experience chains of full losses interspersed with occasional legitimate wins. Players subjectively refer to the chains of consecutive losses as losing streaks. When wagering on multiple paylines, the length of these losing streaks tends to be reduced as players encounter far more outcomes that have celebratory feedback. People have a natural tendency to try to understand their surroundings and to be able to predict future events on the basis of salient current and past events. In the gambler's fallacy, there is a belief that imminent game outcomes can be predicted on the basis of recent outcomes, though in fact all events are independent of one another...Since the celebratory feedback rate is controllable as a function of the number of simultaneous wagers placed on multiple paylines, a player can reduce the average length of losing streak by betting on as many paylines as possible. Furthermore, a high celebratory feedback rate means lower volatility in the length of losing streaks. With single line play, the volatility of losing streak lengths can be high (occasionally one will encounter a very short losing streak, whereas most of the time streak length will be long). In multiline play very long losing streaks are quite rare—a fact that leads to lower volatility of losing streak length. This may support the subjective impression that outcomes can be predicted. After playing a multiline game extensively, an experienced gambler might acquire an informal heuristic that a chain of losses rarely exceeds a certain length, and when that length is reached a spin with celebratory feedback is likely to occur (i.e. the gambler's fallacy that a win is 'due'). Increasing the celebratory feedback rate does not negate the fact that all outcomes are independent. However, having extensive 'a posteriori' experience and knowledge of the celebratory feedback rate of a particular game might give experienced players a false sense of having 'a priori' knowledge of the game, and hence misguided confidence in their skill at predicting outcomes. The scenario that would lead players to fall into this trap involves reducing the apparent randomness of the game by consistently playing all paylines in order to get the highest celebratory reinforcement rate, the shortest average length of losing streaks, and the lowest losing streak volatility. In this situation, encountering a long losing streak might entice players to increase their bets since in their minds they are 'due' for a win. Thus, a player could effectively exert a very powerful form of control over the game that seems to make the pattern of losses and spins with celebratory feedback more predictable. Although this would be yet another instance of illusory control that has no real effect on the hold or [would be yet another instance of] 'payback percentage', the subjective effects on players might lead them to misinterpret any long series of losses as support for their hope that a spin with celebratory reinforcement is imminent and stimulate their appetite for the anticipated reward, thereby reinforcing continued play despite recurring losses...

Increasing the number of lines played not only reduces the volatility of the length of losing streaks, but also reduces the outcome-to-outcome variability. Consider a player who bets five credits on one line versus a player who distributes his or her wager across five lines (one credit per line). If each player encounters the same win of 10 times his or her wager on one of the paylines, the single-line player would win 50 credits, whereas the multiline player would win 10 credits. Thus the 50-credit win would markedly stand out from the chain of losses in single line play, leading to a perception of high volatility in terms of the size of the amounts won. By contrast, the small win of 10 credits would blend in amongst the other small wins and LDWs in multiline play. This smoothing of the experience in multiline play is therefore due to both a reduction in losing streak lengths and to a reduction in outcome-to-outcome variability...

The higher variability with one line wagered results in many players losing their bankroll quickly, while some players have a big win and can either play for a long period of time or leave with their big win. A consequence of the variability is that the median 'time on device' with one line wagered is less than the median playing time with nine lines wagered—

and the authors consider—

…the median to be the statistic of most interest…because the frequency distribution of wins is highly skewed, so occasional large wins have less effect on the median than the mean).

Again, this is another important piece of research that shows the impact and just what these machines are designed to do to encourage more play and, consequently, more losses.

We mentioned this game before, but the authors also looked into the game called Dolphin Treasure—probably one of the most popular games, I gather. To investigate the effects of wagering on one line versus multiple lines, the authors wrote a Java computer program to simulate a popular machine, known as Dolphin Treasure, which was developed, where else but here in Australia by Aristocrat Leisure Limited. The study continues:

It has been popular since the late 1990s in various versions. In 2005-2006 the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner...in South Australia released a list of the 250 top performing slot machine games in terms of net gaming revenue. Dolphin Treasure was the fourth most prominent game on the list. The popularity of Dolphin Treasure has also been identified in qualitative and quantitative research conducted in South Australia…involving interviews with 64 self-identified recovering slot machine problem gamblers and a telephone survey of 180 non-treatment seeking gamblers. Dolphin Treasure figured prominently with both groups of gamblers, and Dolphin Treasure was identified as the most popular game by 22 of the problem gamblers.

The publication describes the design of the Dolphin Treasure game as follows:

Dolphin Treasure is a typical multiline slots game, with five animated reels that 'spin' independently of one another, with their final resting positions of the middle row determined by five randomly generated numbers. The order of the symbols on each reel is fixed so, for any given reel, there is a dependency between the image on the middle row and the image on the row above and the row below. Not all combinations of the images on the top, middle and bottom rows are possible. Also, in multiline slots there is a dependency between winning outcomes on the various lines due to the overlapping nature of the lines. For example, 2 occurrences of the '9' symbol starting from the left on a played line is a win that pays 2x the wager. Assuming the player wagered on all lines (i.e. the common mini-max strategy), if the '9' symbols occurs on the top row of both reel 1 and reel 2 then that is a win of 2x the line wager on line 2 and 2x the line wager on line 6 for a total win of 4x the line wager.

At the end of a spin there are 3 symbols seen on each reel, forming a 3x5 grid of symbols across the reels. Most of the winning outcomes require matching symbols (e.g., 3 seahorses) to appear on 'paylines' that span the reels running left to right. Prize amounts increase as the number of matching symbols on a payline increases, and if the matching symbols are rare or have special bonus features associated with them. Players can bet on single or multiple paylines, with up to 9, 15, or 20 paylines being typical. Players can also adjust the size of their wagers, typically from 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 credits per payline. Multiple prizes can be won on a single spin when bets are placed on more than one payline, and wins are proportionally greater when more credits are wagered per payline.

[The authors have] access to a Dolphin Treasure slot machine in [their] research lab. It is configured so that players can wager 1–5 credits on 1–9 paylines, and thus the minimum wager per spin is 1 credit (i.e. 1 credit bet on 1 payline) and the maximum wager is 45 credits (i.e. 5 credits on each of 9 paylines). Each credit is valued at two cents. The nine paylines are shown [in the diagram]…

The pay table of the slots games showed that various prizes can be won for different outcomes. To know how likely each of the outcomes is to occur requires not just an indication of the map of the reels, but the authors were able to generate a reel map for the version of Dolphin Treasure for their research lab. They went through a number of simulations with this machine to see what it churned out. The results showed the calculations of various descriptive statistics regarding Dolphin Treasure and that the cycle of a slot machine game is the number of possible outcomes. The article continues:

Dolphin Treasure has 35,640,000 unique outcomes in base mode, calculated by multiplying the number of symbols on each reel (i.e. 30 * 30 * 30 * 30 * 44). Of these outcomes, 249,966 are scatter wins that reward the player with 15 free spins. [The authors] generated 249,966 * 15 free spins. Some of these free spins generated more free spins for a total of approximately 4,100,000 free spins. The player gets a scatter win that initiates 15 free spins, on average, every 14.3 minutes assuming a rate of 10 spins per minute. The 87.87% payback percentage of the game is composed of 64.96% from base mode spins and approximately 22.93% from free spins (this 22.93% varies slightly each time [they ran their own] simulation as the free spins are generated randomly). With 1 line wagered the legitimate win rate is 11.28% and there are no LDWs. With 9 lines wagered, 16.69% of spins result in a legitimate win and 14.38% result in an LDW, resulting in a celebratory feedback rate of 31.07%.

To determine whether wagering on multiple lines yields a smoother game experience (less outcome-to-outcome variability) we generated all 35,640,000 spin outcomes with 1 line and 9 lines wagered. We then measured the variability of these outcomes around the expected outcome determined by the hold of the game…In the 1-line game the wager per spin was $0.90 on a single line. In the 9-line game the wager was $0.10 on each of 9 lines, for a total spin wager of $0.90. In both cases the hold in each game was $.11 ($0.90 wager times the hold percentage 12.3%), Thus the expected outcome was $0.90 minus $0.11 or $0.79. When wagering on 1 line the standard deviation around the expected outcome in Dolphin Treasure was 12.12 and it dropped to 5.25 with 9 lines wagered…another way of capturing the smoother playing experience in the nine-line game. Two sample blocks of 250 spins…with one line wagered and 1 with 9 lines wagered…

Again, what it showed is that there were:

…peak balances of 2x and 10x the original bankroll as 'big wins' and showed that 21.69% of the 1-line players reached 2x their original bankroll compared with 20.46% of the 9-line players. At this point they could have quit gambling and doubled their money. As for achieving a balance of 10x the original stake at some point in the scenario, just 2.55% of the 1-line players and 0.27% of the 9-line players did this. We noted a dramatic difference in the length of time taken to completely extinguish the funds of the 1-line and 9-line players, with 9-line play resulting in a median time to depletion of 49.7 minutes versus 31.2 minutes when playing 1 line.

Those figures sort of speak for themselves. I will just go to their conclusion because I have other reports here I wish to get through:

The design of modern multiline electronic gaming machines of the type [in this report] does a masterful job of conveying the false impression that players can control salient features of the game that seem as if they should be related to hold or payback percentage.

If a gambler learns that he or she can control the frequency and size of wins, it would seem rational to assume that the odds of profiting are likewise controllable. This belief seems perfectly rational and not what we normally think of as distorted thinking. However, what is probably not so obvious to players is that any increase in the frequency or magnitude of wins that they can effect by adjusting the number of lines and the wager per line is equally offset by a proportional increase in expenditure so there is no net change to the hold. It is true that players can exert real control over the frequency and size of wins and these impacts can be compelling, but those effects are completely independent of the outcome that should really be of most interest to gamblers—whether they win money or lose money over the long haul. Indeed, players will almost certainly lose money over the long haul if the payback percentage is anything less than 100%, and it always is.

Player controls may create the subjective impression in some players that slotmachine gambling is a skill that can be learned and practised to yield some advantage. Indeed, there is a large literature documenting the presence of such cognitive distortions in problem gamblers—

and that is an article by Goodie & Fortune in 2013—

but it has also been argued that careful game design and marketing may be another source of these untrue beliefs…An extreme view might hold that problem gamblers' widely held cognitive distortions merely reflect the effectiveness of manipulation by the gaming industry through careful game design and skilled marketing. We do not take such a position but a more mainstream and moderate view. Cognitive distortion is clearly a central feature of problem gambling. Here we have shown that the design of modern multiline electronic gambling machines has the potential to reinforce incorrect beliefs that are widely held by problem gamblers, such as the gambler's fallacy and illusion of control. If this is correct, there is a social responsibility imperative that player controls be regulated for their potentially harmful impact on problem gamblers. Before advocating for that extreme position, we would suggest that at least three questions need to be answered experimentally: do problem and non-problem players actually understand how much control they have over these games? Do they exercise that control under realistic conditions? And would regulatory limits on player control features have a positive impact on problem gamblers while preserving the entertainment value of the games for non-problem players?

Again, that report is quite comprehensive and details that these machines are designed for people to lose. They are not designed for people to make money or earn a fortune; they are designed for people to lose.

I would like to go to this comprehensive report that actually deals with a problem in South Australia, just for the sake of—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: No. What, South Australia?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, in South Australia. Perhaps it is a report that both Labor and the Liberals should have acquainted themselves with. It is titled, 'Gambling Prevalence in South Australia 2018 Final Report', and it was prepared for the Department of Human Services—I notice the minister is not here to hear this; I wonder if she has read it. It has been prepared by Alison Woods, Kerry Sproston, Kate Brook, Professor Paul Delfabbro and Associate Professor Michael O'Neil.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: An expert.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: An absolute expert. I will begin with the executive summary of this very detailed look into this industry in South Australia. The authors say:

Gambling continues to be a prominent public policy area within South Australia…particularly the impact of problem gambling. The gambling industry has evolved rapidly over recent years, particularly with respect to the growth of new modes such as wagering on mobile devices. The last SA gambling prevalence survey was conducted in 2012. The 2018 survey aimed to provide an updated estimate of problem gambling prevalence, as well as exploring the nature and prevalence of gambling activities undertaken by South Australians.

As with the previous research in 2005…the 2018 study involved a telephone survey of a large…representative sample of residents of SA—

that is, 20,017 people. It continues:

Just under two-thirds of SA residents (65%) had participated in at least one form of gambling in the last 12 months, a significant decrease from the equivalent 2012 result of 69%. The most popular activities were: the purchase of scratch tickets and lottery products (48%); purchasing a major lottery ticket for a major prize, such as a house, holiday or car (26%); Electronic Gaming Machines, or EGMs (19%); and betting on horse, harness or greyhound races (12%). Furthermore, 7% of respondents had participated in sports betting, while 6% had played table games at a casino during the last 12 months.

In 2018, 13% of the SA population had gambled online on either sporting events, horse, harness or greyhound races, fantasy sports, novelty events, casino games online or purchased lottery products through the internet. This represents an eight percentage point increase on the 2012 prevalence of online gambling in SA…and a 12 percentage point increase on the 2005 prevalence (1%).

In 2018, the activities that were the most likely to have taken place online were fantasy sports (76% of players had bet online)—

which is what I was saying earlier, namely, that it is starting to become the preferred mode. Of course, while they are doing that, we know that they are also encouraging the next generation of gamblers, with all the exotic types of bets that they offer—

sporting events (75% had bet online) and novelty events (61% had bet online).

Gamblers who would bet on an activity online typically bet more frequently than those who did not bet online. Specifically, nearly one in five (19%) respondents who had bet on sports online had bet more than 25 times in a year. Only one in 10 (11%) of sports bettors who had not gambled on sports through the internet had bet that frequently (more than 25 times).

The same pattern was found with betting on horse, harness and greyhound racing and the purchase of lottery products.

…A notable finding was that those who had gambled on the internet during the past 12 months were much more likely to be classified as at-risk gamblers (9.6%) than non-internet gamblers (3.2%). This relationship was still present, although slightly reduced, when excluding respondents who had only purchased lottery products or tickets (and therefore automatically classified as non-problem gamblers). That is, 9.6% of online gamblers were classified as at-risk, compared to 6.9% of non-internet gamblers who had bet on an activity other than lottery products.

As might be expected, gamblers who were classified as having a problem with gambling, according to the PGSI, tended to gamble more frequently and with higher stakes across all activities. For example, 40% of EGM-playing problem gamblers reported playing more than once a week on average (53 times or more) in the last 12 months, compared to 4% for EGM players overall. Similarly, problem EGM gamblers were more likely to play higher-value machines (28% played $1 machines or higher vs 9% overall) and to always bet the maximum amount (14% vs 4% for EGM players overall).

Last year gamblers (gambled on any activity in the last 12 months), excluding those who had only purchased lottery products or a major lottery ticket, were asked follow-up questions about their gambling and help-seeking behaviour in general. Three-quarters of problem gamblers reported having a binge gambling session (where they bet far more than usual) in the last 12 months (75% vs 13% overall). Problem gamblers were more likely to have been alone (65% vs 29% overall) during this binge session, and less likely to be with friends (18% vs 34% overall) or a partner (8% vs 20% overall). This is a salient finding—

the authors suggest, and they say that tells them that—

problem gamblers not only spend more money overall, but also tend to engage in binges, or display similar uncontrolled behaviour, leading to exceptionally large expenditure.

Just over a third (36%) of problem gamblers reported that they had used a gambling help service in the last 12 months, meaning the majority had not (64%). Clubs and hotels were the most popular gambling venues (69% of last year gamblers, excluding lottery players, had bet at one), followed by a casino (28%) and a standalone UBET (13%). Twelve per cent of respondents who had gambled at venues reported having a loyalty card, which increased to 25% and 41% for moderate-risk and problem gamblers respectively. Among those who had gambled at any type of venue in the last 12 months, about seven people in a thousand (0.7%) had requested to have themselves excluded or barred—

seven people in a thousand—

and (as might be expected) this figure was significantly higher among moderate risk (3.1%) and problem gamblers (15.4%).

One in twenty online gamblers (5%) reported that they had excluded themselves from an online gambling site. This figure increased to 18% for moderate-risk online gamblers.

For just a bit of background, the 2018 South Australian gambling prevalence survey was:

…the seventh gambling prevalence survey undertaken in [the state] since 1995. Gambling continues to be a prominent public policy topic within SA, particularly with respect to the impact of problem gambling. The gambling industry that has been rapidly evolving over the past years, introducing new modes of play in the form of interactive gambling (e.g., mobile wagering). The last SA gambling prevalence survey was in 2012, and the 2018 survey was commissioned to provide an updated estimate of the nature and prevalence of the gambling activities currently being undertaken by South Australians and to highlight changes and emerging trends.

The 2018 survey was conducted, as I said, using telephones, and the number surveyed was about 20,017. It was in a manner similar to that conducted in 2012, when they surveyed 9,508, and 2005, when they surveyed 17,745. Regarding the objectives of this survey:

The aim of the research was to assess gambling and problem gambling trends in SA. Specifically, the research sought to:

identify trends in problem gambling (based on the previous six SA gambling prevalence surveys);

determine the prevalence of problem gambling in SA;

identify participation in various types of gambling activities; and

identify awareness of gambling help services and help seeking behaviour.

This information is intended to:

…inform policy and planning decisions for the development and provision of gambling help services, communication and prevention strategies around harmful gambling behaviour.

I do not need to remind members of the council of something I read earlier this evening that made it quite clear—and Professor O'Neil believes it—that governments just pay lip service to this type of research that is conducted by well-credentialled experts in their field. As to how they tackled this survey, the target sample was:

…residents aged 18 years and over (the 2012 survey included respondents aged 15 to 17 years old).

An overlapping dual sampling frame approach was used, whereby interviews were conducted via landline sample and via mobile phone sample. The sampling frames are overlapping in that those with both a landline and a mobile phone are able to be selected from either frame. The particular benefit of this design is that it provides access to those persons, particularly younger people, who do not have a fixed landline at home and are thus 'mobile only'.

The sampling frames used for the overlapping dual-frame approach (mobile and fixed landline) were provided by SamplePages.

For landline numbers, a random digit dialling (RDD) sample was derived from a database of all fixed line prefixes in Australia (maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)). Random suffixes were then generated and the resulting numbers pinged.

In other words, they rang silently at the exchanges to determine if they were live numbers. Perhaps the Liberal Party could have used this type of sampling in their robocalls earlier this year. The authors continue:

An RDD sample frame was not feasible for the mobile component as mobile numbers are not able to be pinged to specific locations, and furthermore SA mobile numbers only account for about 7% of the total mobile numbers in Australia. SamplePages list-based mobile sample was instead utilised, which is a composite phone database that is built from contributors including charities, telemarketing companies and other business entities. This list accounts for about 10%-12% of all mobile phone owners in SA.

The authors submitted a sample design proportional to the South Australian population, and there is a table here that illustrates the quotas used that were based on the ABS Greater Capital Cities Statistical Area definitions. I will not go through that. Regarding the call procedures:

The within-household selection routine used for the landline sample was—

as I mentioned in previous sampling in other surveys—

the 'last birthday' method. For the mobile sample, in-scope phone answerers were selected for interview. All phone numbers were attempted a maximum of 6 times before being inactivated.

Just to look at the questionnaire design:

[It] was designed with the following in mind:

the need for trend analysis to previous prevalence studies;

a desire for comparison to other recent prevalence studies across different states; and

a requirement to assess emerging issues relevant to current policy.

An initial questionnaire was drafted by the research team, with the content and relevant issues reviewed and discussed where needed by the Department's internal steering committee.

During the development of the questionnaire, the research team ultimately decided to use the original four-point response scale of the PGSI rather than the five-point scale response used in the 2012 survey, and further determined that the survey would not ask about illicit drug use. The justification for these survey design decisions is discussed further within the separate technical and methodological report.

Just looking at the numbers of the people they surveyed in this report: people 65 to 74 years, 4,336 (22 per cent); and people 75 years or older, 2,877 (14 per cent). In relation to people of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin: those who said yes, 237 (1 per cent); those who responded no, 19,677 (98 per cent); and those who refused to answer, 103 (1 per cent). In relation to people who speak a language other than English at home: yes, speak a language other than English at home, 1,863 (9 per cent); and, no, only speak English at home, 18,091 (90 per cent).

The employment status figures are interesting. Those employed full time, 6,276 (31 per cent); employed part time/variable or casual hours, 3,694 (18 per cent); unemployed, 621 (3 per cent); retired or on a pension, 7,669 (38 per cent); those who are full-time students, 377 (2 per cent); those engaged in full-time home duties, 689 (3 per cent); self-employed, 370 (2 per cent); other, 167 (1 per cent); and those who refused to answer, 136 (1 per cent).

Looking at their annual household incomes: from $1 to $24,999, 1,782 (9 per cent); between $25,000 and $39,999, 1,540 (8 per cent); those who were earning between $40,000 and $54,999, 1,471 (7 per cent); those earning $55,000 to $69,999, 1,130 (6 per cent); $70,000 to $99,999, 1,959 (10 per cent); $100,000 to $149,999, 2,047 (10 per cent); those earning $150,000-plus, 2,252 (11 per cent); those that did not know how much they earned or what their income was, 3,788 (19 per cent); and those who refused to provide their income, 4,048 (20 per cent).

I have the figures on the relationship status of those who were surveyed: single, 3,835 (19 per cent); married or living with a partner, 12,244 (61 per cent); divorced or separated, 1,784 (9 per cent); widowed, 1,912 (10 per cent); and those who refused to answer the question, 242 (1 per cent). In relation to where the respondents lived: in Adelaide, 15,516 (78 per cent); and the rest of South Australia, 4,501 (22 per cent). Getting into the nitty-gritty of this report:

The final draft questionnaire, CATI programming and operational procedures were tested prior to the main fieldwork through a pilot survey…between 4 June and 6 June. A detailed debrief with interviewers was conducted at the completion of the pilot and feedback was provided on the questionnaire length, content and sequential order.

As for the main field work:

After the pilot, the questionnaire and operational procedures were finalised. The main fieldwork was launched on 14 June [2018], which included a two-day dress rehearsal where results and protocols were closely monitored and no issues were found.

Finally, regarding the ethics considerations and approval:

The research project and draft questionnaire were reviewed and approved by the University of Adelaide's School of Psychology Human Research Ethics Subcommittee (approval code 18/20)…

The report includes comparisons to the 2012 and 2005…prevalence surveys. However, these need to be interpreted with caution due to differences in methodology and questionnaire design changes detailed in the separate technical and methodological report…

Unless specified otherwise, all of the results that have been reported on are based on weighted data to make the findings representative of the population of SA.

Totals for questions with single-response answers may not add to 100% due to rounding or refused/don't know responses that may not have been included. Multiple-response items may add to more than 100% due to respondents selecting multiple response codes.

Sample sizes vary between some questions, since not all questions were asked of every respondent.

Some sections and questions reported on have a small sample size—these findings should be interpreted with caution. SA regions were primarily reported on by 'Greater Adelaide' and 'Rest of SA' groupings to increase the robustness of the analyses. Key results by smaller regions are described [further] in section 8.3.

In regard to the overall gambling participation and pattern results:

All respondents were asked whether they had participated in any of the activities listed in Figure 1 [of this report] or any other…gambling in the last 12 months. Just under two-thirds of SA residents (65%) had participated in at least one form of gambling, with the most commonly reported activity being the purchase of scratch tickets and lottery products (48%). This was followed by purchasing a major lottery ticket, which is a ticket in a draw for a house, car, boat or any other major prize (26%), EGMs—

electronic gaming machines—

(19%) and betting on horse, harness or greyhound races (12%). Furthermore, 7% of respondents had participated in sports betting while 6% had played table games at a casino.

The overall prevalence of gambling in the [past] 12 months was significantly higher among men (67%) than women (63%). Gambling participation peaked at age 45 to 64 years (71%) and was lowest among the youngest (56% for 18- to 24-year-olds) and the oldest respondents (56% for 75 years or older…[A table in this report] shows that gambling in the last 12 months was significantly more prevalent among the higher income brackets ($70,000 or more) and peaked at $150,000…[which was about] (73%).

Gambling participation in the last 12 months was additionally significantly higher than average among the following persons:

respondents living outside of Adelaide (69% vs 64% living in Adelaide)

respondents who only spoke English at home (66% vs 52% who spoke a language other than English)

respondents who were employed full-time (71%)

respondents who were divorced/separated (68%) or married/living with a partner (66% vs 62% who were single and 59% who were widowed).

Participation in at least one gambling activity has decreased significantly since 2012 (69%) by 4 percentage points to 65%. Due to questionnaire differences, trend data based on comparisons to the 2012 survey are not available for all activities. Significant [data] decreases since 2012 were observed for EGMs (19% vs 27% in 2012) and horse or greyhound race betting (12% vs 21% in 2012).There was a slight (although statistically significant) increase in betting on sports events from 6% in 2012 to 7% in 2018. There were no differences between 2018 and 2012 participation in keno [which was about 8 per cent for both], playing casino table games (6% for both), bingo (3% for both) or playing card games privately for money (3% for both).

The following is an overview of the questions that were asked of people:

…have you…?

At least one gambling activity

Bought instant scratch tickets, lotto or any other lottery game

Bought a major lottery ticket

Played gaming machines or 'pokies'

Bet on horse, harness or greyhound races

Played keno

Bet on a sporting event

Played table games at a casino

Played bingo

Played card games privately for money

Used the internet to play casino games or poker for money

Bet on novelty events

Bet on fantasy sports

Played any other gambling activity

No gambling in the last 12 months

That was the basis of the questions that were asked. The authors stated:

In order to assess the prevalence and risk of problem gambling, all respondents were asked the nine item PGSI [which] is a subset of questions drawn from the larger Canadian Problem Gambling Index, which is a standardised screening tool that is used widely in international and Australian gambling surveys.

The PGSI was asked of all respondents who had participated in at least one gambling activity in the past 12 months, except for those persons who had only bought lottery products or a major lottery ticket. Respondents who had only purchased lottery products or bought a major lottery ticket were excluded from these questions, firstly because in other prevalence studies these activities are not typically strongly associated with problem gambling, and secondly due to feedback received in the pilot survey, as detailed in the separate technical and methodological report.

The results by each item are shown in figures in this report. It goes on:

Feeling guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble had the highest endorsement (some of the time, most of the time or almost always) at 13%, followed by going back to win money lost gambling (9%). The item that had the lowest endorsement was borrowing money or selling something for money to gamble (2%).

Those questions asked, 'Have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble?' As we have seen, 87 per cent responded 'never' but 13 per cent 'some of the time'. 'When you gambled, did you go back on another day to try to win back the money you lost?', 9 per cent. 'Have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?', 8 per cent. 'Have you felt that you might have a problem with gambling?', 6 per cent. 'Have you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money to get the same feeling of excitement?', 6 per cent.

'Have people criticised your betting or told you that you had a gambling problem, regardless of whether or not you thought it was true?', 6 per cent. 'Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?', 5 per cent. 'Has your gambling caused any financial problems for your household?', 3 per cent responded yes. 'Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble?', 2 per cent responded yes, either 'some of the time', 'most of the time' or 'almost always'. The report continues:

Problem gambling and level of risk for problem gambling was assessed based on responses to the PGSI. Specifically, each 'never' response received a score of zero…A total score was calculated by summing together all responses to the nine-item scale. Gamblers were subsequently split into one of four categories: problem gamblers, moderate-risk gamblers, low-risk gamblers or non-problem gamblers. It is important to note that the PGSI is a screening measure that requires people to reach a certain score before they are said to be problem or moderate risk gamblers. Thus, it would be incorrect to interpret any score above 0 on this measure as being indicative of 'some problems'. To do this would be diagnostically incorrect because, as with any measure, endorsing 1 out of 8 symptoms does not mean that one has 1/8 of the illness or the disorder. A number of relevant symptoms or indicators would need to be present to classify someone as having a condition, and this includes problem gambling. A brief definition or guide to each of the four categories is below:

Problem gamblers are defined as those who have experienced adverse consequences as a result of their gambling and who may have lost control of their gambling behaviour. Involvement in gambling may be at any level, but is likely to be heavy. Problem gamblers have scores of 8 or more on the PGSI.

Moderate-risk gamblers are those who have responded 'never' to most of the indicators of behavioural problems in the PGSI, but who are likely to score on one or more 'most of the time' or 'always' responses. This group may or may not have experienced significant adverse consequences from gambling. Moderate-risk gamblers have scores of 3 to 7 on the PGSI.

Low risk gamblers are likely to have experienced only minor adverse consequences from gambling, if any, and will have answered 'never' to most of the indicators of behavioural problems in the PGSI. Low-risk gamblers have scores of 1 or 2 on the PGSI.

Non-problem gamblers are those who have responded 'never' to all of the indicators of behavioural problems (that is, who score 0 on the PGSI). Members of this group may or may not be frequent gamblers with heavy involvement in gambling in terms of time and money, but they will be unlikely to have experienced severe adverse consequences. Respondents who had only gambled through lottery products or major lottery draws, were not asked the PGSI and were automatically categorised as non-problem gamblers.

The survey found that males (1 per cent) were significantly more likely to be problem gamblers than females (0.5 per cent). The report continues:

Problem gambling was significantly more prevalent among respondents who were unemployed (1.9%)—

more prevalent among respondents who were unemployed, who could not afford to lose, blowing their pensions or their Newstart allowance, or whatever, to try to get by or try to win something—

and significantly lower among those who were retired or on a pension (0.5%). Consistent with this finding, problem gambling was lowest among the oldest two age brackets (0.4% of 65 to 74 years and 0.2% of 75 year or older…

Problem gambling was highest among the lowest income bracket (1.3% for $1 to $24,999) and the second-highest bracket $100,000 to $149,999 (1.2%). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were more likely to be at-risk gamblers (5.6% either problem or moderate-risk), than non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people (2.9%).

Respondents who were single were more likely to be problem gamblers compared to other relationship statuses, with problem gambling being the lowest among those who were married or living with a partner (0.5%) or widowed (0.3%).

I move on to 'Problem gambling by activity'. The report states:

[Table 6] shows the proportion of participants for each activity who were low-risk, moderate-risk or problem gamblers, and activities are listed in order of overall prevalence. Lottery games and major lottery tickets had the lowest proportion of problem gamblers (1.2% and 1.4% respectively). The four least-common gambling activities had the highest proportion of problem gamblers.

Specifically, 16% of respondents who had bet on casino games or poker on the internet were categorised as problem gamblers, as were 6.7% who had bet on novelty events, 6.8% who had bet on fantasy sports and 4.9% who had played card games privately for money. It is important to note, however, that participation in these activities is non-exclusive, and gamblers with problems are more likely to bet on multiple activities.

We now get to online gambling. The report states:

…the prevalence of the PGSI categories among internet and non-internet gamblers [shows that] Those who had gambled on the internet in some form in the last 12 months on any activity (including the purchase of lottery products online) were more likely to be problem (2.2%), moderate (7.4%) or low-risk gamblers (13.7%) than those who had not gambled on the internet in the last 12 months (0.9%, 2.3% and 5.4% respectively).

[Figure 12] shows the same results but excludes respondents who had only purchased lottery products or bought a major lottery ticket…The proportion of internet gamblers classified as moderate-risk or problem gamblers is still significantly higher than non-internet gamblers (9.6% vs 6.9%) when these respondents are excluded…

Aside from buying scratch or lottery tickets (which two-thirds to three-quarters of all at-risk gamblers had done (66%-77%), the most common form of gambling for problem gamblers who had used the internet to gamble was race betting (71%). Over two-thirds of this group had played EGMs—

electronic gaming machines—

(68%), and a similar proportion had bet on sporting events...

Playing online casino games or poker for money was also particularly common for problem gamblers who had used the internet to gamble (for any gambling activity), with 59% having done so. In comparison, 14% of low-risk internet gamblers, and a third of moderate-risk internet gamblers (33%) had played online casino games or poker.

Regarding problem gambling and associated factors, it states:

Multivariate analyses were conducted to further explore which factors were correlated with problem and at-risk gambling in SA. A logistic regression looks at the strength of association between the independent (or ‘predictor’) variables and the dependent variable (problem gambling status), after taking account of all of the other variables in the equation.

Three logistic regressions were carried out on the subsample of respondents who had gambled in the last twelve months. Each model used a different binary variable as the dependent variable, each of which was derived from the PGSI categories:

problem gamblers (as opposed to non-problem, low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers)

at risk gamblers (moderate-risk and problem gamblers combined, as opposed to non-problem and low-risk gamblers)

any risk gamblers (low-risk, moderate-risk, or problem gamblers combined, as opposed to non-problem gamblers).

This enabled an exploration of the factors associated with any degree of at-risk gambling behaviour, as well as those associated with higher-risk and problem gambling.

The independent variables included in each model included:

gender

age group

Greater Adelaide/ rest of SA

gambling activities (any undertaken in the last twelve months)

internet gambler/ non-internet gambler

whether the target gambler had been personally affected by another person's gambling

remembers a big win from when first started gambling

remembers a big loss from when first started gambling

how often alcohol was consumed while gambling

overall health.

I am just trying to think of the last time I had a big win. I think it would have been at the races when I was a young man. I would attend in my capacity—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Shame—gambling!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, I used to attend in my capacity as a journalist, working with our racing team. I remember going to Victoria Park on Melbourne Cup Day. I looked at the fields and I thought, 'Well, I don't earn much money. I need to find an outsider here in the Melbourne Cup.' I had a look, and I thought, 'Well, I better think big.' I got him at 25 to one. I put $10 on, and when it won I thought, 'Wow, that was great.' That was probably my biggest ever win in a gambling sense. That was more than 45 years ago.

The prevalence of big wins amongst gamblers is not great. If you have a lot of money, perhaps there is opportunity for people to be able to gamble, but for normal hardworking people on average incomes, trying to strike a win can be quite difficult. The report continues:

The results are presented in the form of odds ratios. In the case of these analyses, the odds ratio indicates the relative likelihood of being a problem (or at-risk, or any-risk) gambler in terms of the independent variable, relative to the reference category, after taking account of all the other independent variables included in the regression model. That is, for each of the variables listed in the bullet points above, a reference category was set at 1, providing a base for the other categories within the variable to be measured against. For example, within the regression model the oldest age group of 70 years and over was set at 1, and the likelihood of problem gambling for the other age groups is shown relative to that oldest age group. In Table 9 to Table 11, below, the independent variable reference categories are indicated with odds ratios of '1.00'…

The most striking relationship was found between self-reported health and problem gambling. There was a very clear increase in the likelihood of problem gambling as health deteriorated...Compared with gamblers who reported themselves as being in 'excellent' health, gamblers in 'poor' health were 9.86 times more likely to be classified as problem gamblers.

There was also a strong relationship between a person's own problem gambling and having been personally affected by another person's gambling in the last twelve months. Gamblers who had been affected by someone else's gambling were 3.44 times more likely to be problem gamblers themselves.

Interestingly, after taking account of all of the other variables in this regression model, men were not significantly more likely than women to be problem gamblers, despite the descriptive statistics that showed that the prevalence of problem gambling is higher among men (1%) than women (0.5%). This suggests that other factors included in this model were associated with problem gambling likelihood, and not gender per se.

Similarly, although the prevalence of problem gambling was higher among internet gamblers, internet gambling was not a predictor of problem gambling in the logistic regression, meaning that other factors were more important. It is interesting to note that the predictor variables differ slightly as the 'net widens' and lower-risk PGSI categories are included into the dependent variable…

Respondents who had used electronic gaming machines, or who had bet on events like elections, or on fantasy sports, were more likely to be problem gamblers than gamblers who had not participated in these activities…

Recalling having had a big win when they first started gambling was strongly associated with problem gambling, with people being 2.19 times more likely to be a problem gambler if they reported an early big win. Similarly, people who recalled a big loss when they first started gambling were 2.95 times more likely to be problem gamblers.

The associations between the predictor variables and at-risk gambling (moderate-risk and problem gambling combined) are shown in [tables in this report].

After taking into account all of the other variables in the regression model, gamblers who had played electronic gaming machines (2.65 odds ratio), Keno (2.22), or bet on novelty events (2.14 odds ratio) were more likely than those who had not participated in these forms of gambling to be moderate-risk or problem gamblers.

Being affected by someone else's gambling (2.08 odds ratio), remembering a big win (1.99 odds ratio) and remembering a big loss (3.34 odds ratio) were all significant 'predictors' of moderate-risk or problem gambling.

Again, poorer health was strongly associated with problem gambling risk, with respondents who classified themselves in the poor health category being 5.8 times more likely to be an at-risk gambler than those with excellent health.

In this case, internet gambling was a predictive factor, with internet gamblers being 1.45 times more likely than non-internet gamblers to fall into this combined moderate-risk/ problem gambler PGSI category.

The results of the logistic regression model which analysed the factors associated with any risk (low-risk, moderate and problem gambling combined) are shown [and they were quite clear]. As might be expected, the pattern of findings is similar to the previous model [I just outlined].

EGM and novelty event gambling remained the activities most likely to be associated with being an at-risk gambler…

In other words, you are more likely to become a problem gambler if you indulge in poker machines or you engage in novelty event gambling. Novelty event gambling, I would imagine, would be those weird exotic bets that are often offered by online bookmakers, etc. The report continues:

As with higher-risk gamblers, the following characteristics were more likely to be associated with some level of risk:

having been affected by someone else' gambling (1.70 odds ratio)

remembering an early big win (1.76 odds ratio)

remembering an early big loss (2.83 odds ratio).

Again, gamblers who said they were in 'fair' or 'poor' health were more likely to be at-risk gamblers…than gamblers in 'excellent' health.

Taking into account the other factors included in this regression model, internet gambling was a significant predictor of at-risk gambling, with internet gamblers being 1.59 times more likely than non-internet gamblers to fall into this wider risk category (low risk through to problem gambler).

In regard to lifetime problem gambling, the report states:

In order to assess problem gambling behaviour over the lifetime, people who gambled in the last 12 months (excluding those who only purchased lottery products) were asked the short five-item version of the National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen for Gambling Problems...respondents who had gambled during the last 12 months reported that they had previously tried to cut down or control their gambling. Nine per cent of gamblers overall had lied to family members or friends about their gambling at some point in their life, 8% had chased their losses (returned to win back money lost), 8% had gambled as a way to escape from problems and 8% spent two weeks or more thinking about their gambling.

Again:

Men were significantly more likely to report having done all of these, except for having gambled to escape personal problems, which was equivalent among men and women (both 8%). Prevalence of these measures all increased along with gambling risk…

Demographic groups with higher prevalence of at-risk and problem gambling were more likely to report that they had tried to cut down or control their gambling. Specifically, the following groups were particularly likely to report having tried to reduce their gambling:

men (22% vs 11% of women)

unemployed respondents (28%)

respondents in the lowest income bracket (23%)

single respondents (21%)

those who spoke [another language, other than English] at home (25% vs 17% who only spoke English)

internet gamblers (25% vs 14% of non-internet gamblers).

Looking at the legacy effects this has had, the report states:

To assess any legacy effects of problem or risky gambling, respondents who had gambled for money sometime in their life were asked if they had had any problems, during the last 12 months, that had arisen from previous gambling (that is gambling that took place more than one year ago)…all respondents had experienced issues resulting from past gambling behaviour. The predictors of legacy problems reflected those for current gambling problems. Specifically, legacy effects were more common among men (1.2% vs 0.5% of women), single (1.4%) or divorced/separated respondents (1.5%), unemployed respondents (2.2%) and respondents who had bet via the internet (2.0% vs 0.7% of non-internet gamblers).

Legacy effects from gambling showed an inverse relationship with educational level, starting at 1.2% for those who finished education up to or including year 12, 0.8% for those who had a trade certificate or a diploma and 0.5% for those who had attended university or college.

Respondents who were classified as current problem gamblers were also the most likely to report legacy effects from their previous gambling (33.5%), followed by moderate-risk gamblers (7.6%), low-risk gamblers (1.5%) and then least likely non-problem gamblers (0.3%).

In regard to the effects on significant others, the report states:

All respondents (regardless of gambling status) were asked the Short Harms Scale for Concerned Significant Others to assess the extended effects of gambling on friends, family and associates of gamblers. As shown, harm resulting from someone else's gambling was also strongly related to one's own risk for problem gambling. Specifically, nearly one-third (32%) of problem gamblers reported they had been affected by someone else's gambling, compared with 13% and 16% of low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers (respectively) and only 6% of non-problem gamblers. The lowest self-reported impact from someone else's gambling was among those who had not themselves participated in any gambling in the past 12 months…

6 per cent of respondents had been affected by someone else's gambling in the past 12 months. This impact decreased over the lifespan, starting at 7% to 8% for the three youngest age groups (18 to 44 years), to 6% for 45- to 64-year-olds and dropping to 4% for 65- to 74-year-olds and 2% for 75-year-olds and over. In-line with this decrease by age, respondents who were retired or on a pension were significantly less likely to report they had been personally affected by someone else’s gambling, compared to other employment categories.

Self-reported impact was higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with 10% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people stating they had been impacted by someone else's gambling, compared to 6% of non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. Similarly, self-reported impact was also influenced by relationship status, with impact being highest among single people (8%) and lowest among those who were married/living with a partner (5%) or widowed (2%).

Harm resulting from someone else’s gambling was also strongly related to one's own risk for problem gambling. Specifically, nearly one-third (32%) of problem gamblers reported they had been affected by someone else's gambling, compared with 13% and 16% of low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers, respectively, and only 6% of non-problem gamblers. The lowest self-reported impact from someone else’s gambling was among those who had not themselves participated in any gambling in the past 12 months...

How many times have we heard stories of people who have been directly impacted by the problem gamblers in their lives? The reports certainly show that many families are affected; and women and children are affected by this. That is the sorry story that comes with this insidious disease: gambling. The report continues:

Respondents who had reported that they had been affected by another person’s gambling were asked if they had been affected in any of the ways…The two most commonly reported effects were feeling distressed…or angry…about the other person's gambling.

That is the impact it has on people. It puts stress on people's lives. Not only does it put stress on people's lives—because there may be a loved one who has a problem they cannot control—but it has a roll-on effect. When you are losing money you cannot pay your bills, you cannot feed your family, and that compounds into serious emotional problems within families. Further:

In relation to financial effects, 42% reported a reduction in their spending money, 30% had a reduction in their savings and just over one-fifth (22%) had suffered petty theft. Effects on social and/or relationships, included 'experienced greater tension in my relationships' (58%), 'less enjoyment from time spent with people I care about' (57%) and 'spent less time attending social events' (25%). The least-common reported effect was using their work or study time to attend issues related to someone else's gambling (21%).

While there was no significant difference by gender in being affected by someone else's gambling, women were more likely to report being affected in multiple ways, with 92% reporting more than one effect (compared to 83% of men). Effects more likely to be reported by women were feeling distressed (84% [of women compared with] 71% of males), angry (63% vs 54%) and hopelessness (58% [or] 46%).

When I was a journalist, I did innumerable stories on people who had social problems—problems that were caused either as a result of pokie machines or other forms of gambling. They frittered away everything. To see the impact that it had on their families, their wives, spouses, partners and their children was particularly heartbreaking.

In regard to lottery products, recently we may all remember we saw a Powerball that had over $100 million as a prize. There was a huge amount of money wagered by people around Australia buying those tickets—by that enticement to win such a big prize. When you see Powerball start to edge into the $20 million, $30 million, $40 million bracket, people suddenly start to become excited and probably dream that they may themselves win that big prize.

The report notes that all respondents who had purchased instant scratch tickets, lotto or any other lottery games like Powerball, Oz Lotto, the Pools—I did not think the pools still existed—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, they are still going, I gather. I do not gamble. I thought it was an ancient game that would have been superseded by all the online gambling. Anyway, respondents who had purchased lottery games like the Pools or bought lottery tickets in person or online in the past 12 months were asked follow-up questions about their behaviour. The results as well as the prevalence of purchasing lottery products by sociodemographic variables is described herein.

Nearly 48 per cent of South Australian residents had bought instant scratch tickets, lotto or any other lottery games. Purchasing lottery products in the last 12 months was higher among 45 to 74 year olds (58 per cent to 53 per cent); people living outside Greater Adelaide (53 per cent versus 47 per cent in Greater Adelaide); people who only spoke English at home (49 per cent versus 38 per cent who spoke a language other than English).

The three highest income brackets and people purchasing lottery tickets is quite interesting. You usually find that people who are actually on higher incomes are more susceptible to be tempted into going into a lottery agency to buy their Powerball, Oz Lotto tickets, or indeed Pools tickets, if they still do it. It was 52 per cent of the $70,000 to $99,999 bracket; 54 per cent of the $100,000 to $149,999 bracket; and 58 per cent of those in the $150,000-plus bracket purchasing lottery tickets.

I imagine many of our good friends in here who are in that wage bracket would probably have purchased Powerball lottery tickets in the past 12 months. I will make a confession that I was tempted as well. I just bought a Powerball ticket. I did not win, of course. Full-time workers (52 per cent) bought those tickets, people who were married or living with a partner (50 per cent) and people who were divorced or separated (54 per cent). The report continues:

Among people who had purchased lottery products, 1.2% were classified as problem gamblers, 3.1% were moderate-risk gamblers and 6.5% were low-risk gamblers.

I will put myself in that category. It continues:

Men typically spent more money on lottery products ($26 on average the last time they purchased them vs $20 for women)—

that is an interesting figure, because that is what I think I usually spend on a Powerball ticket, $25 or $26. It continues:

…(27% purchasing them more than 25 times in a year vs 19% of women).

Moderate-risk and problem gamblers were the biggest spenders on lottery products ($67 and $37 average respectively vs $23 overall).

Purchasing lottery products results

Nearly half (48%) of SA residents had bought instant scratch tickets, lotto or another lottery game like Powerball, Oz Lotto, the Pools or bought lottery products in person or online in the last 12 months. Purchasing lottery products peaked at the middle age brackets 45 to 54 years (57%) and 55 to 64 years (58%), and was lowest among the [younger cohort]…(29% for 18 to 29 years) and oldest age brackets (42% for 75 years plus).

Purchasing lottery products was additionally higher among respondents who lived outside of Greater Adelaide (53% vs 47% in Greater Adelaide) and respondents who only spoke English (49% vs 38% who spoke…[another language]).

Purchasing lottery tickets increased by household income bracket, peaking at the three highest brackets of $70,000 to $99,999 (52%), $100,000 to $149,999 (54%) and $150,000 plus (58%). Respondents who were employed full-time were additionally more likely to purchase lottery products (52%), compared to other employment categories. Similarly respondents who were divorced/separated (54%) or married/living with a partner (50%) were more likely to purchase lottery products compared to other relationship categories.

That is quite an interesting statistic and one that I was not aware of: that people on higher incomes are the ones who keep those big lotteries going. It continues:

Over half of respondents (53%) who had purchased lottery products only did so one to six times over the last year.

That probably puts me into that category. If the Powerball tends to get to a ridiculously high number that is probably when I get tempted but otherwise I tend to steer a clear path of lottery agencies. It continues:

Nearly one-quarter (23%) of respondents had purchased lottery products seven to 24 times, and 23% had purchased them 25 times or more. Men had purchased lottery products more frequently than women, with 27% purchasing them more than 25 times over the last year, compared to 19% of women.

On average, respondents had spent approximately $23 the last time they purchased lottery products, however 5% had spent more than $50...Men were more likely to have spent over $50 (6%) than women (3%), and had a slightly higher average spend of $17 compared to $14 for women. Moderate-risk and problem gamblers additionally had a higher average spend ($67 and $37 respectively) and were more likely to have spent more than $50 (14% for both).

…14% of people who had purchased lottery tickets had done so through the internet, and purchasing was more common among men (15%) than women (13%).

Purchasing lottery products through the internet was highest in the 25 to 44 year age bracket (20% to 18%) [of women], and then steadily decreased to 9% and 4% for respondents aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years or older respectively.

I guess we might have to put that down to the Luddite types in our community who have not been able to grasp the new technologies and go on the internet, so they still prefer to walk into their agencies and buy them face to face. The report continues:

Respondents who had purchased lottery products online in the last 12 months tended to purchase lottery products more frequently (28% bought them 25 times or more in the last 12 months) than those who had only purchased them in-person or through other means (20% 25 times or more).

I now move onto electronic gaming machines, or pokies.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Oh, is that what this bill is about?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, it is, but it is also about problem gambling, Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The last time it was lotteries.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is all about problem gambling, and you will find that—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: It is a package of reforms, Treasurer—a package.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is. The report continues:

All respondents who had played EGMs in the past 12 months—

that's 3,505—

were asked follow-up questions about their behaviour, which are detailed in this section along with EGM gambling prevalence by sociodemographic characteristics.

Here is a summary of the EGM's behaviour:

Overall participation in EGM gambling has decreased in SA to 19%, from 27% in 2012 and 30% in 2005. Participation in the last 12 months was higher among:

men (21%)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (29%)

people living outside of Greater Adelaide (25%)

people who only spoke English at home (21%)

18- to 24-year-olds (27%) and 25- to 35-year-olds (23%)

households with incomes of less than $40,000 (22%) or $55,000 to $69,999 (23%)

full-time workers (21%)

people who identified as 'single' (24%).

That is quite interesting. We should all perhaps rejoice that the participation in pokies has actually gone down. It is not an insignificant amount: from 27 per cent in 2012 and 30 per cent in 2005 to where it is now at 19 per cent. In one way, perhaps if people who are opposed to gambling and who are concerned about problem gamblers were to see that figure they would think that is a heartening result. But, of course, that result brings us to where we are today: suddenly, it has come to the realisation of the pokie barons, the Australian Hotels Association and the government, who see that the rivers of gold are suddenly starting to trickle, that they need more income, more tax revenue coming in, and that is why we are here today, tonight. They tried to ram through—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What's that?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: You said 'today tonight', and that's why we laughed.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Oh, is that what it is—I'm sorry, it's a late night.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): It is not a football game. We will hear from the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you very much, Mr Acting President. No, it is not a football game, but I appreciate the kind references to my former show, Today Tonight, which sadly went into extinction last week. Let me say that on Today Tonight we featured stories about pokie addicts over the years.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Did you happen to be on Today Tonight?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Sorry?

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Were you on Today Tonight?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Order! The Hon. Mr Pangallo, address the Chair.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you very much, Mr Acting President. I was just pointing out the fact that the numbers have come down quite significantly in problem gambling; hence, the hotel lobby, the AHA, the Casino and others are probably concerned that their revenues are starting to dwindle. The government, also—the rivers of gold are trickling. We find ourselves in the situation that we have now, where they need to ensure that revenues will increase. To do that, they are proposing machines that accept notes.

As I have already outlined tonight, many of these reports clearly show that note acceptors are the very things that entice and encourage gamblers to splurge more and lose more. They know that, the AHA knows that, all the pokie barons know that, which is why they are so intent on getting these new machines with note acceptors, because they know that their revenues are suddenly going to go up after they have been going down for several years. They will be reliant on people now pumping more money into their machines by using notes.

Quite clearly, these figures would have put a fright up Treasury and Finance and also the hotel industry, which always has something to whinge about. Of course, it led to them spending such a huge amount of money in the 2018 election campaign—a huge amount of money. It was not only them, but also money that would have come into the AHA and others from the biggest pokie baron in South Australia, which, as we all know, is Woolworths.

Woolworths owns more pokie machines in South Australia than anyone else. This is Woolworths, the 'fresh food people', who offer 50 per cent discounts on products each week to get people to go through their stores for late-night shopping, on Boxing Day—they will get them there on Boxing Day, Treasurer. Just think about it: Woolworths position themselves in the marketplace as the place of discount grocery shopping, yet they own more pokie machines than any other operator in the state and probably in the country.

We know exactly where Woolworths are in relation to pokie machines. In fact, earlier this year, I was visited by two corporate executives from Woolworths who wanted to talk to us in relation to various matters. Of course, we brought up the matter of, 'Well, what are you going to do with your poker machines?' We know that Coles are already trying to get out of it, particularly in Queensland, but unfortunately for Woolworths they are stuck in a position because they also own the liquor shops that go with the pubs they have had to buy.

If you look at the venues that Woolworths has, they are predominantly either in the northern suburbs or to the south, the very suburbs where the most vulnerable people live, the people more likely to spend money on gambling, as pointed out in this extensive report. They are the ones who are likely to lose. So you have Woolworths, the biggest pokie operator, also being able to suck money out of its own customers who go to the venues they own. I sincerely hope that Woolworths take a deep look inside, have some sort of social conscience, look at the damage they are actually doing in the community and, in Australia, reflect upon their holdings and think that maybe it is time to get out of this business. I would certainly encourage that to happen.

Before I leave Woolworths, members may also recall the scandal that involved Woolies-owned venues interstate about two or three years ago, when staff working at a number of those venues were caught encouraging punters to stay at the machines longer by plying them with free drinks and other inducements. They were caught out at that time. Again, it just goes to show the ruthless nature of this gambling business, when they resort to those low tactics.

Going back to the proportion of EGM players who were classified as problem gamblers, that was 3.2 per cent and that was compared with 1.1 per cent of all last year's gamblers. The report continues:

A further 8.3% of EGM gamblers were moderate-risk gamblers (compared to 3.4% of all last year gamblers) and 15.3% were low-risk gamblers (compared to 7.1% of all last year gamblers).

Although respondents who spoke a LOTE at home were less likely to be EGM gamblers overall (11%), those who did participate played more frequently (11% more than 53 times in the last 12 months), and were more likely to play EGMs at casinos (22%) than those who only spoke English (22% and 11% respectively).

Overall, men also reported they had played EGMs more frequently (6% more than 53 times in 12 months vs 2% of women). Additionally, they reported playing higher-value machines (12% mostly played $1 machines or higher vs 5% of women), and playing the maximum bet possible (11% 'always/often' vs 7%).

EGM gambling behaviour was quite different among problem gamblers compared to EGM players overall. For example, 40% of problem gamblers reported playing more than once a week on average (more than 53 times) compared to 4% for the overall sample. The median amount problem gamblers had spent the last time they played was $200 compared to $20 for all EGM players. Problem gamblers were also more likely to play higher value machines (28% played $1 machines or higher vs 9% overall) and bet on multiple lines (77% 'always' bet more than one line vs 46% overall) and credits (51% 'always' bet more than one credit per line vs 13% overall). In-line with these results, problem gamblers were therefore more likely to report 'always' betting the maximum amount of credits in one bet/press of the button (14% vs 4% overall).

EGM gambling participation in the last 12 months by sociodemographic characteristics shows:

Nearly one-fifth (19%) of all SA residents had played EGMs at some point in the last 12 months, which is an 8 percentage point decrease on the equivalent 2012 figure (27%) and an 11 percentage point decrease from the 2005 figure (30%).

Participation in 2018 was significantly higher among men (21% vs 18% of women), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (29% vs 19% of non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people), residents living outside of Greater Adelaide (23% vs 18% living in Greater Adelaide) and respondents who only spoke English at home (21% vs 11% of those who spoke a LOTE).

Participation was highest among the two youngest age groups of 18 to 24 years (27%) and 25 to 35 years (23%), and then dropped to 17% for 35- to 54-year-olds. It then increased slightly by 2 percentage points for 55- to 74-year-olds (19%), and significantly dropped to 16% for respondents aged 75 years or older. A similar pattern was found in the 2012 survey.

EGM participation was significantly higher among the lower annual income brackets (22% for below $40,000), and peaked at $55,000 to $69,999 (23%).

Respondents who worked full-time were significantly more likely to have played EGMs (21%) and respondents who were engaged in home duties were significantly less likely to have participated (15%). There were no other significant differences by employment status.

Based on relationship status, single respondents had the highest participation rate (24%) and respondents who were married / living with someone had the lowest (18%).

I will just make an observation. I quite clearly recall the days after the proposals were put up by the Attorney-General and she was interviewed on radio about this maelstrom of gambling that we are about to see. When the Attorney tried to defend her position regarding the note acceptors and also the fact that there will not be a maximum on the number of poker machines, she also stated that this type of 'entertainment', as she called it, was popular among the senior citizens in our community. This was a vindication for what she was doing: the seniors in our community enjoy playing poker machines.

Perhaps they do get some enjoyment out of it, if they can control themselves, but they are least likely or least able to afford to play these games. We are talking about pensioners. For the Attorney-General to suggest, 'Well, you know, it's okay. The seniors in our community love the entertainment.' Entertainment? I have just described, through previous reports, what that sort of entertainment does.

The specific lighting, the music that is chosen, the algorithms that are used on these machines are all selected to deliberately entrance and entice people to lose their money. Here is the Attorney-General openly saying, 'It's great; our senior citizens love playing them.' What kind of an attitude is that? I am sorry, but I think the Attorney-General really needs a reality check if she thinks that these machines are going to be good for seniors in the community. Going back to these EGMS:

Playing EGMs at a casino was significantly higher in Greater Adelaide (14%) compared to the rest of SA (4%).

This is predictable, of course. We only have one Casino; it is next door. It goes on:

Respondents who spoke a language other than English were also more likely to have primarily gambled on EGMs at a casino (22%), compared to those who only spoke English at home (11% at a casino).

…gambling on EGMs at a casino increased with income from 5% of those who earned less than $40,000 a year to 16% in the income bracket $100,000 to 149,999 and nearly a quarter (23%) for $150,000 or over.

Casino EGM gambling decreased with age…starting at 13% for those aged 18 to 24 years, peaking at ages 25 to 34 years (19%) and then decreasing to 6% to 7% of those aged 55 years or older.

As we know, 'The Midas Tower' is going up at the moment. It is starting to look glossy with all the gold panelling that is going up. What an apt colour that is going to be. They are going to benefit significantly from hundreds more electronic gaming machines, which, of course, will have note acceptors. As we have seen, the Casino's revenues have also been down, so they will benefit greatly from these new machines.

I am just trying to think of the last time I was in the Casino. Each time I go in there I detest it even more. I think the last time was a particular work function at Channel 7 that I was compelled to attend. It was a work function or a Little Heroes or McGuinness McDermott function that we went to. That would have been probably 15 or 20 years ago. Going through that place, I felt so uneasy to see people in there throwing money all over the place.

I remember going to the opening of the Adelaide Casino. I do not think many here would. The Treasurer may have gone; he is in the same age bracket as I am. I remember that at the time I was working for The News newspaper. I think the Casino opened around 1985, and it opened with much fanfare. It was quite an event in Adelaide. It was probably the social event of the year. If you had a gold ticket to attend the opening of the Casino, that was a huge status symbol. Any who's who of Adelaide, or whatever, was there that night basically to take in the atmosphere and, of course, to participate in the gaming activities.

I think they gave out some play money or credits that night for people who were there. I do not know if you remember, but they also had a two-up pit as well; I am not sure whether they have that today. In those days, the Casino was the place to be seen and the place to go. These days, I do not think that it is. I think that people do not see it as that much of a social attraction for them, and they can see the evils that lurk there in those gaming machines and gaming tables. We will see how it goes when 'The Midas Tower' is completed.

Men generally played EGMs more frequently (6% 'more than 53 times'), as did respondents who were divorced or widowed (6% 'more than 53 times') and those who spoke [no English at home or] a LOTE at home (11% 'more than 53 times').

Forty per cent of problem gamblers had played EGMs more than once a week on average (53 times plus). This rate decreased to 16% for moderate-risk gamblers and 4% for low-risk gamblers.

…respondents reported they had played EGMs in the past year. The majority had only played 1 to 6 times (65%), 17% had played 7 to 12 times, 6% 13 to 24 times and 7% 25 to 52 times. Four per cent had played EGMs on average more than once a week (53 plus times).

Men generally played EGMs more frequently (6% 'more than 53 times'), as did respondents who were divorced or widowed (6%…) and those who spoke [another language] at home (11% 'more than 53 times').

Forty per cent of problem gamblers had played EGMs more than once a week on average (53 times plus). This rate decreased to 16% for moderate-risk gamblers and 4% for low-risk gamblers.

The report also shows the amount of money that respondents reported spending the last time they played EGMs. The report continues:

The largest proportion of EGM players (38%) had spent $10 or less, 27% had spent $11 to $20 and 21% had spent $21 to $50. More than one in 10 (13%) of respondents had spent over $50, with 3% of respondents having spent over $200.

Men were more likely to have spent a larger amount than women, with 40% having spent more than $20, (compared to 29% of women).

Median spend per occasion among problem gamblers was $200, compared to $50 for moderate-risk gamblers and $20 overall. Twelve per cent of moderate-risk gamblers and two-fifths (42%) of problem gamblers had spent over $200.

I am not a betting man but I am willing to bet that the next time such a comprehensive survey is done of gambling in South Australia, and note acceptors are in place, we will see a dramatic rise in the amount of money expended, because that is the intent. That is the intent of this legislation and that is what the Liberal government and the Labor opposition want to deliver to their friends at the Casino and the Australian Hotels Association: increased profits and people spending more in these machines.

It will not be long before note acceptors will then move to tap-and-go, tap-and-play machines, because that is the next thing they will want. People will go there with their credit card and just tap it and off they go and play. That will create even more problems. The report continues:

The most popular type of EGMs were 1 cent machines, with 62 per cent of respondents reporting that they had played them the most frequently.

I am sure that is going to disappear. It goes on:

All other types of machines were preferred by less than 10% of respondents. Men were significantly more likely to play machines with higher stakes, with 12% reporting that they frequently paid $1 machines or higher as compared to only 5% of women.

Frequency of playing higher value machine ($1 or more) increased with gambling risk, from 7% for non-problem gamblers, 10% for low-risk gamblers, 14% for moderate-risk gamblers to 28% for problem gamblers.

Nearly half (46%) of all EGM gamblers reported they would 'always' bet more than one line at each press of the button, with a further 13% saying they would 'often' and 21% 'sometimes… A larger proportion of men (53%) reported 'always' playing more than one line compared to women (38%). The likelihood of playing several lines at once increased with gambling risk, with 41% of non-problem gamblers reporting 'always' compared to 53% of low-risk gamblers, 61% of moderate-risk gamblers and 77% of problem gamblers.

EGM players who reported they had bet more than one line in the past 12 months (rarely or more…) were asked how often they had played the maximum number of lines possible on a machine…

around one-third (32%) reported they had 'always' played the maximum, 15% said 'often' and 16% 'sometimes'. Thirty-eight per cent of males who had bet more than one line 'always' bet the maximum number, significantly higher than the 25% of women.

Over half (55%) of problem gamblers reported they 'always' played the maximum number of lines, compared to 37% of moderate- and low-risk gamblers and 28% of non-problem gamblers.

All EGM players were asked how often, if ever, they bet more than 1 credit per line. Thirteen per cent reported they 'always' did this, with a further 13% reporting they did 'often' and 31% 'sometimes'. Just over one-fifth (22%) reported they never bet more than 1 credit per line and 17% reported 'rarely'. Men were significantly more likely to bet more than one credit per line 'always' or 'often' (32%) compared to women (19%). Problem gamblers were also much more likely to bet more than one credit per line, with (78%) reporting 'always' or 'often' compared to 46% of moderate-risk gamblers, 34% of low-risk gamblers and 19% of nonproblem gamblers.

EGM players were lastly asked how often, if ever, they would bet the maximum credits possible in one go (i.e. one press of the button).

They go for the big one. The report continues:

The results are shown…Only a minority of respondents reported they would 'always' (4%) or 'often' (5%) bet the maximum amount possible in a single bet.

Not only were men more likely to bet the maximum number of lines possible (47% 'always/often' vs 40% of women) and bet more than one credit per line (32% 'always/often' vs 19% of women), they were also more likely to bet the maximum credits possible (11% 'always/often' vs 7% of women).

Similarly, problem gamblers were far more likely to bet the maximum credits in one go, with 42% reporting 'always/often', followed by moderate-risk gamblers (17%), low-risk gamblers (9%) and non-problem gamblers (7%).

I move now to the gees-gees or the neddies, to talk about horse, harness and the dogs. The report states:

Respondents who had participated in horse or greyhound betting during the last 12 months were asked follow-up questions about their gambling behaviour. These results, as well as the prevalence of horse, harness and greyhound betting by sociodemographic variables, are discussed in this section.

The prevalence of betting on horse, harness or greyhound racing in SA residents had decreased to 12%, from 21% in 2012 and 19% in 2005.

I think this is an indication of the sorry state of racing in South Australia, whether it is thoroughbred racing or harness racing or even the greyhound racing, although somebody reported to me recently that there seems to be a little bit of an upsurge in greyhound racing.

But quite clearly, horse racing in South Australia is on its knees. We have seen that a number of trainers have already pulled up stumps and gone interstate and are now working in Victoria with their horses. There are others who are threatening to leave. The industry is in a sorry state. The government has thrown some money at them but they are also suffering because of the gambling tax and it is not being pumped back into the industry.

I am in two minds about horseracing. I know that the SAJC has a virtual Reserve Bank full of pokie machines down there, and that is probably one of the things that keeps it afloat, but I also have some sympathy for horseracing trainers, for jockeys, and those who actually work in the industry. They are not necessarily gamblers; they are there to earn a living, and they also have an industry that has been vital in South Australia for so many years.

In fact, I believe at one point—and the Hon. Terry Stephens might recall this—they used to say that one in three South Australians worked in the racing industry or were indirectly linked to the racing industry. Sadly, these days it is a struggling industry.

I remember the days when I started as a cadet reporter at The News newspaper just across the road here, Rupert Murdoch's first newspaper. I initially started as a copy boy and then a cadet. I love my sport, and one of the first tasks assigned to me both as a copy boy and also as a cadet was to go with the racing team to the races at Victoria Park, at Morphettville, Cheltenham and even Oakbank.

In those days horseracing was a huge sport. It would attract probably 15,000 to 20,000 to a meeting at Morphettville, Cheltenham or Victoria Park. I used to go there, and I enjoyed going there with the racing team we had at The News, headed by the great Kevin Sattler, or Kasa, as he was well known, and we had guys like the late Ian Fewings, Graham Fisher, Graham 'Sporty' Rogers, and Jack Rowe, who we used to call Roscoe, who was not only a very adept racing writer but who was also a well-known harness racing rider. It was a big team that would go to the races each week to cover those events. That gives you an indication of how big that sport really was.

As I said, you would get 15,000 to 20,000 people going to the races, and I recall that not only were they there in the grandstand area, where there would have been something like 40 bookmakers taking bets, there was also an area called The Flat. You would have The Flat at Victoria Park, Cheltenham and also Morphettville, and you would have about 5,000 to 10,000 people in there. The Flat was usually the place they said was for the lower class of punter, the ones who did not spend that much money. They were relegated to The Flat, but the grandstand area was where all the punters would go. There would be women dressed to the nines who would go there. It was a huge day out.

In fact, in those days even Oakbank was an incredibly popular event. Again, reporters and young reporters would go to Oakbank, and I recall often having to look for somebody who had been going there religiously as a camper for decades. You would always find somebody, or a family, who had been going there for 30, 40 or 50 years; they were always there in the same spot to watch the Great Eastern Steeplechase and those other horseracing events at Oakbank.

I am not a big fan of jumps racing, I must say, but I do remember those glory days of horseracing in South Australia when there were thousands of people who would go to see the races. Of course in those days there was not really that much competition from other sports or what was on television. You did not have the internet or all those sorts of other distractions that would keep people. I am on a section here—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The bill. You're talking about racing 20 years ago.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That's okay; I am just giving you an indication of what has happened, Treasurer: in a short space of 30 or 40 years, that industry has dwindled to where you hardly get a crowd at any of the events now. What that keeps them going—and they know this is what is going to keep them going—are the poker machines, with note acceptors. That is what is going to help them sustain themselves.

Back to the report, the prevalence of betting on horse, harness or greyhound racing in SA residents, as I said, had decreased substantially. You could put that down to many factors, as I have already pointed out: a lot of competition, a lot of other sports. Also, people no longer have that much of an interest in it. Also, let's not forget the taxes that are being imposed on that sport. So it is suffering. In that sport, as far as betting is concerned, 16 per cent of men would bet as opposed to 8 per cent of women. The report also states:

people who only spoke English at home (13% vs 5% who spoke a [language other than English]

25- to 34-year-olds (15%) and 45- to 54-year-olds (14%)

households with incomes $100,000 or more (17% for $100,000 to $149,999 and 22% for $150,000 or more)

full-time workers (17%)

The proportion of horse, harness and greyhound bettors who were classified as problem gamblers was 3.0% (compared to 1.1% of all last year gamblers). A further 7.0% were classified as moderate-risk gamblers (compared to 3.4% of all last year gamblers) and 14.0% were low-risk gamblers (compared to 7.1% of all last year gamblers).

Men typically bet more frequently on horse, harness and greyhound races (22% more than 24 times in the last 12 months vs 5% of women) and were more likely to have bet a larger amount the last time they bet (18% more than $50 vs 9% of women). Men were more likely to have bet on the internet (38% vs 18% of women) and women were more likely to have bet at a race track (30% vs 20% of men).

Problem and moderate-risk gamblers were typically more frequent bettors (55% and 49% more than 25 times respectively, compared to 17% overall) and higher stakes horse and greyhound gamblers ($159 and $195 respectively compared to $52 overall). Problem (49%) and moderate-risk (54%) gamblers were also more likely to have bet through the internet compared to horse and greyhound bettors overall...

So that gives you an indication why those racing codes are really struggling to attract crowds and also revenues: it has just been scooped up like vacuum cleaners by the online international bookmakers. The report continues:

…the proportion of SA residents who had bet on horse, harness or greyhound racing in the last 12 months, analysed by a number of sociodemographic characteristics. Twelve per cent of the population overall had gambled on horse or greyhound races. This figure had decreased since 2012 (21%) and 2005 (19%).

In the 2018 survey, men were twice as likely (16%) to have been horse or greyhound race bettors than women (8%) in the last 12 months. Respondents who only spoke English (13%) at home were also significantly more likely to participate in horse or greyhound race betting than those who spoke a language other than English (5%). Horse and greyhound race betting was highest among the middle age brackets (13% to 15% for 25 to 64 years) and lowest among the youngest (10% of 18- to 24-year-olds) and oldest groups (10% 65- to 75-year-olds and 7% of 75 years or older).

Horse or greyhound betting increased with income from 7% for households with less than $25,000, to 22% of people in households earning $150,000 or more per annum. In-line with this, horse or greyhound racing was significantly more prevalent among those who were working full-time (17%), and was lowest among those who were unemployed or engaged in home duties (6% for both).

Unlike EGM gambling (which was more prevalent among single respondents), horse and greyhound racing was most prevalent among respondents who were married or living with a partner (13%), followed by single respondents (11%), then those who were divorced or separated (10%) and then by those who were widowed (7%).

Questions were asked of these respondents about how often they usually bet on horse, harness or greyhound races, not including sweeps, such as, I would imagine, the Melbourne Cup and Adelaide Cup. It continues:

Two-thirds (66%) had only bet on horse or greyhound races six times or less in the last 12 months, 11% had bet seven to 12 times and 6% 13 to 24 times. Six per cent of respondents had bet more than once a week on average (more than 53 times in the last 12 months).

As well as being more likely to have bet on horse or greyhound racing, men were also more frequent gamblers than women, with 22% of men and 5% of women reporting they had bet on horse or greyhound races 25 or more times.

Frequent betting on horse or greyhound racing (25 times or more in the last 12 months) was highest among problem (55%) and moderate-risk gamblers (49%), and lowest among low-risk (30%) and non-problem gamblers (10%).

Respondents who had placed bets on horse, harness or greyhound racing through the internet typically bet more frequently (30% 25 times or more) than horse, harness or greyhound bettors who had only bet through other means (10% 25 times or more).

Horse, harness or greyhound bettors were asked how much they had spent the last time they had made a bet. The majority (61%) had bet less than $20, while 14% had bet more than $50, and only 2% reported they had bet over $200.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I raise the matter for your interest that, if these statistics you are quoting are purely of a statistical nature, you can offer to have them incorporated into Hansard without you reading them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would prefer not to do that, Mr Acting President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I just thought you might consider it, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, I am quite comfortable reading them, thank you, and besides it is good to have this august report in Hansard for people to read. It continues:

The average stake increased with gambling risk from $33 for non-problem gamblers, $64 for low-risk gamblers, $195 for moderate-risk gamblers and $159 for problem gamblers.

…clubs, hotels and pubs were the most popular venue for people to bet on horse, harness or greyhound racing (44%), followed by betting on the internet (31%), betting at stand-alone UBETs (27%) and betting at race tracks (24%).

Women were significantly more likely to bet at race tracks (30% vs 20% of men) and men were more likely to bet through the internet (38% vs 18% of women). Problem (49%) and moderate-risk (54%) gamblers were more likely to have bet through the internet compared to horse and greyhound bettors overall (31%).

Again, it is quite an interesting statistic that the venues for people to bet the most on horse, harness or greyhound racing happen to be the very venues, of course, that are going to benefit from the note-accepting poker machines, if they are passed by parliament. It continues:

The majority had primarily bet on a mobile device, such as a mobile phone or tablet (83%), 13% bet on a computer and 3% had bet equally on both.

...betting on a computer was most common among older age groups, (29% for 55- to 64-year-olds and 50% for 65- to 74-year-olds), whereas betting on mobile devices was higher among younger age groups (95% to 96% for 18- to 34-year-olds).

Again, that is a worrying figure. The younger demographic, the younger generation, are certainly using their smart phones to be induced into gambling online with those online bookmakers. That brings us to betting on sporting events. The report states:

Respondents who had bet on sporting events (not including e-sports or fantasy sports) during the last 12 months were asked follow-up questions about their gambling behaviour. These results, as well as the prevalence of sports betting by sociodemographic variables, are discussed in this section.

I am about to go through those results. It continues:

The prevalence of betting on sporting events in SA was 7%, which is a slight increase from 6% in 2012 and 4% in 2005. Betting on sports events in the last 12 months was higher among:

men (12% vs 2% of women)

younger respondents (18 to 34 years 13% to 16%) and 65- to 74-year-olds (12%)

people living in Greater Adelaide (8% vs 6% for the rest of SA)

people who only spoke English at home (8% vs 6% who spoke a [language other than English])

full-time workers (13%)

the two highest household income brackets (11% for $100,000 to $149,999, 13% for $150,000 plus)

single respondents (9%).

So more men, of course, have taken to betting online on sporting events and it is quite an interesting figure that the younger demographic is represented, along with the higher income brackets. The report continues:

The proportion of sports bettors who were classified as problem gamblers was 3.5% (compared to 1.1% of all last year gamblers). A further 10.9% were classified as moderate-risk gamblers (compared to 3.4% of all last year gamblers) and 17.7% were low-risk gamblers (compared to 7.1% of all last year gamblers).

Men tended to be more frequent sports bettors (19% betting 25 times or more a year, vs 10% of women) and to spend higher amounts (32% having spent over $20 vs 17% of women). Problem and moderate-risk gamblers were also more likely to have spent larger amounts the last time they played ($80 and $25 median respectively vs $15 overall).

I hope you are taking notes, Mr Treasurer. We might have a quiz on these figures. The report continues:

...the prevalence of sports betting in the last 12 months overall and by sociodemographic characteristics...[shows that] Seven per cent of all SA residents had bet on at least one sporting event, which is a slight increase from 6% in 2012 and 4% in 2005.

A significantly higher proportion of men (12%) than women (2%) had bet on a sporting event in the last 12 months. Sports betting peaked among younger respondents (18 to 34 years at 13% to 16%) and then again at age 65 to 74 years (12%). Sports betting was more prevalent in Greater Adelaide (8%) than the rest of SA…and among respondents who only spoke English at home (8%) than those who spoke [another language other than English] (6%). Respondents who were employed full-time were the most likely to be sports bettors (13%), as were respondents in the two highest income brackets (11% for $100,000 to $149,000, 13% for $150,000 plus).

All sports bettors were asked how many times they had bet on sporting events in the last 12 months...

Over half (54%) of sports bettors had only participated one to six times, 18% had participated seven to 12 times and 9% 13 to 24 times. Four per cent of sports bettors had participated 53 times or more (about once a week).

As well as being more likely to gamble on sports in general, male sports bettors also participated more frequently, with 19% betting 25 times or more…compared to 10% of women.

Respondents who had bet on sports through the internet typically bet more frequently, with nearly one in five (19%) betting more than 25 times in a year, compared to only about one in 10 (11%) of sports bettors who had not bet through the internet…Over two-thirds (68%) had spent less than $20, 18% had spent $21 to $50 and 12% had spent over $50. Men bet more money, with 32% having spent over $20, compared to 17% of women…

Past year sports bettors were asked how they had placed their bets and the results are shown…By far the most popular way to bet on sports was via the internet (75%), followed by a club or hotel (18%), and a standalone UBET (12%). There were no significant differences by gender. Moderate-risk gamblers were significantly more likely to bet via a phone call. Although there were other differences by problem and moderate-risk gambling, none reached statistical significance.

[There was a] decreasing linear relationship between sports betting via the internet and age. More than nine in ten (92%) of sports bettors aged 18 to 24 years had bet on sports events through the internet.

Again, that is a disturbing figure. It continues:

This steadily decreased to 62% to 64% for 45 to 64 years, 47% for 65 to 74 years and further decreased to 26% for 75 years and over…

Among respondents who had bet on sports events through the internet, the overwhelming majority had placed their bets via a mobile device (88%) rather than a computer (10%) and 2% had bet equally on both.

As I say, it is quite disturbing because the next generation of compulsive gamblers has been well and truly born and they are ready to engage in that next step using their smart phones and all the online gambling enticements that are out there today in all these various sports and other exotic forms of betting. That brings us to gambling behaviour on fantasy sports. It is an interesting area in this digital age. Fantasy sports, including fantasy football, again seems to have targeted the younger demographic quite successfully. The report continues:

…fantasy sports…is a type of game where participants assemble virtual teams of real sports players. The prevalence of betting on fantasy sports in SA was 0.7% and its prevalence by sociodemographic variables is shown—

In fact, this is the first time that this group of researchers have assessed fantasy sports. It is a fairly new phenomenon, as we all know. On this occasion it was included, and it was also included in the 2016-17 Queensland Household Gambling Survey, which showed a prevalence of 0.3 per cent. It is important to note, say the authors, that in the Queensland survey fantasy sports were merged with e-sports. It continues:

Men were more likely to be fantasy sports gamblers (1.2%) as the prevalence among women was only 0.1%. Fantasy sports participation decreased dramatically with age, starting at 2.2% for 18- to 24-year-olds, 1.5% for 25- to 34-year-olds, 0.7% for 35 to 44 year olds to 0.2% or below for over 44-year-olds.

I will put myself in that category. I am not a big fan of fantasy sports. It is something that actually consumes a lot of productive time. Further:

Full-time students (2.5%) and people who work full-time (1.2%) were more likely to gamble on fantasy sports, as were respondents in the highest household income bracket of $150,000 (1.0%). Moreover, fantasy sports betting was more prevalent among single respondents than those married or living with a partner (0.6%), divorced or separated (0.4%) and respondents who were widowed (0%).

Again, it indicates the demographic to which this is now appealing are the young males, who are quite deft at working online and also seem to have a lot of time on their hands to be able to make their team selections and then be able to follow everything that happens in the sport, if it is AFL or whatever, and be able to work out what the points are and how to change their team the week after. It is a very time-consuming exercise. Of course, there are great inducements for those who are quite successful. It continues:

All fantasy sports gamblers were asked how many times they had bet on fantasy sports in the last 12 months…

Over half (52%) of fantasy sports players had only participated 1 to 6 times, 14% had participated 7 to 12 times and 5% 13 to 24 times. Only 1% of fantasy sports gamblers had played 53 times or more (about more than once a week).

At the last time respondents had bet on fantasy sports, the majority (59%) had only spent $10 or less, 28% had spent $11 to $50, and only 2% had spent over $50...

As with general online sports gamblers, the large majority of fantasy sports gamblers placed their bets through a mobile device…rather than a computer…

The overall prevalence of SA residents betting on…novelty events—

novelty events, of course, would be elections. Some people would have probably done their shirt in May if they took the odds that were being offered then. It also includes, of course, those reality TV shows that we see. They are quite common on commercial television unfortunately, where commercial television has been totally dumbed down. Now, of course, it is attracting online gambling. Again, it is really targeting viewers in the younger demographic. It is getting the next generation of gambler. They are already hooked, and they do that with these so-called novelty events. The report notes:

Men were more likely than women to bet on novelty events—

I do not know why, but they do—

(1.4% vs 0.3% of women) as were respondents who were employed full-time (1.4%), respondents with a household income over $150,000 (1.4%), and respondents who identified as single (1.2%). Betting on novelty events was more common among [naturally] younger people, specifically 18- to 24-year-olds (2.7%) and 25- to 34-year-olds (1.9%). Betting on novelty events decreased with age to 0.5% of 35- to 54-year-olds, 0.2% of 55- to 64-year-olds and finally dropped to 0.1% of respondents aged 65 years or older.

Basically, the older demographic does not give a rats about novelty events. The report continues:

Respondents were asked how often they had bet on novelty events…the majority (83%) had bet one to six times, and 12% had bet seven times or more. Nearly half (49%) of all novelty event bettors had spent approximately $10 or less the last time they had placed a bet, 23% had spent $11 to $20 and 16% $21 to $50. Seven per cent had spent more than $50.

The authors say:

As with sports betting, the most popular way to bet on novelty events was through the internet (61%). Seven per cent of novelty event gamblers had bet via SMS, 6% over the phone, 5% at a club or hotel and 5% at a standalone Ubet. Respondents who reported they had bet on novelty events through the internet, were most likely to have placed their bets via a mobile device (82%), as opposed to a computer (14%...

Keno is a game that surprisingly seems to have survived over the years and seems to be continuing. The report states:

Eight per cent of SA residents had gambled on keno in the last 12 months, which is in-line with the 2012 prevalence (also 8%).

It seems to have its loyal followers. The report continues:

…playing keno was more prevalent [again] among men (9% vs 6% of women), respondents who only spoke English at home (8% vs 4% of people who spoke…[another language]) and respondents who lived outside of Greater Adelaide (11% vs 7% who live in Greater Adelaide).

Keno was additionally more prevalent among the middle age group 45 to 54 years (10%), and the lowest among the two oldest age groups, 65- to 74-year-olds (6%) and 75 years or older (4%).

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of keno players had only played one to six times in a year, 16% had played seven to 12 times and 7% had played 13 to 24 times. Twelve per cent had played 25 times or more…Men were more likely to have played 25 times or more (14%) compared to women (8%).

Twenty per cent of problem gamblers had played 53 times or more (equivalent to more than once a week) compared to 4% of keno players overall. Respondents from Greater Adelaide (5% vs 1% from the rest of SA) or who were retired (7%) were also more likely to play keno on average more than once a week.

Three-quarters of keno players reported only spending $10 or less the last time that they played and 17% had spent $11 to $20. Men were more likely to have spent over $20 (8% vs 4% of women), as were problem…and moderate-risk gamblers ...

Now, in relation to table games at the Casino:

The overall prevalence of SA residents betting on table games at a casino was 6%, which is the same as the 2012 and 2005 figures.

It seems that the popularity of the Casino has plateaued: it has not increased, and I imagine that the multimillion dollar Midas tower that is going up there is intended to increase that amount of money. The report continues:

The prevalence of gambling on table games at a casino analysed by a number of sociodemographic characteristics…[shows that] A larger proportion of men had bet on table games at a casino (10% vs 3% of women), and residents of Greater Adelaide were also more likely to gamble in casinos (7% vs 4% from the rest of SA). Playing table games at a casino decreased with age, from 14% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 13% of 25- to 34-year-olds, to 5% of 45- to 54-year-olds and 3% or less for 55 years or older.

Gambling on casino table games was more common among respondents who were employed full-time…or were a full-time student (11%), and among respondents with a household income over $100,000 (20% for $100,000 to $149,999 and 13% for $150,000 or more).

Most respondents who had gambled on table games at a casino had only played one to six times (91%), 5% had played seven to 12 times and only 4% had played more than 13 times…

Men were more likely to have bet more than seven times a year (10%) than women (1%). Moderate-risk and problem gamblers were additionally more likely to have bet more than seven times a year (23% and 21%), although only the difference among moderate-risk gamblers reached significance.

Interestingly, respondents had been asked how much they had spent the last time they had played a table game at a casino. The report states:

…21% of respondents had spent $20 or less, 34% had spent $21 to $50 and 24% had spent $51 to $100. Twenty-two per cent of respondents had spent more than $100. Men generally had spent more the last time they played, with 26% having spent over $100 compared to 7% of women. The median amount spent increased by gambling risk, from $50 for non-problem gamblers, $100 for low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers to $200 for problem gamblers.

I would like to share the following story. Even though I have not been to the Adelaide Casino for many years, in my role as an investigative journalist with the Today Tonight program I had cause to track down probably one of Australia's most notorious Casanova con men, called Joey Russell or Joey Slattery—he had so many aliases. He was also known as Blind Joey. Blind Joey had a ruse to attract vulnerable people, and also vulnerable women online. He used his apparent disability of being blind to attract vulnerable people who had money.

Mr Slattery would often spin them the most outrageous stories about himself, who he was and how much money he earnt. At one point, he was a neurosurgeon or a heart surgeon, and then he worked for a high-flying finance company. He was worth hundreds of millions of dollars; he would hire Learjets to show what his worth was—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Will you bring it back to the bill?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am just going to get to table games. Anyway, we managed to track him down in Tasmania. We had to set up a ruse to get Mr Russell to—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Can you bring it back to the bill?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am bringing it back to the bill. I am just bringing it back to—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You are talking about con men.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Con men, exactly: men who play table games.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Mate, how about a bit of relevance? Get on with it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: A bit of relevance, yes. Well, let's go back to the table games. As it turns out—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I think the general comments on the floor, whilst out of order, are basically right. Please return your comments to the nature of the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Pardon?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I would appreciate if you return your comments to the general topic of the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will. Thank you, Mr Acting President. I will just finish on betting on casino games and poker online:

The overall prevalence of SA residents betting on casino games and poker online was 1.1%, a slight increase from the 2012 prevalence of 0.6%.

The prevalence of betting on casino games and poker online by sociodemographic characteristics are shown in Table 50. A larger proportion of men (1.7% vs 0.4% of women) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (4.7% vs 1.0% of non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people) had bet on casino games or poker online in the last 12 months. Additionally, participation was higher among younger respondents (2.7% for 18 to 24 years and 2.3% for 25 to 34 years) than older respondents (between 0.8% and 0.2% for respondents aged over 35 years). Moreover respondents who were unemployed (3.6%) or employed full-time…and respondents who identified as single…participated more.

In contrast to betting on table games at a casino, which was more prevalent among Greater Adelaide respondents, betting on casino games or poker online was more prevalent among respondents who lived in the rest of SA [than those in the Greater Adelaide area].

The report also covers bingo and shows the prevalence of people who play bingo and other areas. What I will do, just because it is getting on here—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: What about those bingo players, Frank? What about those bingo players?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Since it has been requested, I will go back to the bingo players.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Pangallo, the interjections are out of order and you will ignore them. I will ask you to stick to the nature of the bill or I will make a determination.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay, thank you very much. I just want to go to the conclusions, because I have gone through virtually the whole report here. I am sure that people who will read this report will actually find it quite fascinating. I will just go to the summary of problem gambling in South Australia, which states:

The overall prevalence of problem gambling in SA in 2018 was 0.7%, according to the PGSI, in-line with the 2012 result (0.6%). The prevalence of the other gambling risk categories in SA…[shows that] the only significant difference compared with 2012 was a slight decrease in the prevalence of low-risk gamblers (4.6% in 2018 vs 7.1% in 2012)...

Recalculating the prevalence of problem and at-risk gambling among last year gamblers (i.e. excluding non-gamblers) shows the following results:

1.1% were problem gamblers

3.4% were moderate-risk gamblers

7.1% were low-risk gamblers, and

88.4% were non-problem gamblers.

Looking at the SA adult population as a whole, there was a significantly higher prevalence of 'at-risk' (problem and moderate-risk gambling) among the following groups:

men (4.1% were at-risk gamblers vs 1.8% of women)

unemployed respondents (5.4%)

the lowest household income bracket (4.3%)

single respondents (4.8%) and those who were divorced or separated (4.0%)

the youngest age group of 18 to 24 year olds (4.5%)

respondents who spoke a language other than English at home (4.2% vs 2.8% who only spoke English)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (5.6% vs 2.9% non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people)

those who had gambled on the internet during the past 12 months (9.6% vs 3.2% of non-internet gamblers).

Across all activities, problem gamblers typically bet more frequently and for higher stakes than other gamblers. For example, a higher proportion of EGM problem gamblers played EGMs more than once a week (40% vs 4% overall) and frequently played higher value machines (28% played $1 machines…

Moreover, three-quarters of problem gamblers…reported having a binge gambling session (where they bet far more than usual) in the last 12 months. Problem gamblers were more likely to have been alone…during this binge session, and less likely to be with friends…or a partner…This is a salient finding, suggesting that problem gamblers not only spend more money overall, but also tend to engage in binges, or display similar uncontrolled behaviour, leading to exceptionally large expenditure.

Problem gamblers were more likely to have withdrawn extra money either through an ATM machine or through EFTPOS during a gambling session and typically withdrew double ($200) that of the overall median ($100).

Problem gamblers were also much more likely to have a venue loyalty card (41% vs 12% overall).

Interestingly, the associations observed with regard to frequency of play, ATM withdrawals and loyalty cards imply that one can detect problem gamblers quite reliably using these behavioural indicators alone—without asking questions specifically related to gambling problems.

Problem gambling status was associated with having experienced a big win at the beginning of their gambling career (58% vs 30% overall). Interestingly, it was also strongly associated with having experienced a big loss when they first started gambling (42% vs 12% overall).

Just over a third (36%) of problem gamblers, according to the PGSI, had used a help service in the last 12 months. Fifteen per cent of problem gamblers had self-excluded from venues and four per cent had been excluded against their will. A much higher proportion (43%) of problem gamblers had excluded themselves from online betting sites, although it is important to note that online self-exclusions in Australia can include short time intervals such as a weekend or may include shutting down an account for a night.

Multivariate analyses were carried out to explore which variables were associated with problem gambling, after controlling for other factors. The analysis showed that after accounting for other variables, including gender, age and location, gamblers who played EGMs, or bet on novelty events or fantasy sports were more likely to be problem gamblers than those who did not participate in these activities…This finding is consistent with existing research on the forms of gambling that are most strongly associated with problems.

The same multivariate model revealed that there was a strong association between a person's own problem gambling status and having been personally affected by another person's gambling in the last twelve months. Gamblers who had been affected by someone else's gambling were 3.44 times more likely to be problem gamblers themselves. This highlights the importance of exploring and addressing the clustering of gambling problems in families, as well as other social networks.

Recalling a big win, or a big loss, during a person's early days of gambling was also strongly associated with problem gambling, with people being respectively 2.19 and 2.95 times more likely to be a problem gambler if they reported this.

The most striking relationship found in this modelling was between self-reported health and problem gambling. There was a very clear increase in the likelihood of problem gambling as health deteriorated. Compared with gamblers in 'excellent' health, gamblers in 'very good' health were 2.59 times more likely to be problem gamblers, and gamblers in 'good' health were 3.56 times more likely, while gamblers in 'fair' health were 8.87 times more likely, and gamblers in 'poor' health were 9.86 times more likely. This strong relationship is likely to be due to the fact that health problems function both as a risk factor for developing gambling problems, and also an outcome associated with harms from gambling. The association mirrors recent research findings on the strong relationship between problem gambling and self-reported health and wellbeing, and supports the notion of problem gambling as a public health issue.

The summary concludes:

In 2018, 13% of the SA population had bet through the internet (20% of last year gamblers). This is a significant increase from 5% in 2012 (8% of last year gamblers) and 1% in 2005.

Among last year gamblers (gambled on any activity within the last 12 months), the demographic groups who were the most likely to have gambled on the internet were:

men (27% vs 14% of women)

the youngest age brackets (33% of 18- to 24-year-olds, 34% of 25- to 34-year-olds and 23% of 35- to 44-year-olds)

single respondents (24%)

residents of Greater Adelaide (21% vs 19% from the rest of SA)

higher income households (27% for $100,000 to $149,999 and 30% for $150,000 or more)

those who were employed full-time (27%), self-employed (27%) or full-time students (32%).

Online gamblers (including those who purchased a lottery product online) were more likely to be classified as at-risk (problem or moderate-risk) gamblers (9.6%) than gamblers who had not bet on the internet in the last 12 months (3.2%).

[So] the proportion of participants in each of the gambling activities listed who had gambled on that activity online (playing casino games online…). Fantasy sports and general sports betting had the highest association with online gambling…This was followed by novelty event gamblers [and others].

In summarising, this comprehensive report certainly indicates that, whilst the incidence of gambling is shown to be decreasing, there are still issues with electronic gaming machines. We also see there is a prevalence of online gambling, which is quite strong particularly among the young demographic. I think this points to the damage that note acceptors will do to the community, particularly those who suffer from problem gambling.

There is another aspect of this proposed legislation, and the Labor Party had proposed it in their list of what I can only call hollow amendments. You cannot really take them seriously. The Labor Party basically put up a bit of a smokescreen to hide the fact that they were in cahoots with the government in order to bulldoze this legislation through the parliament. Among some of the suggestions that were put forward by the Hon. Stephen Mullighan in the other place was the use of facial recognition technology. I would just like to read a little bit about facial recognition technology.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, that is straying way off the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Facial recognition technology?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Mr President: there has been a deal done with the opposition to implement facial recognition technology in exchange for accepting the note acceptors. It is absolutely the point of the bill, and it is raised in my second reading speech for that very reason. We have had no information from the Labor Party on facial recognition technology and what deal has been done here.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order: I think the Hon. Frank Pangallo should refer to Stephen Mullighan by his title, not by his name.

The PRESIDENT: I take that point of order. Be careful with that. I will accept the response to my query from the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to refer to facial recognition technology in an article that appeared in The Age on 1 November 2019:

Local and international research has raised doubts about the effectiveness of self-exclusion, especially when it relies on self-enforcement and manual photographic recognition.

Use of facial-recognition technology to enforce self-exclusion is common in Canadian casinos but its effectiveness is disputed. In recent years, it has been trialled at Crown with mixed results.

In June last year, as part of the sixth review of Crown’s licence, the gambling commission recommended the casino introduce facial-recognition technology to cameras at all entrances by July 1…the commission confirmed that Crown had installed the technology as requested.

A Crown spokeswoman said the technology was being tested and refined and that it was too early to judge its effectiveness.

[The spokeswoman] said the casino was an Australian leader in responsible gaming and had recently implemented a third-party exclusion process, where family, friends and close associates could seek to have someone excluded.

The spokeswoman also said Crown would welcome 'any opportunity to work in partnership with governments, regulators and industry on examining an industry-wide approach to self-exclusions'.

Monash University’s Professor Charles Livingstone—

who I have quoted extensively this evening—

said self-exclusion worked better in European casinos where personal identification had to be shown when entering. The ID is then checked against a central register of exclusions.

He said Australian governments and gambling regulators should look at a similar model for the local gaming industry.

'Given the plethora of gambling opportunities in Australia, self-exclusion without the use of central-account-based gambling, or verification of ID, is a smokescreen for industry to claim it's doing something about harmful gambling,' said Professor Livingstone.

Australian National University gambling researcher Dr Francis Markham said gaming operators needed an 'incentive' to make any self-exclusion system work…

'If there is going to be self-exclusion it needs to be enforced by a regulator that has some teeth.'

The ALH group owns more than 300 licensed premises nationally.

ALH corporate affairs head David Curry said that in the past three months, ALH staff in Victoria had recorded 85 self-exclusion 'interactions' with customers.

He said ALH gaming staff had enhanced-customer care training this year.

In the year to June 30, 2019 Victorians lost more than $3.1 billion on pokies in pubs and clubs and in Crown’s main gaming room.

Crown is currently under scrutiny following revelations by The Age, [The Sydney Morning Herald] and 60 Minutes about its efforts to attract ultra-wealthy Chinese gamblers to its casinos in Melbourne and Perth, sometimes with the assistance of firms backed by powerful Asian crime gangs.

I would like to refer to a letter that we received from Shonica Guy, who is a reformed gambling addict and advocate here in Adelaide. This was sent to a number of interested parties around the country. I quote from the letter written by Shonica Guy:

I am completely astounded that the South Australian government is considering legislation that will undoubtedly increase gambling harm.

The introduction of note feeders for poker machines in South Australia would be an absolute step backwards in trying to reduce gambling harm in the state.

It's pretty simple really: it is a lot easier to lose track of your gambling when you are feeding a $50 note into a machine instead of 50 $1 coins.

Why does this matter? Because poker machines are machines of addiction, with their design incorporating features that trigger addiction in the brain. They are designed to manipulate people into losing more and more money so that the industry can win big, but not the person using the machine.

I speak from lived experience. My brain was hijacked by poker machines 24 years ago. It took me 14 years to overcome my addiction to them, and that's because the industry knows exactly what it is doing when creating the features, the lights, the music on poker machines.

Those 14 years are lost to me. I was milked of my money, and those years of my life.

Gambling harm literally takes food off of tables, causes people to lose their jobs and homes, it often plays a part in family violence and relationship break-ups, and it is inextricably linked with mental ill-health. Sadly, there is a chicken and egg situation when it comes to gambling harm and mental ill-health.

Why on earth would the SA government [and the Labor Party] want to make things worse for South Australians experiencing gambling harm? Why would they make it easier for people to lose more money, more often, and more quickly?

Why? Why would you do that? The letter goes on:

Some argue the introduction of poker machines was one of the worst decisions made by a South Australian government, and I agree with them.

That government, of course, was the Labor Party. The letter continues:

The harm these machines cause was well established in NSW, yet Victoria jumped on board and SA followed suit.

I don't understand why we are looking to the eastern states for inspiration here, when Western Australia is who we should be modelling ourselves on when it comes to poker machines. Over there they only have them in their casino, and funnily enough they have the lowest rates of gambling harm in Australia. That's because these machines are nothing short of dangerous.

I'll never get back the years of my life that I lost to gambling, but I have made it my mission to ensure others don't go through what I did. That's why I [have spoken] out about these changes, and am so disappointed the SA Government and the Labor Party seem to be ignoring people like me with lived experience, and instead pandering to the industry.

There is no real upside to gambling; it's an insidious, predatory business that needs to be reigned in, not given more opportunities to cause harm in our community.

I urge the South Australia Government to reconsider these changes as a priority. You can't undo gambling harm, but you can prevent it from happening in the first place.

I think I have spoken long enough. In closing, and just to follow up what Shonica Guy said, South Australia is actually leading the world in fleecing the most vulnerable people in our community. We have a government and an opposition that simply does not care nor has a social conscience.

I have to say that I am particularly disappointed in the ALP, the so-called party of the working class. I think they have long abandoned the working class of South Australia. They have been virtually mute in this debate. I think I have given them a head start on the number of words that I have spoken tonight, as opposed to what they have uttered in both the House of Assembly and in the Legislative Council, which is an indication in itself as to just how seriously they take the issue of problem gambling.

It is disappointing that they have been so mute on this and have just offered hollow, paltry suggestions for harm minimisation, and these are suggestions that are not even proven. They are not saying, 'Let's have a clawback of machines'—and not to oppose note acceptors? This is the same party that introduced EFTPOS and cash withdrawals and allowed gamblers inside gaming areas. It just seems to be that it is in both parties' interests. The gamblers lose their shirts, workers empty their wallets and pensioners' purses are emptied.

I would like to pay tribute here to Nick Xenophon. Nick championed the issue of problem gambling in South Australia for many years and I am sure if Nick was in this chamber tonight he would be absolutely appalled, firstly, at the lack of interest in problem gambling from both the Labor and Liberal governments. I think he would be totally disgusted that note acceptors are going to be accepted, if this legislation passes, and that they will be in operation. Nick fought valiantly for many people in South Australia, many problem gamblers, who came to him for help. He achieved quite a bit in the gambling sector but, unfortunately, I do not think anybody can defeat the money and muscle wielded in this town by the Australian Hotels Association.

You can try to stand up to them but they will come out and they will crush you. They will crush you with their money and their influence. I will call them tentacles; it is like an octopus. The tentacles are even hanging over this place; that is their influence here. I think of all the money they pumped into that election campaign to get Steven Marshall elected as Premier, and also the money that they pumped into the Labor Party to try to destroy Nick Xenophon, and all he was seeking was positive reform in this insidious industry. That was all he was seeking.

The policies we went to that last election with would have gone a long way to reducing the impact of problem gambling in South Australia, and also the impact that these hideous machines have. Nick was a great champion for the working class and a great champion for people who did not have a voice. I am sure that Connie Bonaros and I will carry on his work in trying to keep this industry not only honest but also in preventing it from destroying many more lives in South Australia. I would like to thank again the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Mark Parnell. I am just looking for the Hon. John Darley but he is not there.

The PRESIDENT: Point of order: you cannot reflect on the attendance of a member.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will withdraw that. Thank you, Mr President. Again, I am not reflecting on him: I am actually thanking him for the strong support he has shown in the passage of this bill in speaking against it. That says volumes for the Hon. John Darley, so I wish to thank him.

I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for the work that she has done over the years with Nick Xenophon. She has worked tirelessly with people who have been impacted by problem gambling in our community. She has represented them in court. She has offered a lot of help and support. Some of these people I have met and some of them were close to suicide. I am sure the Hon. John Dawkins would attest to the fact that there are people who also either contemplate suicide or who have committed suicide because of the issues and evils of gambling. In closing I will say, as part of SA-Best, that we will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (00:15): I thank honourable members for their contributions both short and long and the Hon. Mr Pangallo, who has just completed five and a half hours of deliberate filibuster, reading word for word from research reports into the Hansard record. We were all regaled with his articulation of deterministic algorithms and demand elasticity of EGMs, and I am sure we are all the much wiser for him having read those research reports onto the record.

I summarise by saying that I was reminded, in listening to the five and a half hours of contribution, of the dog howling at the moon: there is a lot of noise and it made the dog feel good, but ultimately it was a rather pointless exercise. I accept the fact that the Hon. Mr Pangallo, and indeed others, have a view different to the overwhelming majority of members in the parliament and in this chamber as well. They are perfectly entitled to put that point of view but, ultimately, five and a half hours of reading research reports, as I said, does not add much to the debate in this chamber.

The government and the opposition in the parliament is accused by the Hon. Ms Bonaros of applying a gag. I am not sure what the definition of a gag is: we have just allowed one member to speak for five and half hours, and if that is the definition of a gag then I am intrigued at that particular interpretation. The government allowed all members to speak for however long they wished to speak, some for shorter periods and some for five and a half hours, and that is certainly not a gag. We have allowed every member to speak as he or she would wish for whatever length of time they would wish on whatever particular aspect of the legislation they wished to incorporate into their second reading contribution.

This bill was introduced into the parliament in September and we are now in December; it was introduced into the Legislative Council three weeks ago in November, and we are now in December. So any notion that this debate is being gagged in some way or, to the contrary, that in some way it is being rushed through the parliament when it was originally introduced in the parliament in September is entirely erroneous.

In relation to briefings, I am advised by the Attorney-General's advisers that while some were accepted yesterday, there is documented evidence that those briefings were offered earlier than that but crossbench members were unable or unwilling to take those briefings until yesterday.

The second last point I will make in wrapping up the second reading is again the issue that the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Bonaros have raised on a number of occasions: the issue in relation to donations buying positions of political parties. I have rejected that absolutely on behalf of the government on many occasions.

If I can quote the Hon. Ms Bonaros from an earlier debate, contrary to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's claim that millions of dollars were donated by the AHA, with the inference being in relation to buying the most recent election campaign, the Hon. Ms Bonaros claimed that the SA Liberals received $12,500 on 8 March and $12,500 on 14 March in the period leading up to the election.

I would assume there may well have been a range of other smaller donations also in the period up to March that she has not referred to. In her own words, those numbers are a long way short of millions of dollars in relation to donations to the Liberal Party.

I have absolutely rejected on any number of occasions that donors to the Liberal Party purchase policy positions. Indeed in the most recent debate on land tax, for example, a number of people in the community indicated how disappointed they were because they believed they had donated to the Liberal Party and we had not adopted the policy position that they would have wished. It is again another indication that no-one purchases policy positions for the Liberal Party irrespective of the level of donation that they may give or the influence they think they might have in relation to these issues.

The final point I would make in relation to this whole debate—and I am sure we will get onto it in the committee stage of the debate—is the issue of problem gamblers. There is a shared concern from everyone in relation to the very, very small percentage of people who are problem gamblers. I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo, in amongst the five and a half hours of research reports he read onto the public record, referred in the end to prevalence surveys, the most recent one of which indicated that the percentage of problem gamblers was 0.7 per cent. I think he indicated the previous survey in South Australia was around about that order of 0.6 per cent or 0.7 per cent as well.

The point I have maintained in all my time in this parliament, as have other members, is that the overwhelming majority of people are able to gamble without being problem gamblers—more than 99 per cent. We need to do as much as we can in relation to that small percentage who are problem gamblers.

Indeed, as the Hon. Ms Bonaros has indicated, I have said on many occasions—and let me not disappoint her again on this occasion by saying—that problem gamblers would crawl over cut glass to get to their gambling option of choice. Increasingly, that will be online gambling. As the Hon. Mr Pangallo's oft-quoted research reports have indicated, fewer participants are participating in gaming machines or pokie machines now compared to 2012 and 2005, as the research reports he was quoting have indicated.

The issue here is that there has been no evidence proffered by anybody who is opposing the legislation that indicates, for example, in relation to the situation in South Australia that our level of problem gambling is significantly different to the level of problem gambling in other states as well. We have some differences in relation to aspects of our gambling options to other jurisdictions, and I am sure we will explore those in the committee stage of the debate.

With that, I indicate clearly the government's support for the second reading. We urge support for the second reading of the bill.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 16

Noes 4

Majority 12

AYES
Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller)
Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W.
Scriven, C.M. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. (teller)
Parnell, M.C.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (00:27): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the Gambling Administration Bill to be referred to a select committee.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (00:27): Government members will be opposing this particular motion.

The PRESIDENT: Does the honourable member wish to speak before I put the question? The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Mr President. I note, as we did at the start of this speech, that the Labor opposition have come, in one case, with less than 400 words and no content to their speech and, in the other case, only a scant 131 words and no content to that speech. There are no details on the deal that has been brokered for note acceptors to be supported by the Labor opposition, with the trade-off being facial recognition technology—technology that much of the time does not even identify people and that works best for middle-aged white men but does not work for those of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It does not work in particular for people of colour.

There is just no detail on the privacy protections that will be afforded by this deal and the efficacy that will be afforded by this deal, and that is the main issue here. There is not a skerrick of evidence that this brokered deal will be a solution to minimise the gambling harm put before us by the Labor opposition. We think this issue deserves some further scrutiny. There was nothing put forward by the Labor opposition in defence of their amendments to this bill in the other place that will convince us that this has actually been done to minimise gambling harm, rather than create a fig leaf for the Labor opposition to buy into a deal that they always wanted to support anyway.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 5

Noes 15

Majority 10

AYES
Bonaros, C. Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A. (teller)
Pangallo, F. Parnell, M.C.
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Ngo, T.T.
Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W. Scriven, C.M.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT