Mr BAYLEY – Minister, I want to stick with the mandatory pre-commitment cards. When it was announced by the Treasurer, Mr Ferguson, apart from vested interest in the industry, there was near‑widespread support for it and the recognition that it would ease the pain on vulnerable Tasmanians. We did genuinely see the human side of the Treasurer and his commitment to this as a system, and I think we all acknowledge that he was driving it strongly. Just two days ago, community advocates released some data they believe there’s $1.4 billion worth of community losses that have been sustained since the 2018 election, on poker machines. In my electorate and in Mr Willie’s electorate in Glenorchy, it’s estimated to be $125 million alone since 2018.
All the way through this, vested interest like the hotelier’s association have aggressively campaigned against this card, have claimed that it can’t work and won’t work, and earlier in the year when the delay was announced, they again attacked Mr Ferguson for this card with very much an ‘I told you so’ type approach. There’s a lot of fear that with Mr Ferguson no longer responsible for this card, the government’s commitment to it and its ability to deliver it will be lost with him. Minister, I’m looking for an ironclad guarantee from you that it is still government policy, you are still pulling out all stops to overcome the challenges and get this card in place as soon as possible, in the interests of vulnerable Tasmanians.
Mr STREET – I’ve had this question when I was sworn in as the Finance minister, Mr Bailey, and I have had it in the media since then. The government’s commitment to implementing this card has not changed. My commitment is the same as Mr Ferguson’s commitment. The delay was unfortunate but necessary. I would make the point that it wasn’t me who signed off on the delay. I was on leave at the time and Mr Ferguson was acting as the Finance minister at the time as well. So, any correlation that people tried to make between me becoming Finance minister and the delay being announced is erroneous as well. We are absolutely committed to the introduction of this card.
What I will say is that when you’re dealing with an external organisation that is developing a bespoke system like this, MaxGaming will do everything within its power to deliver it to the time frame that it has set and we will keep the Tasmanian public updated on the progress of it. But I can sit here and look you in the eye and tell you that the government’s commitment to the PCG has not changed.
Mr BAYLEY – That’s very welcome. Can you give us a bit of an overview of some of the – I think they were described as – challenges from MaxGaming? I guess it’s a recommitment by them to a time line. Can you talk us through some of those challenges and progress in addressing them?
Mr STREET – I’ll defer to Jonathon on that to talk about that because they are the ones who to deal day to day with MaxGaming.
Mr ROOT – There’s a bit of context in the lead up to the government’s policy announcement that’s important to understanding the time lines. The government policy announcement came following the Liquor and Gaming Commission’s inquiry that came out of the legislative amendments. At the time that inquiry was underway, there was a tender process in play to appoint the network operator, and as part of that tender process we asked tenderers to commit to being able to deliver this sort of player card, cashless gaming infrastructure. Through that process, however, because the inquiry was still underway, we didn’t have a clear idea of what the system requirements were going to be.
The government policy announcement came out in, I think, late 2022, at which point the operator was fully engaged with rolling out the new network around the venues. They basically had nine months to completely retool all of the venues in Tasmania, cut over to the new system, do any customisation of their system to meet Tasmanian requirements for a drop-dead date of 1 July 2023 to switch over.
They took the opportunity to basically rebuild their network operating system for Tasmania, so we have a very up‑to‑date system running the network in Tasmania. But one of the outcomes of that was that it was difficult for them to start the development of the player card gaming system until they’d rolled out the underlying network infrastructure. Their design work commenced following that.
There are a couple of things about the Tasmanian policy that are very different to the sorts of systems that are operating around Australia at the moment. One of those is that it’s a mandatory system. If you look at, say, a voluntary system in Victoria, the requirement for its availability is lower. If the system fails, games keep going. Whereas with a mandatory system, it has to have really robust, high‑level infrastructure design and so there was a requirement for extra work in there. The other component that’s very unique is the cashless system. Generally, where these systems happen, say in Crown Casino, it’s one entity. You’re not allowing for money on a card to be moved across venues and there are complexities with that. In working through with MaxGaming on the best way to approach that, they’re looking to get a payment services operator, a banking provider rather than building it themselves a banking provider, rather than building it themselves.
Those complexities are the design complexities that we’ve been going through. They basically turned around the initial design between when they bedded down the new system around 23 September 2023; by December, there was a consultation paper that went to industry. The time line on that was to give consultation by the end of January. Then a design paper came back to government in February. That was signed off after the election, and then things have been progressing.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, supplementary to that is that MaxGaming, as they are rolling out the system, they’re an industry partner for the Hospitality Association. They’re part of the system. They are profiting from the system as it stands at the moment. Can you understand and don’t you think there’s scepticism in their motivations for actually delivering a pre‑commitment card model? What are you doing and what can you do to ensure that the very real conflict of interest that sits with MaxGaming is addressed? We are seeing these delays and we are concerned that the conflicts of interest embedded in contracting them to deliver it are potentially unsurmountable.
Mr STREET – That’s a contract matter for Treasury. I’ll go to Gary.
Mr SWAIN – I can answer generically. I think if a profit‑maximising firm is providing services, they stand to make more revenue and more profit once the services are fully rolled out, and they have a brand to protect in terms of future opportunities across the rest of Australia, given some of the findings of the national study into gambling points to the kind of system that Tasmania is already moving to.
I don’t know if Jonathon is able to add detail but, broadly, yes, they’re part of the industry, but they get paid for providing services.
Mr STREET – With other states looking to potentially roll this out, there is an incentive for MaxGaming to get it right in Tasmania to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Mr BAYLEY – You acknowledge that there’s a conflict of interest there though?
Mr STREET – No, I wouldn’t acknowledge that there’s a conflict of interest. I think it’s a fee for service with a commercial company.
Mr BAYLEY – I let that go because I’m really interested in MaxGaming’s involvement in writing the programming and delivering this, but I want to go back to my previous line of questioning. I hear that there are opportunities for MaxGaming around the country and other jurisdictions are looking at this, but the reality is we’ve seen how hard the pokies and the gambling lobby nationally have focused on Tasmania, because they are so afraid that if Tasmania breaks the mould and starts to put in positive steps in terms of harm minimisation and starts to rein in problem gambling and the harm that it does to communities, the gambling lobby is going to lose a hell of a lot of money.
We know that there was national money that went into the 2018 elections, so hearing this hasn’t given me a whole lot of confidence around the delays that we have had. The government has chosen an industry partner to deliver an activity that, at the end of the day, will cost industry itself hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The rest of the country is looking at Tasmania and putting a lot of their effort in. The other hotel associations, and the clubs and hotels associations and so forth are looking very closely at Tasmania. How can Tasmanians have confidence that these delays are not just kicking the can down the road and, at the end of the day, delaying the card to death because there’s not the commitment there to deliver it in the first place?
Mr STREET – Because I’m sitting here telling you that the government’s commitment has not changed to implementing this system, Mr Bayley. The decision for who was contracted to do the work is perhaps a matter that Gary can speak to. I’ve got every confidence in MaxGaming delivering this system. As I said before, it is a fee for service. As Gary also pointed out, there is reputational damage for MaxGaming if they don’t get this right as well, and deliver a program that works.
Mr BAYLEY – Our concerns are around the government’s commitments to the hoteliers’ association. We understand the Premier, Mr Rockliff, met with the hoteliers’ association prior to the election and gave them two commitments. One was that the mandatory pre‑commitment card system would be scrapped and two would be that Mr Ferguson wouldn’t be minister post‑election. Now, obviously, Mr Ferguson isn’t Finance minister post-election. The first has come to pass and we’re deeply concerned about the second. Are you aware of this meeting? Have you got any knowledge of that?
Mr STREET – I’m not. You would have to ask the Premier about that. What I’m telling you is, sitting here as the Finance minister with responsibility for this policy, that the government’s commitment to implementing the PCG has not changed since I became Finance minister.
Mr BAYLEY – Have you met with the hoteliers’ association since becoming Finance minister?
Mr STREET – I had an informal meeting with Steve Old in my office after a particular media appearance where he felt that he was misrepresented and wanted to come and clarify his position. That’s the only meeting I’ve had with him. I’ve also met with MaxGaming in the last month as well.
Mr BAYLEY – Was that the extent of the conversation with Steve Old? Just the misrepresentation of him in the media?
Mr STREET – My Chief of Staff just reminded me we talked about the JackJumpers as well, because he’s the chair of the JackJumpers. But yes, it was to clarify his position.
Mr BAYLEY – Did he ask you to abandon the pre‑commitment card?
Mr STREET – He did not. He understands my commitment as Finance minister and he understands the government’s commitment and my responsibility.
Mr BAYLEY – Does he completely accept that this is happening and needs to happen and will continue to happen irrespective?
Mr STREET – I have no way of being able to read anybody’s mind, let alone Steve Old’s.
Mr BAYLEY – He didn’t ask you directly to scrap the system?
Mr STREET – He did not.
Mr SWAIN – I was just going to say my understanding is MaxGaming, and Jon is going to be able to talk to this, were selected through competitive processes. I think the other thing that’s worth pointing out is, there is significant employment in this space. In getting up to speed with this, I went through the previous socioeconomic study, which I think identified some 1200‑odd people involved in the sector. Jonathon’s comment before was that it’s a mandatory take-up, so we also need to make sure that this works practically. It has to deliver. I think the minister is articulating the government’s position on wanting to get on with this, but there’s also a practical consideration that we have to make sure the system works smoothly when implemented.
Mr STREET – Just for absolute clarity as well around that conversation, he obviously made it clear that he disagreed with the card-based system. He did not ask me. He understood my commitment to it and didn’t ask me to renege on the government’s commitment. He’s been very clear with me in the past as well on the industry’s position as you would understand.
Mr ROOT – While we’re on this output, I would like to clarify one thing that I said earlier to Mr Winter around the time line and the receipt of the design in February. I would say that was not to the government. The commission reviewed that design to qualify that it met with the requirements that they had set prior to that document going to the minister.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, you’ve mentioned you’ve met with the Australian Hotels Association (AHA). Have you met with Federal Group or any of our other pokies interests in relation to the card since you’ve taken on the portfolio?
Mr STREET – I met with the Federal Group and that was to accept an invitation to go down to Wrest Point to have a look at the facial recognition technology system they’ve put in place. They showed me the front of house – how it looks, how it presents to the public, and then took me out the back and showed me what happens when somebody who is on their exclusion scheme is identified and how they handle it.
Mr BAYLEY – Any discussion of the pre-commitment card in that context?
Mr STREET – No.
Mr BAYLEY – What about some of the organisations working to pick up the pieces from gambling, Anglicare and others?
Mr STREET – I have met with Charlie Burton and Adrienne Picone from the Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS). Much like you, they were looking for a recommitment from the new minister that the PCG was still government policy, which I was able to give them. It was a very short meeting because that’s all they wanted. I said exactly what I said to you earlier this morning and they were happy with that and left. That was the only issue they wanted to discuss. I believe I’ve met with Anglicare since I’ve been in the portfolio as well. They expressed their support for the PCG system, but we also talked about the counselling systems that they run outside of that as well, and the success of them and what they could be doing to improve that as well.
Mr BAYLEY – The 2018 election stands as a low point in terms of gambling money coming into the political system and buying elections. We’ve passed some reforms in terms of donation reform and declaration since then, but it hasn’t come into play as we know. Do you know, can you confirm who and how much gambling donations were received by the Liberal Party in the lead-up or as part of the election context? That’s this year?
Mr STREET – I don’t have that information. That’s a matter for the Liberal Party. Just going back to your previous question as well, though, I just want to make it clear that I’m happy to meet with any group that has an interest in this particular policy as well. Doesn’t have to be TasCOSS or Anglicare. Any other group that’s got an interest.
Mr BAYLEY – Have you personally sat down with any problem gamblers who have lost their house or lost family members or who have suffered real harm at the hands of pokies?
Mr STREET – I want to be very careful here. I’ve spoken with a parliamentarian who has had experience within their family and told me their story. I’m more than happy if there are organisations that would like me to sit down and meet people with lived experience, more than happy to take that on board as well.
Mr BAYLEY – Do you have any concerns, then, just coming back to the delay and to MaxGaming. MaxGaming, as we discussed earlier, provides services to the gaming industry around the country. We don’t necessarily accept that they’d suffer reputational damage when it comes to delays or inability to deliver this particular mechanism, because their key business is in the gambling space and, so, in some ways you could say that their reputation would be enhanced in many ways. Do you have any concerns whatsoever that inside the system and the organisation that they are playing Tasmanian government and this is just obfuscation and delay in order to ultimately kill this as an initiative because their key interest is in servicing gambling providers and producing and providing and managing these machines and their various updates?
Mr STREET – Having met with three members of MaxGaming’s executive, there was no discussion around anything other than the implementation of the PCG. I’m absolutely convinced from that meeting of their commitment to the implementation of this system, but to getting it right. What the government wants is to reduce harm to those who have a gambling problem whilst having as little effect as possible on casual users who don’t have a problem.
I’m absolutely convinced from that meeting with MaxGaming that they are of the same mind, that they want to deliver a system that works and is effective both in terms of reducing harm but also not damaging the businesses
Mr BAYLEY – Even though that will come at a cost to their main clients, which are the gambling providers themselves?
Mr STREET – They have been contracted to do this work. I am absolutely convinced that they will carry out the contract to the best of their ability to make sure that this system is implemented as quickly as possible, but as effectively and as efficiently as possible.
