Industry lobby groups have slammed the findings of a report into gambling reform in NSW, claiming the cashless gaming trial used to form the basis of many recommendations lacked credibility.
The 530-page final report from an Independent Panel on Gambling Reform was released on Tuesday, with key recommendations including the introduction of a mandatory statewide account-based gaming system that would be linked to a central database and require anyone playing electronic gaming machines be identified and linked to a player account.
The report also recommends the implementation of spend, deposit and time limits on an opt-out basis, limits on the amount of cash that can be fed into a machine and limits on cash winnings an individual can be paid out each day, among others.
In a statement, panel chairperson Michael Foggo said the cashless trial in selected venues around the state “was an important step to better understand the benefits and challenges for its implementation, giving technology providers, venues, patrons and government insights on operational issues tested in the real world. The trial learnings, advice from experts, research and evidence have informed the recommendations and safeguards to manage gambling harm and money-laundering risks and inform reasonable implementation timeframes to minimise impacts on industry.”
However, lobby groups have refused to back many recommendations, with the Australian Hotels Association NSW describing the panel’s findings as “embarrassing and not credible”.
“The ‘Research Report’ the Executive of the Panel has relied on consists of a survey of only 2 players and an interview of 1 player,” it said in feedback provided to the panel. “Further, the 2 players surveyed did not use the mandatory account-based technology that has been recommended.
The researcher has produced a 214-page report by including the personal opinions of 70 industry, venue staff and gambling harm advisors, and 15 patrons who did not want to use the technology. This is not evidenced based.”
The AHA also pointed to the panel’s terms of reference, which stated its purpose as being to advise on the technology, infrastructure, cost, impact on industry and employment, and options to reduce gambling harm.
However, the panel did not, the AHA said, report on the technology, infrastructure, cost or impact on the industry and employment.
“This was the panel’s primary purpose. Without this information it is not possible to make an evidence-based recommendation on statewide account-based gaming – particularly as it was not trialled in any venue,” it said.
ClubsNSW echoed those concerns while pointing to the struggles faced by casino operators Crown and Star in implementing cashless gaming and other regulator-imposed technologies.
“With only 14 genuine and active users participating in the trial, such a low adoption should necessitate a cautious, measured, voluntary approach to implementation of account-based gaming, rather than a short timeframe for a statewide, mandatory rollout,” it said.
“Both The Star and Crown casino have struggled over several years to implement this technology, experiencing significant costs, loss of revenue and material reduction in employment. To expect a small regional club to implement this technology in the same timeframe is simply not feasible. For example, Crown slashed over 1,000 jobs after introducing mandatory account-based play in Melbourne.
“The economic and societal impact if similar job losses were to be experienced across the industry is likely to far outweigh the marginal reduction in gambling harm and money laundering that account-based play for gaming machines might bring about.”
Leagues Clubs Australia (LCA) said that many of the recommendations presented in the report fall outside the intended remit of the panel.
“While LCA acknowledges there is merit in some of these proposals, endorsing recommendations that do not directly align with the panel’s mandate would be inappropriate,” it wrote.
“The Panel’s Terms of Reference require that any recommendation be informed by concrete data, industry impact assessments, and feasibility studies, particularly as these relate to the broader viability and sustainability of NSW’s gaming and hospitality sectors.”
LCA again pointed to the report’s “limited sample size, minimal participant engagement, and focus on secondary evidence” which it said significantly weakens its relevance for informed policy recommendations.
“With only a handful of participants and a complex, time-consuming sign-up process that deterred broader engagement, the report lacks the firsthand data necessary to assess the effectiveness or feasibility of account-based gaming technology. Furthermore, its conclusions on the potential for mandatory cashless gaming extend beyond the trial’s scope, without capturing the broader impacts on industry sustainability, employment, or consumer interest. As such, LCA cannot support policy recommendations based on these findings until more robust, representative data is collected.”
The NSW state government has promised it won’t rush into accepting the panel’s recommendations but would instead take time to read through and “thoroughly consider” the findings.
