A former member of the state’s Gaming and Wagering Commission has conceded the regulator should have done more to interrogate policy changes regarding junket operators.
A former member of the state’s Gaming and Wagering Commission has conceded the regulator should have done more to interrogate policy changes regarding the oversight of junket operators, which coincided with the 2017 China arrests.
Today’s Perth Casino Royal Commission hearing saw member Andrew Duckworth grilled about the amendments made to the casino manual and the formation of policies regarding harm minimisation for electronic poker machines.
The commission heard the amendments to the casino manual were considered in April 2017 and related to the oversight of junket operators.
The amendments also involved the deletion of clauses referencing the gaming incentive program and foreign currency program under its internal control policies and procedures.
The changes are understood to have been made during a period in which the GWC was awaiting the outcome of a compliance review into junkets and a briefing from Crown Perth on the China arrests; in which 19 of its staff were arrested for illegally promoting gambling.
When asked why the GWC did not further interrogate those approvals, Mr Duckworth said he believed the changes to simply be a ‘tidy up’ of amendments proposed seven years prior.
“I think that’s’ the way I saw it,” he said.
“It's finally amending all of that.
“Otherwise, no, I can’t explain why it wouldn’t have been discussed.”
He also agreed it was incumbent upon the GWC to inquire into any proposed amendments to the casino manual, or other Crown Perth policies, relating to junkets, and indicated that, in hindsight, the body should have done more.
“I suppose that was part of the wait-and-see,” he said.
“Are there things we ought to do, if and when we find out more of the processes that have been taking place?
“Sitting here now? Of course, we should’ve done more.
“But at the time there was a very strong feeling of, look, there’s a couple of inquiries going on.
“I think the feeling that it wouldn’t make a great deal of difference if we waited a month or two in terms of probing the problem in the most efficient way, if we waited to see the sorts of things that were happening in other places.
The GWC took a “wait and see” approach to junket operations, according to Mr Duckworth, who said that the China arrests could have been a political exercise the GWC “didn’t fully understand”.
“There was a feeling it may have been a show of strength as far as China was concerned,” he said.
A compliance review was instigated by Victoria’s auditor general and had found deficiencies in the way that state regulated junkets, while WA’s compliance review in 2017 was to include a review of junket operations.
But following the 2010 amendments, Mr Duckworth said he was of the understanding that the commission had relinquished its role in vetting or approving junket operators and, therefore, had no role to play in junkets and relied on other authorities to monitor the risk.
He said he understood that Crown had processes and responsibilities to report on such matters.
Had the commission inquired further, Mr Duckworth said it may have revisited its role in clearing junket operators.
During the course of today's hearing, Mr Duckworth also admitted the regulator did not make a concerted effort to request statistics from Crown Perth around the prevalence of problem gambling until just a few years ago, and had failed to commission independent research into the issue in WA.
“I think it [independent research] would have refined or improved our understanding,” he told the commission.
“But I don’t know whether an expert report would have directed us in any other direction, particularly.
“If I can use an analogy, everyone knows that cigarettes do you harm, but don’t necessarily know the minute physiological details of that.
“Similarly, most people know that EGMs or poker machines can be harmful, but beyond that, we did not seek any extra validation.”
