Pokie machine bosses have moved to derail new problem gambling rules introduced in response to the tragic tale of addicted pokie player Morgan Barrett, who died of a heart attack after blowing $500,000 in three years.

Tightened rules for spotting problem punters are due to take effect on December 1. However, the Gaming Machine Association (GMANZ) and three pokie trusts are going to a judicial review in the High Court on November 20, where they’ll argue the new regulations are unworkable.

The new rules include bar staff having to make three ‘sweeps’ an hour of gaming rooms – and intervene if a gambler is still present after nine hours – log the use of ATM cash machines and ask questions if someone uses an ATM twice in one night. Bar owners can be fined for failures.

GMANZ claims that means bar staff at a busy pub could be asked to write up to 720 notes on possible problem gamblers in a single Saturday night.

GMANZ commissioned consultants KPMG to conduct mock monitoring of two Wellington pubs to demonstrate the regulations were too onerous. KPMG’s report suggested tracking punters at busy times may be “challenging” for staff.

GMANZ independent chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush said they’d taken legal action “reluctantly” after hoping the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) would negotiate.

In affidavits, multiple pokie bosses claim they were blind-sided by the rules, which weren’t in initial discussion documents produced by the DIA and that they were excluded from later consultations.

Submissions to the High Court in support of the review include affidavits by three chief executives of gaming trusts – Barry Steans of Air Rescue, Kerry Bird of One Foundation and Sheldon Bell of Kiwi Gaming – as well as from Martin Cheer, a GMANZ executive member and chief executive of one of the biggest trusts, Pub Charity.

All three deem the changes as unworkable and not properly consulted upon, with Bell’s affidavit describing them as “highly controversial”, “seriously flawed” and likely to result in incorrect identification of problem gamblers.

Cheer’s affidavit produces a series of scenarios he says would miss problem gamblers and catch ordinary punters and says the system is “unworkable”.

An affidavit from Wibo Bosma, the boss of ATM provider Next Payments, which provides ATMs to 630 pubs with pokies, says he conducted a random audit of 370 venues. It showed 40% of withdrawals were by people using an ATM for a second time on the same day and 9% for the fourth or more times. Bosma also analysed three high turnover sites, which showed between 44-47% of withdrawals were a second or subsequent withdrawal, meaning staff would have to analyse those punters under the new regulations – between 19 and 23 times a day.

Dengate-Thrush said the sector would rather see money spent on a responsible gaming qualification for bar staff – similar to responsible service of alcohol training – and more money for a voluntary facial recognition scheme for problem gamblers.

He said DIA officials had admitted the system might not work in busy times and argued it would substitute real interventions by bar staff for “a massive amount of form-filling”.

He said the rate of problem gambling in New Zealand was low compared to overseas, and major change wasn’t needed. “We’ve no problem with efforts by the government to examine and create systems to improve it, but we don’t think this is one of them.”

But the Problem Gambling Foundation says the judicial review is nit-picking and changes needed to happen.

“The reason behind the regulations is because of failures in host responsibility, and venues not doing what they needed to do to protect patrons… we know the Barrett story,” said PGF’s Andree Froude, who said tracking ATM withdrawals and regular pokie room sweeps were good indicators of problem gambling.

“The big picture is that something needed to be done. We’re not saying these regulations are perfect, but they are a step in the right direction. The bar has been raised, and for a really good reason.”

The changes were introduced by internal affairs minister Jan Tinetti in June, in response to the Barrett case. Barrett spent over $75,000 in one 299-day period at a single Christchurch pub, including one day where he made a total of 17 EFTPOS withdrawals without any intervention from staff. But an attempt to prosecute the publican, who retained name suppression, was bungled by the DIA.

Two days into the trial at the Christchurch District Court, the case collapsed, thrown out by Judge Tom Gilbert, who said the DIA’s problem gambling policies were too inadequate to sustain a conviction. It was a ruling that leaves it near-impossible for any publican to be prosecuted for the offence.

The DIA declined comment as the case was before the courts.