Real change you can trust.

It's Time For Real Change

Our state has been going backwards for far too long. Employment collapsing, government charges skyrocketing, our health and child protection systems in crisis, power prices through the roof - and more and more people - especially young South Australians -  deciding to leave the state.

Voters have had an awful choice between a government that deserves to lose, and an opposition that doesn’t deserve to win.

Until now.

This election, for the very first time, South Australians have a real choice.  A choice that will deliver positive change and finally bring back government to the people.

SA-BEST, unlike the others, isn’t shackled by blind ideology, political factions or vested interests. We're about delivering practical solutions to our state's many problems.

We are ready to work with anyone who has SA's best interests at heart.

SA-BEST will be relentless in:
  • Ensuring responsible, transparent and accountable government
  • Making our essential services accountable, reliable and affordable
  • Ensuring efficient delivery of health and community services
  • Revitalising our economy and give our kids a solid future
  • Making SA the most desirable place in Australia to live and work

Join with us to help transform our state for the better. Nick has made the big decision to step up and lead the SA-BEST team in the state election campaign. With your support SA-BEST candidates elected to parliament can bring about real change that SA desperately needs. Real change you can trust.

Here is Nick's announcement on why real change is needed in SA:

Frequently Asked Questions can be viewed by clicking here.


Our candidates can be found here.

Frequently Asked Questions

Questions and answers to frequently asked questions directed to Nick and the team are posted here. If you would like to ask a question, click here to send us an email. You can also read The Facts here.

Q. Is Nick Xenophon the party leader of SA-BEST, or the Nick Xenophon Team? Can he be leader of both?

A. Yes, Nick is the leader of both parties. Nick is all about doing what is best for South Australia and having both federal and state representatives with common principles and purpose to ensure South Australia's interests are well looked after.

Q. Isn't it a waste of my vote voting for you, as you'll never form government?

A. Absolutely not! In fact, voting for SA-BEST will ensure accountable, transparent and responsible government. The more elected members, the greater the ability to influence the shape and direction of SA.

Q. Who will you support to form government? Liberal or Labor?

A. This is a very important question. Both major parties have shown scant regard for what is right for our state. And based on past history, their election promises are discarded or broken when it suits them. Any decision we make will depend on a range of factors, including the views of elected members and their electorates, which party receives the most votes and seats and above all which party can best deliver the SA-BEST agenda.

Q. Who are you preferencing?

A. SA-BEST exists to give you, the voter, a genuine third option so that you don't have to vote for Labor or Liberal. We haven't preferenced any of the major parties, and are leaving it up to voters to allocate their own preferences. You can find SA-BEST's How to Vote cards here.

Q. Where are your detailed and costed policies?

A. We see our primary role as being the watchdog against waste and a promoter of dynamic and practical ideas for the state. Our federal representatives adhere to policy principles that guide our actions. These can be viewed hereOur track record at a federal level is all about ensuring accountability and taxpayers getting value for money. You can read SA-BEST's announced state policies here.

Q. Nick first campaigned on pokies and they are still around. This is a big fail isn't it?

A. Not at all! The major parties have colluded to block essential reforms introduced by Nick. With SA-BEST members in both houses of parliament we will be in a much stronger position to implement reforms such as $1 per spin bets and a maximum of $120 in losses per hour, compared to the $1,200 it is now. More info here.

Q. I voted for Nick at the last federal election. What has he and his team achieved so far?

A. Thanks for asking. The team achieved great success over the last 12 months, including government prioritizing the purchasing of Australian goods and services; ensuring Australian standards are being met on all government projects; protection and compensation for whistleblowers; Carly’s Law, which protects young people from online predators; the introduction of mentoring programs to boost apprenticeships; funding for the Port Augusta Solar Thermal Plant; funding for SA’s life-saving Proton Therapy Centre; increased country road funding; better health facilities for the Adelaide Hills; funding for community radio, independent and regional publications and journalism cadetships. And this doesn't include our relentless work to ensure we maximise local content and jobs for the Future Subs and Naval Ships and the valuable committee and advocacy work and watchdog role all NXT parliamentary members carry out. More info here.

Q. SA Unions and the CFMEU have said Nick is anti-worker. Is this true?

A. Not at all. Their statements have to-date been politically motivated and not based on the truth. Nick has fought tirelessly to improve our procurement rules and anti dumping rules to ensure Australian jobs come first. He has consistently advocated stronger worker safety laws and have been at the forefront of the campaign to highlight the dangers of dodgy imported building products such as flammable building cladding and materials containing asbestos. Nick has also instigated a key inquiry on security of payments in the construction industry, which will lead to tens of thousands of sub-contractors and workers being better protected from dodgy builders.

Q. SA Unions say you want to cut penalty rates. Is this true?

A. No. SA Unions continue to run misleading campaigns stating that Nick and the team are anti-penalty rates. Neither NXT nor SA-BEST are seeking legislative changes to reduce penalty rates and indeed NXT recently voted with Labor and the Greens on a federal bill that would rollback the Fairwork Commission recommendation to reduce penalty rates. More info here.

Q. I have seen media reports that SA-BEST wants to reduce the number of MPs. Is this correct?

A. Yes. Right now we have a bloated and slack state parliament and many South Australians wouldn't have a clue who their state MP is. Reducing the number of MPs from 69 to 51 will save tens of millions of dollars over a four year period that could be much better spent on frontline community services. Making the parliament smaller will put every MP on notice - ensuring they work harder for their electorates. Requiring upper house MPs to face the people every four years, instead of every eight years, will mean a more dynamic and responsive upper house. With fewer MPs we will need fewer Ministers and that means fewer political staffers and spin doctors, which frees up money for real doctors. More info here.

Q. Didn't Nick vote to Privatise ETSA?

A. Nick voted AGAINST privatising ETSA in 1999 at the crucial third reading stage when he was a Member of the Legislative Council in South Australia. The misleading comment comes from his voting for the second reading stage of the debate, months earlier, which was about allowing debate to continue on the Liberal’s Bill, at a time when he was negotiating with them about the possibility of a short-term lease of the electricity assets, with the issue of privatisation being put to the people at the next election. Those negotiations broke down and he voted against the privatisation – the right thing to do. You can view or download Hansard showing the vote on the privatisation Bill and the remarks Nick made here.

The Facts

You deserve to know the truth.

Nick's Candidates Are Free to Talk


Nick Xenophon's SA-BEST candidates have been gagged.


SA-BEST candidates have their contact details available on this very website, and they are happy to talk to you about issues concerning you in your electorate and answer your questions about the upcoming election.

Unfortunately, candidates don't often receive as much media coverage as their party's leader. Furthermore, the media often have a set list of questions to ask, and interviews with candidates are sometimes not aired or are shortened.

You can read their Biographies here.

You can read their Electorate Letters here.

Nick Didn't Cut Penalty Rates


In 2017, Nick and NXT (Nick Xenophon Team) voted for cuts to penalty rates.


Nick and NXT voted against cutting penalty rates in 2017.

The confusion comes from Nick's avid support for local small businesses. As a Senator, Nick was approached by many small business owners who couldn't afford to roster employees on weekends due to the 150% and 200% loading under penalty rates.

To help ease the burden on small business and support local job creation, Nick introduced a bill to the Senate in 2012 called the Fair Work Amendment (Small Business— Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012 (the Bill), which lapsed in 2013.

The Bill amended the Fair Work Act 2009 to exclude employers in the restaurant and catering or retail industries, that employ fewer than 20 full-time equivalent staff, from being required to pay penalty rates under an existing or future modern award, unless an employee has worked more than ten hours in a 24-hour period, or more than 38 hours in a week.

However, 2017 saw a time of low-wage growth and so cutting penalty rates of low-income workers would have had a devastating effect on said workers. Nick has gone on record, saying: “I’ll own up to this being a backflip or even somersault because you can’t have individual workers being worse off." As a result, Nick and NXT voted against cuts to penalty rates (as seen here).

The Nick Xenophon Team supported Labor's Bill to restore penalty rates in 2017 through the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017. It passed the Senate on 30 March 2017, with 37 votes to 26 including all of the Nick Xenophon Team Senators voting in support of the Bill (the voting record can be found here).

While Nick's position on penalty rates has had to adapt to changing levels of wage growth, he always has, and will continue to support local business by not supporting the deregulation of shop trading hours in SA as it would hurt small, independent retailers (see: Retail Shopping Hours Policy).

SA-BEST and NXT believe, as a general principle, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) should determine pay and conditions, including penalty rates. However, SA-BEST and NXT do not believe it is fair that in a time of low wage growth workers should have their pay rates cut.

That is why NXT disagrees with the decision of the FWC to reduce penalty rates and support law reform to prevent penalty rates being cut by the FWC. NXT supports legislative change to protect penalty rates to prevent employees receiving penalty rates that are lower than the rates specified in the relevant Modern Award.

NXT initiated a Senate Inquiry into penalty rates to examine why some big businesses have been paying workers a lot less for weekend penalty rates than small businesses. More information about this inquiry can be found here.

More Details:

(16 Aug 2012) Fair Work Amendment (Small Business—Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012

(16 Aug 2012) Fair Work Amendment (Small Business —Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012 Second Reading

(27 Jun 2013) Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013

(27 Jun 2013) Journals of the Senate

(27 Jun 2013) Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 Second Reading

(16 Sep 2015) Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 Second Reading

(30 Mar 2017) Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017

(29-30 Mar 2017) Journals of the Senate

(4 Sep 2017) Journals of The Senate

(4 Oct 2017) Senate Inquiry into Penalty Rates

(2017-2018) Retail Shopping Hours Policy


Nick Didn't Cut School Funding


Tanya Plibersek, Jay Weatherill and Labor claim Nick worked with the Liberals to cut school funding in 2017 in SA by more than $200 million over the next two years, and that they are fighting against the cuts.


Firstly, Labor is not fighting anything. SA Education Minister Susan Close accepted the deal last December (2017).

Secondly, Nick didn't cut anything and instead negotiated a better deal than what was originally on the table to get Gonski 2.0 over the line. In total, Nick secured an extra $4.9 billion for schools, up from the Government’s original proposal of $18.6 billion to $23.5 billion.

David Gonski himself supported the NXT’s vote to get the ‘‘Gonski 2.0’’ school funding changes through the Senate.

The so-called funding shortfall (to SA of more than $200 million over the next two years) that Mr Weatherill keeps mentioning was contingent on Federal Labor winning Government in 2013 - it didn't!

This was a Gillard Government initiative and the funding she promised - like Gillard herself - didn’t survive the 2013 election. Jay Weatherill signed a deal with the Gillard Government. All of the money for South Australia was well beyond the Forward Estimates. None of that money was ever accounted for in Budget Estimates.

Mr Weatherill's claim – made at the SA Press Club lunch on 2 February 2018 – that Nick broke a promise to the teachers’ union to keep to the original Gonski deal is wrong.

Nick indicated his support for the original proposal, but the reality was he faced the same situation as Susan Close. She refused to sign the Gonski 2.0 deal in November 2016 and changed her mind a few days later. Susan Close and Labor finally had to accept that the deal Mr Weatherill did with Ms Gillard was not binding on the current Federal Government.

The documents, available from the link below, contain the following quotes:

David Gonski AC (chair): “I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future… When we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school’s resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that.” (Media conference, May 2, 2017).

Dr Ken Boston (panel member): ‘‘Five years after the release and subsequent emasculation of the Gonski report, Australia has a rare second chance. There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle, and every reason to work collaboratively towards its successful implementation and further refinement in the years ahead. It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate.
The magnitude of what is within reach of being achieved far outweighs any other concern, including the argument that the present amount of funding is insufficient. For the first time, the available funding would be distributed on a sector-blind needs-based principle, using a common assessment tool for individual schools nationally. When Labor next forms government, its promised additional $22 billion would have far greater impact when distributed on the basis of this new funding arrangement, than by being poured into the existing arrangement that has so debilitated Australian education.’’(Interview with Sydney Morning Herald, June 13, 2017)

Kathryn Greiner (panel member): “In the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd years, as that era was dying out, there were something like 27 different funding programs that were all agreed to, state-by-state, sector by sector, which is what the Minister Birmingham is now trying to undo and create what the Gonski Report originally set out to do, which was to have transparent, accountable, understandable funding… I think we have to recognise that this is a critical time for education right across the country and it's about time that we had a proper funding formula to make sure that those children got the programs that they needed.” (Interview on Lateline June 20, 2017).

More Details:

(2 May 2017)  Press Conference with the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham and Mr David Gonski AC

(18 May 2017) Media Statement from Senator The Hon Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training, Senator for South Australia - Opportunity for states to truly deliver on Gonski

(13 June 2017) Sydney Morning Herald Article by Matthew Knott, Education Correspondent - Now or never for school reform, says architect

(20 June 2017) ABC1, Lateline Transcript of Emma Alberici interview with Kathryn Greiner, a panel member of the 2011 Gonski Review into Education Funding commissioned incidentally by the Gillard Labor government


SA-BEST's Education and Learning Policy

Nick Didn't Make Life Harder for Pensioners


While in the Senate, Nick voted with the Liberals in 2015 to cut pensions, affecting tens of thousands of Australians.


In June 2015, Nick supported changes to asset tests for pensioners to make pensions fairer, and for the long-term sustainability of the pension system - a move which was also supported by the Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, and its family and community services spokesperson, Rachel Siewert .

Under the measures, the Department of Social Security estimates that 83% of aged pensioners will not lose a cent of their payments. More importantly, 170,000 pensioners will actually be better off because they can hold an extra $50,000 in assets before it impacts their payment. Another 50,000 pensioners will now be able to claim the full pension and be $30 a fortnight better off.

The changes negatively affect about six per cent of pensioners who have a high asset base.

For instance, couples who own their home and have additional assets over $827,000 lost their entitlement, but can still be eligible for a part-pension should their assets fall below that figure.

Battlers like the aged, the disabled, carers, widows and veterans pensioners have nothing to worry about.

Furthermore, those who do lose their pensions through the assets test changes can still access health care and other concessions.

The move received overwhelming support from three major aged care and disadvantaged advocacy groups, Council of the Ageing (COTA), United Care and the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS); groups that are known for their fearless advocacy for the rights and welfare of battlers, and they stated it was fair.

The false claim is the result of a costly scaremongering and smear campaign by SA Unions.

More Details:

(22 Jun 2015) Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015

(22 Jun 2015) Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015 Second Reading Speech

(22 Jun 2015) Journals of the Senate


(13 Mar 2018) ABC - Fact check: Did Nick Xenophon vote with Malcolm Turnbull to cut the age pension?

Nick Didn't Privatise ETSA


Labor claims Nick voted to privatise the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) in 1999.


Nick voted AGAINST privatising ETSA in 1999 at the crucial third reading stage when he was a Member of the Legislative Council in South Australia. The misleading comment comes from his voting for the second reading stage of the debate, months earlier, which was about allowing debate to continue on the Liberal’s Bill, at a time when he was negotiating with them about the possibility of a short-term lease of the electricity assets, with the issue of privatisation being put to the people at the next election. Those negotiations broke down and he voted against the privatisation – the right thing to do. You can view or download Hansard showing the vote on the privatisation Bill and the remarks Nick made here.

ETSA Privatisation2

More Details:

(10 Jun 1999) Electricity Corporations (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill Hansard

Nick Has Made a Difference


Nick hasn't done anything during his time in politics. 


A list of some of Nick's achievements can be found here.

In regards to pokies specifically, Nick has said the following:

"Critics from the Liberal and Labor parties say I haven’t been able to do enough on gambling reform – particularly on pokies. The hypocrisy of such statements is breathtaking, because it has been the major parties that have thwarted, at every turn, the reforms that the community wants on gambling.

"My push for $1 bets, phasing out pokies from pubs and clubs, getting rid of ATMs from gaming venues, and even a referendum to phase out pokies, have all been thwarted by the major parties in both the SA and Federal Parliaments.

"But, despite the vehement campaign against reform, fuelled by big pokies operators and their representative associations, there has been some progress, including a culling of machines in the early 2000s (approximately 2000 machines were taken out of the system), blocking moves to introduce note acceptors into pokies (which would make the machines much more addictive), pushing for additional rehab funding, and having a watchdog role and advocacy service for victims, have all helped in some way to reduce the impact of the damage.

"But a lot more still needs to be done, here’s the SA-BEST Gambling Reform Policy. It also includes measures to tackle online gambling where, at a Federal level, my colleagues and I were successful in banning credit betting recently.

"Predatory gambling reform will always be a key issue for me – it’s a litmus test of good government. If a government is prepared to balance its books off the backs of the vulnerable and the addicted, then it has lost sight of what’s really important."

Nick Isn't Against Free Trade


Nick Xenophon and SA-BEST are against Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).


  • SA-BEST strongly supports well-negotiated Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that are in Australia’s national interests.
  • Free Trade Agreements should be looked at on their individual merits, with independent analysis of the costs and benefits.
  • All too often, FTAs have been signed and ratified by Australian Governments with insufficient analysis and a lack of subsequent evaluation of the actual performance of such agreements.
  • The Productivity Commission has found predictions of growth and jobs for FTAs have been exaggerated, ignoring many of the costs and unemployment impacts here in Australia.
  • Australian National University research shows the benefits of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement were greatly over-rated and that the agreement may have had net economic downsides for Australia through its impacts on other trade relationships.
  • SA-BEST strongly supports Australia’s primary producers and encourages increasing opportunities for global export markets.
  • SA-BEST backs Australian-made and Australian manufacturing, and wants our manufacturers to be given preference in procurement processes at all levels of government.

While FTAs are technically a Federal issue, the above dot-points are SA-BEST position on the matter.

Nick Isn't Against Live Music


Nick Xenophon and SA-BEST will kill the live music industry.


SA-BEST would actually give South Australia's live music industry a big boost with an additional $5 million over the next four years under its live music policy.

Currently, $850,000 is allocated annually from pokies revenue for the live music industry, but there are widespread concerns the fund does not go anywhere near far enough in supporting live music and emerging local talent.

The additional $5 million will be spent - based on grassroots industry feedback and consultation - on a range of initiatives including:

  • Encouraging emerging bands and live gigs in schools;
  • Cross-promotion of new bands on social media and music radio stations, and;
  • Mentoring and training programs for musicians, songwriters and band promoters.

And in a move that clearly challenges unfounded AHA claims against SA-BEST that its policies would cost musos jobs, the fund will hit those pokies venues making super profits that have little or no live music at their venues.

This fund will have a formula that requires those venues with little or no live music to contribute the $1.25m a year in extra funding, with bigger, high profit venues paying more. If the venues decide the genuinely take on more musos - especially with original material - then they won't have to pay.

More Details:

(2018) SA-BEST's Live Music Policy

Nick Isn't Killing Pub Jobs


Nick Xenophon and SA-BEST are going to kill pubs and their tens of thousands of employees will lose their jobs with his Gambling Reform Policy.


Short Answer: None of SA-BEST's policies will result in killing pubs or tens of thousands of people losing their jobs.

Long Answer: The Australian Hotels Association (AHA), who are masquerading as “The Australian Hospitality Association” on its television ads, own pokies - machines designed specifically to be addictive and profiteer from this addiction - and are scared about their 

SA-BEST's Gambling Reform Policy is designed specifically to reduce pokies addiction while putting processes in place so people don't lose their jobs.

On the AHA's anti-SA-BEST website, on the Disclaimer page, the association admits that it “does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of any information that may be located on this website”. In other words, none of its exaggerated claims are based on verifiable facts. 

No Way Nick Disclaimer2

On that site’s main page the association’s so-called facts do not even attempt to substantiate any of its claims.

On that site’s research page there are four documents, including an anonymous report arguing against $1 Bets and Harm Minimisation.

Again, none of this research in any way establishes the association’s claims.

In addition to the association’s estimated multi-million dollar advertising fear campaign, it is also spending more than $100,000 to buy the support of rival parties.


When smoking was banned in pubs, the hotel lobby said it would cost thousands of jobs...

Never happened!


When tougher ID laws were introduced to stop youth alcohol violence, the hotel lobby said it would cost thousands of jobs...

Never happened!


Now the hotel lobby is saying that a reduction in pokies and $1 limits to protect problem gamblers will cost thousands of jobs... 

That's not going to happen!


Don’t let the hotel lobby cry wolf. Don’t let them scare away your vote. 


Here are the real facts:

Is there a problem?

The pokies industry likes to characterise the issue as hardworking Australians having a bit of a flutter. Let’s get real. 

By world standards, Australia has a hell of a problem. We throw away $990 per adult per year on gambling. That’s higher than Singapore, which comes in second, and well over double the amount in other Western countries[1].

The 30% of South Australians who play the pokies lose an average of $2,314[2] each per year. 

Australians spend more money on the pokies than any other type of gambling. Punters can lose up to $1,450 per hour, thanks to high intensity, addictive design of the machines.

Around 40% of those losses come from people experiencing severe gambling harm. And for every problem gambler, another 7 people are affected. 

Gambling reform won’t cost anyone their job!

In 2004 there were almost 15,000 pokies in South Australian pups and clubs. In 2015 it was down to 12,210.

And yet employment in those same pubs and clubs has more than doubled: from 12,000 in 2009 to 26,250 in 2015[3].

Those are figures from the AHA themselves. So how can they claim that fewer pokies mean fewer jobs?

Moreover, several studies[4] have found that when people spend less on the pokies, they spend more on other parts of the economy. Poker machine spending is displacement spending. Take it away and you’ll create jobs elsewhere.

Research by the SA Centre for Economic Studies shows that for every $1 million dollars lost on pokies only 3 jobs are created compared to 6 jobs per $1 million spent on retailing and over 12 jobs per $1 million spent on hospitality.



Pokies venues are very carefully designed to make sure you stay there as long as possible. They’re often windowless, so you lose track of time. Punters are served free drinks and snacks. It was recently revealed that Woolworths staff were rewarded for spying on high-turnover gamblers so that they could keep them there longer[5].

It’s a setup that sets you up to fail. The University of Sydney Gambling Treatment Clinic agrees that “The risks associated with playing EGMs (pokies) are higher than other gambling forms[6]."



A 2014 Victorian study into $1 bet limits found that “Overall, our conclusion is that there is a reasonable evidence base to suggest that a reduction in maximum bets is likely to be an effective harm minimisation measure[7]."

The South Australian Council of Social Services supports our position, saying “SACOSS continues to see $1 bet limits as an important and effective harm reduction measure which should be implemented in South Australia[8]."



Below is a video from former ALP Speaker of the House of Assembly and current Mayor of West Torrens, John Trainer, in which he expresses his personal regret for voting for the introduction of pokies with the Labor government in 1992.

It is an extraordinary statement of regret by one of the ALP's most respected figures. Yet both Labor and the Liberals are still happy to take donations from the AHA.

Poker machines began operating in SA in July, 1994. There are currently 12,210 machines in 510 pubs and clubs.


Former ALP Speaker of the House of Assembly and current Mayor of West Torrens, John Trainer, has expressed his personal...

Posted by Nick Xenophon on Sunday, 11 March 2018

More Details:

(Dec 2005) The SA Centre for Economic Studies - Community Impacts of Electronic Gaming Machine Gambling (Part A) FINAL REPORT

[6] (2010) The University of Sydney - Gambling Facts & Figures in Australia

(23 Jun 2010) Productivity Commission - Gambling (2010)

(8 Dec 2011) Inquiry - Interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011

[7] (2014) Livingstone C. and Francis L. (2014) What is the evidence to support reduction of maximum bets on electronic gambling machines? Discussion of the current arrangements for community benefit statements by Victorian club gambling venues. Discussion of the likely effects of further local caps on EGM numbers on gambling harm and the prevalence of problem gambling. Report to Municipal Association of Victoria. Monash University/MAV p4

(24 Nov 2015) Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015 (Private Bill)

[3] (Jan 2016) The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies - Economic Contribution of the Hotel Industry in South Australia

(1 Sep 2016) Inquiry Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015

[1] (10 Mar 2018) The Economist - The world’s biggest gamblers

(20 Mar 2017) Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 *Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Nick suggested amendments


[2] (27 Jun 2017) The Conversation - Three charts on: Australia’s addiction to poker machines

[4] (July 2017) University of Queensland - Removing poker machines from hotels and clubs in Tasmania: Economic considerations

[8] (2018) South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS) (2018) Gambling Harm Prevention Policies SA State Election 2018

(8 Feb 2018) InDaily - "Xenophon will do our industry great damage": Hotel cash pours into party coffers


(21 Feb 2018) The Conversation - FactCheck: are ‘around 5,000 jobs’ at risk if pokies are removed from pubs and clubs in Tasmania?

[5] (27 Feb 2018) The Sydney Morning Herald - 'Do whatever you have to': Woolworths staff rewarded for spying on pokie players


(11 Mar 2018) The Advertiser - South Australia man Anthony Neave pleads for pokies reform after wife loses her life (Link behind paywall)

(11 Mar 2018) Alliance for Gambling Reform - TIME FOR POKIES GIANT WOOLWORTHS TO QUIT AHA



(13 Mar 2018) The Conversation - FactCheck: would pokies reform in South Australia wipe out ‘many’ of 26,000 jobs?

(14 Mar 2018) InDaily - FactCheck: would pokies reform in SA wipe out 'many' of 26,000 jobs?


(2018) Pokie Free Pubs Adelaide - A list of Adelaide pubs that operate without Pokies

(2018) SA-BEST's Gambling Reform Policy

(2018) SA-BEST's Live Music Policy

(2018) Nick's Achievements - Includes what Nick Xenophon has done on Predatory Gambling previously

Nick Isn't Working with Labor


Nick is working with Labor!


SA-BEST exists to give you, the voter, a genuine third option so that you don't have to vote for Labor or Liberal. It wouldn't make sense for Nick to create and run a party just to work with a party that already exists.

Notably, SA-BEST hasn't given preferences to either party.

If you ask Labor, they'll say Nick is working with the Liberals (which also isn't true).

You can see SA-BEST's How To Vote Cards for yourself, here.

Nick Isn't Working with The Liberals


Nick is working with the Liberals!


SA-BEST exists to give you, the voter, a genuine third option so that you don't have to vote for Labor or Liberal. It wouldn't make sense for Nick to create and run a party just to work with a party that already exists.

Notably, SA-BEST hasn't given preferences to either party.

If you ask the Liberals, they'll say Nick is working with Labor (which also isn't true).

You can see SA-BEST's How To Vote Cards for yourself, here.

Nick Supported Medicinal Cannabis


Nick voted against legalising medicinal cannabis during his time in the senate.


Nick actually supported the legalisation of medicinal cannabis [Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016] during his time in the Senate in 2016, ensuring adequate safegaurds were in place.

Furthermore, SA-BEST supports the legalisation of medicinal cannabis (with adequate safeguards in place). More info can be found here.

The confusion comes from June 2017 when the Senate introduced a disallowance motion striking down Items 1 and 4 of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 (the original 2016 Bill legalising medicinal cannabis). The disallowance means that imported medicinal cannabis products only, not domestically produced product, can now be supplied through the Special Access Scheme Category A, albeit by patient-by-patient imports (see Medicinal Cannabis Products: Special Access Scheme Category A).

Simply put, there is a special category A through the TGA that says that, if you have a life-threatening illness, you can actually go to your doctor and your doctor will make sure you get this drug in your hands to help you. It is a special pathway for people with a terminal illness. It also relates to importation. If you have a terminal illness and you get access to medicinal cannabis while you are travelling overseas, you can actually bring it into Australia (more info here.)

NXT supported the government AGAINST the motion (i.e., not to disallow those items) on the basis that they would introduce more streamlined measures to allow Australian products. Greg Hunt handed Nick a letter outlining those measures. (There is a reference here to McGrath tabling a letter from Hunt to Xenophon on page 123) 

The Bill then came back up in October 2017. NXT supported it again, and here's Skye Kakosche-Moore saying exactly that: "the minister provided NXT with a list of actions the government was prepared to take to ensure faster and more streamlined access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients in particular. NXT acknowledges the government has made some progress in relation to the actions and undertakings, but there is still a long way to go. The longer we wait for the government to act, the longer we prolong the suffering of terminally ill patients." (More here).

In short, Nick voted for the original 2016 Bill that legalised medicinal cannabis, but then in May 2017 voted down an amendment that would have allowed patients to import from overseas BECAUSE the Government assured him that they'd fast track measures that would assure a high quality Australian supply.

More Details:

(24 Feb 2016) THE SENATE BILLS - Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016 Second Reading Speech

(11 May 2017) Senate Official Hansard

(15 Jun 2017) The Office of Drug Control - Medicinal cannabis products: Special Access Scheme Category A

(16 Jun 2017) The Office of Drug Control - Supply of medicinal cannabis product under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967

(19 Oct 2017) Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 Second Reading


Nick's Voting Record Is Balanced


Nick almost always voted with the the Federal Coalition (Liberal–Nationals) during his time in the Senate.


Nick and SA-BEST believe in an open and transparent debate, which includes listening to what all parties have to say, and voting on a Bill's merit.

The graph below shows that Nick and his team take a balanced approach.

Nicks Voting Record

More Details:

(26 Sep 2017) Voting by the crossbench in the Senate and the House of Representatives in the 45th Parliament


SA-BEST Have A Wide Range of Policies


Nick Xenophon and SA-BEST don't have any policies. 


SA-BEST actually have over 30 policies on a broad range of issues.

You can find all of SA-BEST's announced state policies here.


Join Today

You can make a real difference by becoming a supporter member of SA-BEST.

Your membership fee supports the operation of the SA party and the funding of key campaigns. You will also receive updates from Nick on key issues and have the opportunity to provide feedback on policies and direction at member forums.

Unlike the major parties, we intend to rely on small donations from people who are passionate about politics. A little help from you can make a big difference to our country's future.

Annual membership fees are $50 per person, or $80 per couple. Concession holder fees are $25 per person, or $40 per couple. Please call the Campaign Office on (08) 8545 0400 to record your membership details and payment.

The associations constitution can be viewed here.


If you'd rather make a one off donation to the team, you can donate as little or as much as you like by calling the Campaign Office on (08) 8545 0400.

Join Now

Existing Members

If you are an existing supporter member you can update your membership details and view the latest member bulletins by logging on.

To access Supporter Member Forums, click here.

If you have forgotten your password, click here.

Log In


Office hours
Mon - Fri 9am til 5pm
Phone Number
08 8545 0400
PO Box 3015, Unley SA 5061

ABN: 74 463 849 862

Authorised by C. Bonaros 653 Lwr Nth East Rd Paradise 5075