|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 4
Taking a broader approach to address problem gambling
4.1
This chapter outlines the rationale for adopting a population health
approach.[1]
It outlines the harms of high intensity EGMs and shows that these extend to the
broader community. It also outlines the evidence pointing to shortcomings with
current harm minimisation measures such as self-exclusion and venue-based
interventions.
Why a population approach?
4.2
Some witnesses and submittors questioned why a mandatory pre-commitment
scheme impacting on all gamblers should be imposed, when the vast majority of
gamblers do not experience harms. Merimbula RSL, for example argued:
Somewhere along the line, people have to take responsibility
for their own actions and by all means put measures in place to help the
individuals NOT shackle the 99.6% of people that have not got a gambling
problem.[2]
4.3
Similarly, the Community Clubs Association of Victoria argued:
In light of the tremendous improvements in reducing the
incidence of problem gambling in the community, advocating full pre‐commitment is the
policy equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is inefficient and
likely to result in undesirable unintended consequences.[3]
4.4
In contrast, the Productivity Commission argued for the need to move
beyond a model focused on problem gamblers but instead take a broader approach:
As indicated earlier, the commission’s proposals are not just
focused on problem gamblers but also on those who are at risk and, indeed, the
wider consumers who are often misled by gaming machine technology and do not
really understand the nature of the machines or how much they are paying to use
them. We therefore adopted a much broader framework than a medical
perspective—and I know you have had some medical perspectives in these hearings.
Our framework has been a public health and broader consumer policy framework
which included the medical perspective as well.[4]
Who is at risk?
4.5
While some 600,000 Australians are estimated to play high intensity EGMs
at least weekly, not all of them will develop a gambling problem. The
Productivity Commission estimates that around 95,000 of this group are
classified as 'problem gamblers' with a further 95,000 described as being at
moderate risk of developing a problem.[5]
However, the committee notes evidence that described problem gambling
associated with EGMs as being a 'continuum of risk'.[6]
Some EGM gamblers can move quickly from little or no risk to at risk and on to
full addiction.
4.6
Mr Robert Fitzgerald, Commissioner, Productivity Commission, explained
that pre-commitment is a measure that will help those at risk as well as those
with a gambling problem:
It is very important that in public policy terms in consumer
protection—and the commission has done a number of inquiries in relation to
consumer product safety and consumer policy—that one is concerned about not
only those that are actually harmed but also those who are at risk of harm.
Consumer protection and consumer policy look to the range of harms that may be
evident from a particular product or service. We can apply exactly the same
logic in relation to this product. Those at the very pointy end of problem
gambling where it is a medical condition and requires substantial intervention
will be affected in different ways from those that have commenced gambling but
are at risk. Our policies look to cover both. The way in which it impacts on
different groups and different individuals will naturally vary but the policy
suite is geared to those that are at risk, those that are at high risk and
those that are problem gambling.[7]
4.7
Dr Ralph Lattimore, Assistant Commissioner, Productivity Commission
added:
The fact is that everybody, problem gamblers and recreational
gamblers, tends to underestimate their expenditure. For example, if you go to a
New South Wales survey from 2006, which is one where you get a closer
approximation of total spending, you see that recreational gamblers spend
around $700 per year. A low-risk gambler spends about $3,500 a year. A moderate
risk gambler spends about $6,600 a year. In this survey, problem gamblers spend
$20,600 a year. I do not know whether the numbers would be exact. They would
probably all have to be inflated somewhat because everybody underestimates
their spending. It would nevertheless give you an idea of the relative
magnitudes of spending that you see amongst the different classes of people.[8]
4.8
Professor Malcolm Battersby pointed out that some vulnerable groups in
the community are at greatest risk, because high intensity EGMs tend to be
located in lower socio-economic areas where they are more likely to reside:
Another of the points I wanted to highlight which I did not
put into my report is this whole issue in relation to at-risk groups of people,
like our Indigenous population and our mental health population. We know that
for people with current severe mental illnesses and then the Aboriginal
population as a whole the problem gambling prevalence rates are much higher
than for the general population. They are vulnerable because they are often
living in the areas where the pokies are—lower socioeconomic areas—but they
also might have problems with concentration, literacy and a general
understanding of how the whole machine design works. [9]
The gambling continuum
4.9
As noted in chapter two, the committee heard that research cannot
accurately predict who will develop a gambling problem. Dr Mark Zirnsak, Chair,
Victorian Interchurch Gambling Taskforce said that as we don't know who might
develop a gambling problem, systems need to be developed that assist and
protect all gamblers:
There are some common factors you can talk about in
discussing why people develop gambling problems. There are issues of
co-morbidity. Mental health issues are often high on that list. One of the
issues is that you can never tell who might develop a gambling problem.
Ideally, you have systems that assist all gamblers because you cannot know when
a person might go on.[10]
4.10
Dr Zirnsak went on to speak about possible triggers for people to
develop a gambling problem and how pre-commitment would provide protection for
vulnerable people:
Again, in Victoria the Sarah Hare report, which we would
highly commend to you, found that some of the key factors for why people might
go on to develop gambling problems were things like a relationship break-up,
whether it be divorce or some other significant relationship break-up; a death
of someone close to them; the loss of a job; getting a payout from an injury at
work. All these types of life incidents increase the probability of a person
developing a gambling problem. Precommitment, in our view, will provide some
tools that hopefully they have used before those life events occurred, and that
might help provide some protective factors. Those are the kinds of things that
can happen to anybody. Developing depressing [sic] could happen to anyone. You
cannot pre-empt. It is not as if someone is stamped: you are going to be a
problem gambler for life.[11]
4.11
Associate Professor Linda Hancock also spoke of the triggers that cause
people to develop problems with their gambling and how this group is not always
static:
I think the crucial point is that this group is not a static
group. People go in and out of the group. Where do you get your regular
gamblers from? You get your regular gamblers from your recreational gamblers,
so it is not like someone is a problem gambler or at risk and stays there. The
point is that this is a system in flux. It has to do with triggers that
motivate people to play for risky amounts of time and lose risky amounts of
money. Those triggers are often emotional breakdown, loneliness, divorce et
cetera. You have raised a really crucial point to understanding the usefulness
of precommitment as one plank in a reform strategy because it will help people
to not become risky regular gamblers.[12]
4.12
Reverend Brent Lyons-Lee, Victorian Baptist Church Representative,
Victorian InterChurch Gambling Taskforce, reinforced the point that in their
experience there is no 'typical' problem gambler:
But the thing that constantly astounds us, and I think you
have heard a little bit today, is the people it does affect randomly. Gambling
is a stand-alone issue, and that is the thing that continually surprises me. It
is not just the homeless people or people we see in dire need. It is actually
the everyday mum and dad that you cannot stereotype that are continually the
surprise factor.[13]
4.13
Mr Mathew Rowell, Relationships Australia, Tasmania, emphasised to the
committee that 'you need to remember that there are recreational gamblers who
are also at risk of becoming problem gamblers'.[14]
Others harmed
4.14
The Productivity Commission report noted the 'ripple effects' of problem
gambling, resulting in harms affecting family members, friends and workplaces.[15]
As noted in the previous chapter, the numbers of those afflicted with gambling
problems is likely to be under-reported, so estimating the numbers harmed
overall is difficult. Mr Denis Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Catholic Social
Services Victoria, gave this estimate:
From memory, seven was the outlier factor, so for every
problem gambler there are seven people affected. Gabby very bravely talks about
her family and others. Whenever you get in a group of people, everybody knows
someone well— someone at work who got into trouble; a cousin. Even if it is not
immediate family, it impacts, it ripples through the community.[16]
4.15
All of the problem gamblers the committee spoke to highlighted the harms
problem gambling inflicts on others, particularly on family members. Mr Stephen
Menadue observed:
But the people who are suffering the most are—I hate saying
it over and over—–the families who do not have dinner and the kid who did not
get a Christmas present.[17]
4.16
Ms Julia Kaparthakis, Pokies Anonymous, described some of the impacts on
families:
We have had horrific stories of whole families falling apart.
There is one particular person who described their situation as like coming out
of jail. They played since they were 17. They played for 14 years. They are
only 30 but they are still struggling to relearn how to live life. They
described it as living life as if they were in a jail...Some parents have been
threatened with having their children taken away because they do not know what
to do, how to handle them.[18]
4.17
St Vincent de Paul Society National Council pointed out that according
to a 2008 study, gambling was the most common motivation for fraud.[19]
A more recent study found that EGMs were the preferred mode for gambling stolen
funds and $13 million in stolen money was lost on EGMs between 2008–2010.
The average loss to fraud where the person was solely addicted to EGMs was
$233,975.[20]
4.18
Other witnesses highlighted the poor level of support and services for
families of problem gamblers. Ms Kate Roberts, Gambling Impact Society (NSW),
described the current situation regarding carers of problem gamblers:
...and my other hat is as the carer program coordinator for
the—Shoalhaven health service. Doing all this work with carers with mental
health issues, chronic health issues and drug and alcohol issues is
acknowledged under the national action plan for carers, which then goes into a
state action plan. Problem gambling does not get a guernsey. If you are in my
program, you get a look-in, and we have actually been funded to develop a
self-help resource for family members. Getting the recognition that this is a
health issue is a huge part of looking at appropriate strategies and not these
bits and pieces in isolation, which I think is what we have been looking at
over 10 years. [21]
4.19
Some suggested that the burden of problem gambling which currently rests
on individuals, is not being shared by industry. Dr Mark Zirnsak, Chair of the
Victorian Interchurch Gambling Taskforce, observed:
A big problem is that currently there is no consequence for
the electronic gaming machine venues that allow customers to lose more than
they can afford. For a bank, overspending on a credit card gives them the
problem of a bad debt, but, for an EGM venue, overspending by gamblers gives
them more profit and all the harm is pushed on to others. Currently, this
results in market failure because the EGM industry does not suffer any of the
costs involved in the harm it causes unless taxes are levied on them, but even
these are not in proportion to the cost involved. Therefore, they have no real
incentive to deal with problem gambling in a serious way except to the extent
that the threat of regulation forces them to do so. This has been confirmed by
the courts which, by and large, have argued that venues have no duty of care
towards people with gambling problems, even when the venue knows that the
person has a gambling problem. Precommitment, therefore, is a significant step
to address the imbalance in law between the EGM industry and its customers.[22]
Denial
4.20
The committee also heard evidence that many problem gamblers remain in
denial about the source of their problems, often for years. Mr Tom Cummings
observed his denial lasted a decade:
For the decade following this time, I was in denial about
what I had been through. I not only stayed away from poker machines; I
pretended they didn’t exist. I didn’t want to know, and I certainly didn’t want
to acknowledge the fact that I was still tempted.[23]
4.21
Evidence was presented that very few problem gamblers actively seek
professional treatment, and often when they do it is only after they have hit
'rock bottom'. Chapter two of this report provides examples of those who have
experienced this. Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro noted:
All of the evidence suggests that people tend to find it very
difficult to seek help at the time when they probably most need it. Evidence
overwhelmingly shows that people will tend to remain in a state of denial or
try to gamble out of their problems over an extended period. They will only
seek help, quite often when they have reached that rock bottom point where they
have lost significant assets or they are about to go to jail or have other
another significant life-changing event occur to them. Only then will they
typically think about seeking help. For pathological gamblers, seeking help is
very difficult. They find it very difficult to bring about behavioural change
on their own.[24]
4.22
This was confirmed by organisations dealing with problem gamblers. Ms
Margie Law from Anglicare Tasmania told the committee:
I think the major problem with the treatment or care of
people with a gambling problem is that they usually leave it to the very last
minute. They are ashamed. They do not want to go for help because they do not
want to admit they have got a problem. By the time they see a counsellor or by
the time they have done self-exclusion, they are often heavily in debt, their
relationships have fallen apart and they have lost their house. They are in
very dire straits at the time they go for counselling. We think precommitment
and a dollar bet limit would help slow that down and hopefully prevent a number
of people actually getting to that point.[25]
Addictive features of EGMs
4.23
The particularly addictive features of high intensity EGMs were noted by
a number of witnesses and are explored in chapter three. However, Dr Jamie
Doughney from Victoria University summarised the view of many gambling
researchers:
It is not for no reason that researchers describe electronic
gaming machines as the ‘crack cocaine of gambling’. The reason is that they
have very similar neurobiological effects. The evidence on that is mounting
considerably...[26]
Support for a public health
approach
4.24
Broadly, a population or public health approach 'considers the entire
population, rather than only ill or high risk individuals'. It emphasises an
orientation towards whole groups rather than individuals and complements
approaches that seek to treat individuals. It tends to involve a 'broad range
of stakeholders' and takes into account socio-economic as well as clinical
factors.[27]
A number of witnesses supported a public health approach to problem gambling:
Secondly, we talk about a public health approach and, again,
the Productivity Commission talked about this approach. This recognises
gambling, along with any other activity, as a continuum of risk from very low
risk at one end to high risk at the other end. We recognise that gambling
policy needs to address the whole continuum. A public health approach also
recognises that the environment in which gambling operates is a really important
part of how behaviours are determined and what sort of public policy is
required.[28]
4.25
Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro described the basic principles behind
a public health approach:
As I mentioned in my submission and in the report from which
it is derived, there are two general public health principles applied in this
context. One is harm minimisation—that is, minimising harm before it occurs.
This is probably more about helping those problem gamblers who are thinking
about change and helping moderate risk gamblers from moving up to being problem
gamblers. In that sense, reducing problem gambling will be about stopping it
before it occurs. Harm reduction, the other commonly used term, probably refers
more to trying to stop those who are already problem gamblers from engaging in
harmful behaviour.[29]
4.26
Some suggested a public health approach should also adopt a broader
population health strategy, involving the whole health sector and consumers:
However, as we have also stated in our submission, we believe
that these strategies need to operate within a new public health model for
gambling. This would require a national framework to be developed to address
the issue similar to those we have already developed for alcohol and tobacco.
On that basis we support the proposed reforms. We hope that this will be the
beginning of structural and organisational reforms to the approach taken with
this issue from a population health perspective. We firmly believe that New
South Wales Department of Health, local health networks, local government and
consumers need to be included in the policy development, planning and
procedural development of appropriate strategies to address gambling harm.[30]
Committee view
4.27
The committee broadly agrees with the Productivity Commission recommended
approach which seeks to minimise harms of high intensity EGMs on the broader
community. The committee believes that those individuals affected more broadly
by problem gambling, including family members and in many cases children do not
currently have a voice. Their needs should be a key consideration in our
deliberations. For these reasons the committee accepts that a strategy which
adopts a public health and consumer protection framework is the most
appropriate.
Recommendation 4
4.28
The committee recommends that in line with the Productivity Commission
recommendations a public health approach to problem gambling be adopted across
jurisdictions with a view to reducing the levels of problem gambling.
Current harm minimisation approaches
Venue-based approaches
4.29
The committee heard evidence from many in the industry that gaming
venues are required to ensure their management and gaming staff undertake
regular training on identifying and helping problem gamblers.[31]
4.30
Most support Responsible Gambling codes of conduct and many are signed
up to programs such as Club Safe.[32]
The committee acknowledges the value of these industry efforts including Gaming
Care in South Australia, which operates as an early intervention agency that
supports venues and their staff to identify and assist problem gamblers.[33]
4.31
However, a number of witnesses raised concerns over the current
arrangements around the adequacy of staff training and support. Witnesses
outlined what they perceived were the conflicts and limitations inherent in the
current system which places a great deal of responsibility on venue staff. Ms
Karpathakis explained her concerns:
I just think that it is hard enough for people who are
working, the staff, to do whatever they have to do and then try and approach
somebody whom they may think has a problem. That, to me, is ridiculous and
hard. If anyone approached me, I would never go back to that venue, so it is
not a good idea. It might have worked for some people; I am sure it has.
However, it is so difficult to be approached and to approach someone.[34]
4.32
To provide opportunities for individuals to approach people, Ms
Karpathakis suggested the following:
I imagine that a couple of people would just go from venue to
venue with ‘Ask Me’ on their T-shirt perhaps—it is just an idea—so that, if
someone is sitting there, they can say, ‘What’s your T-shirt about?’ or, ‘Can I
talk to you?’ That way, the person is approaching someone, instead of someone
approaching the person. The person takes the initiative to talk to someone.[35]
4.33
Ms Gabriela Byrne described two occasions where she witnessed positive
staff interventions:
I remember the day that I won $300. At that stage I was one
of the first generation gamblers where I had to take a piece of paper to the
cashier. We did not have note acceptors. I said, 'Give me $200 and the rest in
coins'. She said, 'Take that money and go.' I looked at her and in that moment
I realised that she knew I had a problem. I took my money and I left. The woman
I talked about who lost the $7,000 was tapped on the shoulder by one of the
venue workers and he said to her, 'Do you realise that it does not matter how
much money you put in here; you will not necessarily get it back on this
machine?' At that moment she realised, first of all, that he knew and that he
had watched her. She had that moment of interruption where she took the last
$200 she had and left. People know.[36]
4.34
However, she outlined a subsequent conversation she had with a staff
member that illustrates the difficulties for staff:
At a later day I spoke to the woman who I developed a
relationship with, who was the cashier in this particular venue. I questioned
her about this incident and she said, 'You know, I could have got into trouble
for what I did.' People are instructed, because they are not qualified, to stay
away from these measures but those people who walk the floor are human beings
and they see human misery. A lot of them have the ability and the desire to
intervene but officially they are not allowed to.[37]
4.35
Another former problem gambler Ms Sue Pinkerton spoke to the committee
about the research she had conducted on staff behaviour:
In the research I did for Paul Delfabbro looking at in-venue
behaviours of staff and problem gamblers, I found that the staff were in the gaming
room observing patrons for maybe ten minutes out of an hour. Are they able to
identify them? Do they have the training? Probably yes. Are they there to watch
them? Is there a risk to their jobs if they actually do identify and approach
those people? From what I have heard staff say, the answer to that is yes. So
they just avoid seeing the problem. I know that in South Australia the turnover
of gaming room staff is extremely high and I suspect—most people say—that the
reason that they leave is because they cannot watch somebody put their rent
money, their mortgage money through the machines again.[38]
4.36
Unfortunately during her gambling addiction not one staff member
approached her:
Nobody, apart from one girlfriend who approached me, has
approached me. The staff are trained, as I understand it, to engage the gambler
in a conversation about their gambling—they might say, ‘I’ve noticed you here
quite a bit recently’—without saying, ‘I think you’ve got a problem.’ They try
and draw the person out as to whether they have a problem. I do not know that
it works. Truly, I do not know. These people are bar staff. They are able to
clean the gaming room. They are able to fix the machines. They manage the
money. They count the till. They are not counsellors. The casino here has
councillors on site that any staff member can call in to approach someone. But
I truly do not know that that would work either. It would just stop me from
going to the casino if I was approached by somebody there. I would be
absolutely mortified that I had been approached, and so I would avoid going
there.[39]
4.37
Ms Pinkerton also provided the committee with the following example:
...I had a 65-year-old lady, who turned up at my doorstep at
nine o’clock in the morning. She had been at the venue from half past seven.
She had a fan of ATM receipts in her hand. She was a blithering mess: ‘I don’t
understand. How could they do this to me?’ She had spent $1,800. We have a $200
ATM withdrawal limit on the machines here, and she had been back to that
machine nine times in that time. There were three other people in the venue;
two of them were staff. In an hour and a half she went back eight or nine times
to that ATM. Didn’t somebody twig that something was going on? They did not
look.[40]
4.38
Mr Stephen Menadue pointed out that if a patron consumes too much
alcohol then it is obvious and there is a requirement to act. However, a
problem gambler in most cases is not disturbing anyone and this makes it more
difficult for staff to approach.[41]
He added that a pre-commitment system would 'take the responsibility for the
staff and put it into a definable electronic form.'[42]
4.39
Ms Margie Law, Anglicare Tasmania described similar examples from the
research undertaken by Anglicare:
In the House of Cards report we did, the people we
interviewed were all in counselling with Anglicare or Relationships Australia.
A number of them said, ‘The venue staff knew I had a problem.’ When I’d come in
they’d say, “Hey, the jackpot’s going to go today.” They knew I had a problem
but they are there to make money for the venue, not to look after me.’ People
with a gambling problem do not cause a problem for the venue; whereas, people
with an alcohol problem do cause a problem for the venue—it is in the venue’s
best interests to get them out of the venue. A person with a gambling problem
is spending money and not causing problems through violence or abuse but just
sitting quietly at their poker machine.[43]
4.40
During this inquiry, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation
released the results of a venue staff survey on the industry's efforts in
implementing the Responsible Gambling Codes of Conduct (Codes) and
self-exclusion programs (SEP). One of its key findings was that staff would
like to learn more practical skills to identify and interact with potential
problem gamblers or gamblers who were showing signs of distress. Other relevant
findings include:
-
69 per cent of gaming industry employees have been provided staff
training on their Code while 65 per cent have been provided staff training on
their SEP;
-
42 per cent of employees said it is easy or very easy to identify
self-excluded person, while 21 per cent found it difficult or very difficult;
-
only 43 per cent of employees were satisfied with the level of
training and help received for their Code overall, while only 44 per cent were
satisfied with the level of training as assistance for their SEP;
-
36 per cent of employees were having some difficulty in
identifying problem gamblers;
-
21 per cent felt less than comfortable in responding to a patron
request for help with gambling compared to 66 per cent who were less than
comfortable when required to initiate this contact with patrons;
-
48 per cent of managers were less than comfortable in approaching
patrons displaying indicators of a gambling problem.[44]
4.41
Associate Professor Linda Hancock from Deakin University advised the
committee about the study she conducted on employees of Crown Casino in
Melbourne. Based on this research she concluded that the current codes are not
working:
At the moment the codes do not work. The paper that you have
in my additional submission is a detailed study, based on interviews with 225
Crown Casino employees, about the implementation of the Crown code of conduct
based on nine signs of problem gambling. It leads to a very benign,
non-interventionist venue stance and basically a breakdown in operator and
regulator enforcement, hence the need and the opportunity for non-vested
interests, like the Commonwealth, to step in with a national code of conduct
that will also look at the venue angle when you have people in venues playing
cards, playing table games or playing machines who are manifesting the well-known
signs of problem gambling. [45]
4.42
Associate Professor Hancock elaborated on the findings:
The problem in the Crown study was that the
upward-report-to-supervisor system does not work because it is not enforced.
No-one checks it. There are no checklists of who has been referred on and what
happened. Many of the workers were saying, ‘What is the use of referring it on
to the supervisor when nothing happens?’ Also, you have a situation where very
rational corporate interests are oriented to profit maximisation. This is in
direct conflict with consumer and public protection.[46]
4.43
The committee was advised that Crown Casino rejected the findings of
this report. Mr Chris Downy, Executive Director of the Australasian Casino
Association explained:
Crown has a track record in terms of its commitment to
responsible gambling. Crown Melbourne was the first casino anywhere in the
world to set up a customer support centre with its own psychologist and its own
staff. Burswood is following the same process.[47]
4.44
He elaborated on their training commitment:
Crown is a major employer of young people entering the
workforce. It just opened a $10-million, purpose-built training facility to
ensure that its staff are trained to standards that would be expected at a
premium resort such as Crown. It has received awards from the Australian
government and other organisations because of its training programs and the
like.[48]
4.45
Ms Penny Wilson of the Responsible Gambling Advocacy Centre agreed there
were times where staff were failing to meet the requirements under the code of
conduct, but that this was not confined to the casino:
It is a situation that I have heard about in other venues as well where particularly casual staff—either because they do not feel empowered to make representations in the correct manner or because they do not understand what is required or because their duty managers at the time do not understand what is required—fail to act in the manner that is required by the codes of conduct. It is a common theme that I hear across the industry. That shows the need for continual education and monitoring of those training systems and follow up with the staff on the floor. It is not unique to the casino.[49]
4.46
It was also pointed out that the training venue staff had received was
not always the most suitable. Ms Kate Roberts, Gambling Impact Society (NSW),
described an instance where staff were trained, but not in the correct
strategy:
My colleagues at the Nowra Community Health Centre and I
conducted some training with some gaming staff when we were still in existence.
Basically, the staff felt that they had gained more awareness from our kind of
training—and they had all been through the compulsory responsible gambling
training. A good example was that if someone had breached their self-exclusion,
staff had been encouraged, in the culture they existed in, to shame that person
into not being there again. Once the staff realised that the gambler was
already dealing with a magnitude of shame—that is, in fact, partly why the
person is gambling and the cycle of gambling contributes to that—the penny
started to drop that maybe such shaming was not the best strategy for
proactively supporting someone who was breaching their exclusion. So I think
that kind of support and training could go into staff.[50]
4.47
The genuine efforts of venue staff were however, recognised by some
witnesses:
We place venue staff in a difficult position sometimes and
they do a reasonable job under those circumstances. I think that is why those
programs are really important, and it is really important that they are done in
partnership with the gambling industry and our industry.[51]
4.48
It was also suggested that staff would require training in any new
pre-commitment scheme.[52]
Self exclusion
4.49
A number of witnesses cited problems with current self-exclusion
arrangements:
Another study that we commissioned that Michael O’Neil
conducted was showing the absolutely fraught nature of photo ID systems that
are currently in place to try to help people who have self-excluded. The Nova
Scotian follow-up to that, which used actors posing as excluded people where
there were photos in venues, found that even when the venues knew that this
experiment was going on they did not pick them up. A national barring system
would immeasurably help people because they would know that wherever they went
they would be protected from their vulnerability.[53]
4.50
Ms Margie Law, Anglicare Tasmania, explained how problem gamblers try to
circumvent self-exclusion:
I know people who are desperate to go in to gamble will dress
differently or they will go further away where they think people are not going
to look at their photograph. As a venue operator it must be very difficult to
keep on top of all the people that are self-excluded from your venue.[54]
4.51
Mr Mathew Rowell, Chief Executive Officer, Relationships Australia,
Tasmania, noted the difficulties for venue staff:
Since self-exclusion is hard to monitor and enforce, venue
staff do a really good job under really difficult circumstances, I reckon.
Certainly our clients would say self-exclusion is one of the motivating factors
for them, but then it is really quite easy in lots of venues to slip in the
back door or change your appearance, and where there has been staff turnover
people are often unable to keep on top of those things...[55]
4.52
Mr Stephen Menadue told the committee of the barriers to getting himself
excluded from venues:
I have since been on the self-exclusion program in Tasmania,
but that did not stop me. I was pulled up once at Bellerive Tote because they
recognised my picture. I was picked up once at the Queens' Head tavern because
they recognised my picture, But apart from that, at least at a dozen other
poker machine venues I have never been picked up as being on that
self-exclusion list. In fact, a few weeks ago I went down to my local tote to
tell them that I did no want to be served anymore, because it is an easy avenue
for me to go down. With my gambling, I will not travel. I figured that, it I go
and cut my local source off at the tote, I would be right. So I went down there
and told that that I was on the self-exclusion list and asked them where they
could refuse to service me. They had a look through their book and it appears I
was not even in their book, even though I had started this program four years
ago. To me that is showing up a fault in that system.[56]
Committee view
4.53
The committee appreciates that many venues hold genuine concerns over
the welfare of problem gamblers and recognises that genuine efforts are made by
venue staff to assist problem gamblers. The engagement of venues in certified
training programs such as Club Safe, are a testament to that. However, the
committee is also concerned that the commercial interests of venues do not
always align with their responsibilities for gambler welfare. The committee
accepts the evidence that staff training can be improved and that staff will
need additional training in pre-commitment.
Recommendation 5
4.54
The committee recommends that an independent review of training programs
be undertaken to assess whether these are effectively equipping staff with
adequate training to apply problem gambling interventions.
Recommendation 6
4.55
The committee recommends that industry codes of conduct should include
effective protection for venue staff who highlight shortcomings with training.
Recommendation 7
4.56
The committee recommends that venue staff receive appropriate training
in assisting patrons with pre-commitment.
Conclusion
4.57
The committee accepts that the harms of high intensity EGMs affect a
broader spectrum than just problem gamblers, and includes those who are at
risk, the families of gamblers and the wider community. Vulnerable groups are
at particular risk from harm. The committee acknowledges that many problem
gamblers do not access treatment, even where it is available and that
consequently the harms of their gambling can persist. It also accepts that the
greatest burden of harm is often borne by the most vulnerable.
4.58
The committee accepts the evidence showing that, despite good
intentions, there are flaws with current venue-based harm minimisation
arrangements, particularly those that rely on self-exclusion or on individuals
to attempt intervention.
4.59
As Mr Mathew Rowell, Chief Executive Officer, Relationships Australia,
Tasmania, commented:
In summary, we support the introduction of a mandatory
precommitment scheme as one of the ways that harm can be minimised or mitigated
for people who are problem gamblers, but it is also for the people around
them—their kids, their families, their partners and their workplaces...[57]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|