|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 6
How effective are industry measures?
6.1
A public health approach encourages the involvement of industry as it is
seen as having a responsibility to protect its patrons from the harmful
consequences of problem gambling.[1]
6.2
As indicated in earlier chapters, the committee heard of the need for
more balance regarding the causes of problem gambling. This would involve the current
emphasis on the need for the individual to act responsibly, but also include
the role and influence of the industry and gambling products on those who are
more vulnerable. The committee acknowledges that clubs, hotels and casinos do
undertake a number of measures to assist problem gamblers. These include staff
training to identify problem gamblers and self-exclusion. However, the
committee heard of the real limitations of these measures[2]
and their focus on gamblers who have already developed a problem.
Lack of industry engagement in the inquiry
6.3
The committee received submissions from Clubs Australia, the Australian
Hotels Association (AHA) and the Australasian Casino Association (ACA). With
the current emphasis from Clubs Australia on being 'part of the solution'[3]
to address problem gambling, the committee was surprised and disappointed that
they refused to attend a public hearing despite measures such as self-exclusion
and staff training clearly falling within the committee's terms of reference. The
committee was keen to discuss these measures with industry, beyond information
provided in their submissions, so they could respond to the evidence from
witnesses and to discuss what improvements might be possible. Unfortunately Clubs
Australia and the AHA declined two requests to appear before the committee while
the ACA suggested a site visit to Crown Casino to their Customer Support Centre
to speak to their General Manager, Responsible Gaming and their Responsible
Gaming Psychologist. The committee notes that unlike a public hearing any such informal
discussions would not have been on the public record and available to others.
Committee comment
6.4
The committee expressed its disappointment to each of these
organisations for their refusal and/or reluctance to engage in a meaningful way
with the inquiry, by discussion at public hearings. It would have provided
industry with the opportunity to respond to the evidence received by the
committee from witnesses, particularly in relation to staff training and
self-exclusion. Therefore the committee can only outline the evidence received
and is unable to include complete responses from industry obtained through
discussion at a hearing. Given the emphasis, particularly by Clubs Australia,
on helping problem gamblers the committee finds industry reluctance to further
participate and discuss these areas in detail with the committee puzzling and worrying.
6.5
In order to provide the industry with an opportunity to respond to some
of the evidence, the committee asked whether they would be willing to answer
written questions on notice. They agreed to do so and a number of questions on
notice outlining the evidence received were forwarded. A response was received
from Clubs Australia in the timeframe requested. The Australian Hotels
Association and the Australasian Casino Association requested additional time. The
answers have been made available on the committee website.[4]
Greater attention on the dangers of the product
6.6
Witnesses argued that along with individuals taking responsibility, there
needs to be greater responsibility taken by industry for the dangers of
gambling products. The Productivity Commission (PC) recognised that some forms
of gambling are riskier than others. It was very clear in recognising that electronic
gaming machines (EGMs) are the riskiest form of gambling with the likelihood of
harm rising steeply and continuously with the frequency of EGM gambling and
expenditure levels.[5]
The committee's first report covered this aspect in detail.[6]
During that inquiry, Mr Alan Moss, Independent Gambling Authority (IGA) SA,
told the committee that the IGA recognised the danger of EGMs for some people:
We believe that electronic gaming machines are potentially
dangerous products. In the hands of a large section of the population they do
not cause any trouble, but there certainly is a cohort of EGM users who cannot
handle the machines in a way which does not cause them harm. As with any
potentially dangerous product, the authority believes it makes ethical and
governmental sense to introduce some measures of regulation. We do it for cars,
we do it for guns, we do it for food—anywhere there is potential for some harm,
government generally sees it as being appropriate to regulate.[7]
6.7
During this inquiry the risk associated with regular use of EGMs was
also highlighted. St Luke's Anglicare pointed out that in relation to poker
machines:
Research about pokie design has uncovered how unsafe EGMs
are, particularly for problem gamblers. Overseas initiatives in Scandinavia
have seen EGMs redesigned to improve their safety. This includes eliminating "false"
reward signals such as sounds and flashing lights that imply success, when in
fact the gambler is losing. Free spins also induce gamblers to keep gambling.
The recent cigarette packaging laws have set a precedent which demonstrates
that government do have the ability and authority to make products safer for
users. Other redesign suggestions include returning to coin only machines to
reduce the ease of feeding large amounts of cash into EGMs.[8]
6.8
Dr Samantha Thomas, a public health sociologist from Monash University, emphasised
the need for industry to take equal responsibility for the potential harms of
their product:
At the most basic level there is nothing wrong with asking
people to take responsibility for engaging with a product. However, some
individuals may be more able to take ‘responsibility’ than others. Furthermore,
it is important that industry takes equal responsibility for the potential
‘harms’ that their product may cause – particularly with vulnerable groups of individuals
or communities.[9]
6.9
This was supported by Mr Tom Cummings, former poker machine addict and gambling
reform advocate, who stated that 'responsibility has to work in every
direction' including the individual. A greater onus of responsibility should be
placed on the industry that offers these gambling products:
They [industry] are offering this product and providing it
for people to use, so they need to have a responsibility to do so ethically and
with a minimum of harm. I think there is also a legislative responsibility.
Industry will do what they can within the rules that apply. So it is almost a
three way street, though I hate to say it that way. It is certainly something
that needs to be looked at by all corners.[10]
Dynamic messages
6.10
During the inquiry the work on dynamic messaging on poker machines was
raised by the industry as a harm minimisation measure. Mr Ross Ferrar, Chief
Executive Officer, Gaming Technologies Association Ltd (GTA), explained how
these messages could provide effective information to players and put forward GTA's
view on how best to deliver them:
In our view, a strict set of requirements must be present for
messages to provide any meaningful information to poker machine players. Such
messages must be delivered in the right place at the right time and must
contain information that is relevant to the player. The right place is on the
'game play' screen and not on some display device located away from the
player's direct line of sight. The right time is between reel spins, not on an
ad hoc basis determined by factors outside the player's frame of reference. The
right information is about the player's current activity; it is not about
patronising phrases. Without these preconditions efforts to provide effective
responsible gambling messages will, in our opinion, fail.[11]
6.11
The committee asked whether there was any evidence to back up the GTA
view about when a player would be most receptive to such messages and Mr Ferrar
replied:
To us that is self-evident. While the reel spin is occurring
the player is preoccupied, the player is waiting for the outcome of the reel
spins. Then the player is looking at if they have won and what they have won.
Then there is a pause while they make their decision to play again. So to us
the optimum time to deliver a message is in that pause. The reverse side of
that coin is to us we do not see much point in delivering messages while the
player is preoccupied with the reel spin, hence our statement.[12]
6.12
Mr Cummings was asked if he thought messages on the screen about current
play, amount lost or suggesting a break would have an effect. Mr Cummings
responded that it may make a small difference for some but when he was playing,
if a message suggesting a break would have come up, he would have just
continued playing.[13]
6.13
Ms Julia Karpathakis, Manager, Pokies Anonymous, was of the view that messages
on the machines need to be of sufficient intensity to provide a reality check
for people playing. She suggested alternative pop-up messages and pictures to
have on the screen including 'Do you have food?' or 'Do you have enough
petrol?' or 'Did you pay the mortgage?' or 'Are your bills due?' or 'Reach out
for help' or 'Is the rent due?' or 'Have you picked up your children?' She
explained to the committee that such messages would have helped 'snap her out
of it' and provided a reality check:
That would be a much quicker wake-up call than anything, I
believe. It would not be shunned. I would not have felt so awful, so guilty and
ashamed about what I was doing. I may have gone for help more quickly if it was
seen as a normal problem, say, like going to the doctor if you have an earache.[14]
6.14
The committee notes that electronic warning messages and cost of play
displays are part of the government package of gambling reforms.[15]
Player activity statements
6.15
Player activity statements show the customer's spending and are linked
to loyalty programs.[16]
Players can request to see them but only a small proportion of people do so.[17]
The Australian Hotels Association (AHA) advised that loyalty programs in
Victoria must provide annual player activity statements and in NSW they must be
provided on request.[18]
The Australasian Gaming Council advised that the Tasmanian Responsible Gambling
Mandatory Code of Practice includes a requirement for the provision of Player
Activity Statements to loyalty program members at least once a year.[19]
6.16
The Australasian Casino Association advised that at Crown Casino:
Play Safe for gaming machines is only available to Crown
Signature Club members who have agreed to receive and have viewed their Player
Activity Statements within a 12 month period, who have a PIN and who are not
excluded from the Casino for any reason.[20]
At least once a year, Player Activity Statements are made available
to EGM Crown Signature Club members. Members who play FATGs [Fully Automated
Table Games] are able to collect a Player Activity Statement on request, at any
Crown Signature Club desk. Player Activity Statements provide information on each
member’s EGM or FATG play, including all wins and losses for the period of the
statement. Crown’s responsible gambling message ‘Stay in Control’, as well as
information regarding the availability of the Code, is incorporated in and
forms part of Player Activity Statements.[21]
6.17
Mr Daniel Symond, Operations Manager, Betsafe, thought providing player
activity statements on a regular basis could be useful 'because one thing that
problem gamblers are good at is forgetting about the losses and remembering the
winnings'.[22]
6.18
Ms Rhian Jones, Member, Gambling Impact Society NSW, said she was not
aware of these records until they were released to her ex-husband but they
clearly showed her escalating gambling:
...you asked before what can be done by the venues. I was not
aware that there were player tracking records until they were released as a
breach of privacy to my ex-husband during our divorce case. It was blatantly
obvious from the records that there was a lead-up to a massive addiction. When
you are an addict—addiction is extremely secretive—you tend to hide the
addiction not just from your family members but from yourself as well. It was
obvious to me that the only people who had records were the actual venue. They
were the only people who were aware of what was going on.[23]
6.19
The committee notes that the Productivity Commission (PC) also found
that gamblers have difficulty remembering losses and that the data from the
Australian Household Expenditure Survey shows that people significantly
underestimate their gambling spending. The PC pointed out that this is relevant
for policies such as the provision of player activity statements and player
information displays.[24]
Committee view
6.20
The committee agrees that industry has a part to play in taking
responsibility for the potential harms of its product, in this case poker
machines, but this applies equally to online gambling.
6.21
The committee notes that features of poker machines are regulated by
each state. For example when more immersive poker machines with earphones,
which already exist in NSW, were planned for Victoria, the Victorian Minister
for Gaming introduced an interim ban order prohibiting the use of the earphones
for 12 months while the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation
investigated whether it should be banned for up to 10 years.[25]
The committee points to continuing research by the states into harm
minimisation measures such as dynamic messaging on poker machines to achieve
the best balance of evidence-based harm minimisation measures for vulnerable
people, which do not adversely affect the playing experience for the majority
of recreational players. The committee notes some research has been undertaken into
dynamic messaging.[26]
However, it agrees that messages on a poker machine need to be sufficiently
strong to penetrate the trance-like state that some people experience while
playing.
6.22
The committee notes that player activity statements could be a useful
reminder to people of how much they have spent but would need to be provided on
a much more regular basis than annually. The committee notes that the
availability of player activity statements could be part of a range of harm
minimisation measures for online gamblers as well.[27]
6.23
The Chair, Senator Xenophon and participating Senators Di Natale and
Madigan have provided additional comments in relation to dangers of gambling
products and the role of the industry, which follow the committee report.
Staff training and intervention
Staff intervention in theory
6.24
Staff in venues are required to undergo 'responsible gambling training'.
As noted by Clubs Australia:
A feature of the majority of current training courses is to
provide venue staff with a range of commonly agreed indicators of problem
gambling, to help them identify potentially problematic player behaviours.[28]
6.25
Clubs Australia added that:
Staff interventions typically involve approaching patrons
displaying the signs of problematic gambling and starting a respectful
conversation to enquire about the patron’s welfare and where necessary,
offering them assistance such as self-exclusions or referral to appropriate
help services. Staff interventions create an additional level of safety that is
unique to land-based gaming operators and is lacking in the online environment.[29]
6.26
Delfabbro et al noted that a current national competency standard exists
to provide guidance concerning the appropriate content of staff training
courses. However, the content is very much governed by the regulatory environment
prevailing in each state or territory.[30]
Organisations assisting industry
6.27
Clubs are assisted in staff intervention by organisations such as BetSafe.
BetSafe's members are predominantly larger NSW registered clubs:
BetSafe Pty Ltd provides an independent, comprehensive and
integrated responsible gambling program for a group of leading NSW and ACT
gaming machine venues as well as consultancy services and seeks to provide the
highest standards in staff training, problem gambling counselling,
self-exclusion and all other aspects of its program. BetSafe programs cover
approximately one-tenth of the gaming machines in these jurisdictions.[31]
6.28
Clubs Australia has its own program called ClubSAFE[32]
although this was not mentioned in the Clubs Australia submission. The
committee understands that ClubSAFE is run by ClubsNSW while BetSafe is a
private operation. They offer similar services to help venues comply with
legislative responsible gaming requirements but at different prices and each
has different options for venues of different size. ClubSAFE only operates in
clubs but BetSafe offers its services in clubs and hotels. In answers to
questions on notice, Clubs Australia reported that ClubSAFE has provided a
comprehensive service to more than 1,100 NSW clubs since 1999. In addition it
has introduced more recently ClubSAFE Premium services which offer larger club
groups a greater level of service, training and compliance support.[33]
6.29
The committee understands that in Victoria there is a program called the
Venue Support Program which provides training and support in responsible
gambling practices and environments for gaming venue staff and management.[34]
6.30
The Australasian Casino Association reported that The Star Casino in
Sydney uses the services of BetCare which has been appointed to 'provide
gambling counselling and assistance for customers who identify with problem
gambling behaviours'.[35]
Identifying problem gamblers is
possible
6.31
The committee is aware of research which lists clear indicators of
problem gambling. Staff and counsellors interviewed agreed with the vast
majority of indicators identified by the researchers.[36]
The most salient indicators of problem gambling in venues included: strong
emotional responses to losing such as people who became angry, depressed or
violent towards the machines, rudeness to staff, complaints about losing,
sweating a lot while gambling, trying to keep gambling at closing time and
gambling for long periods. In addition, changes in expenditure patterns, mood
states, and personal appearance such as trying to disguise their presence were
also considered to be important indicators of gambling problems.[37]
6.32
However, the research also found that the most significant barrier to
identifying problem gamblers was lack of staff training addressing direct
interventions with gamblers:
The most significant barrier to identifying problem gamblers
was not staff turnover, the length of shifts, or even the size of venues, but
the lack of staff training relating to direct interventions with gamblers on
the gaming floor. Most staff did not feel confident about how patrons would respond
if they were approached. For this reason, there was strong support for the
introduction of further training to assist this process.[38]
6.33
The report made the following suggestions to enhance the ability of
staff to identify and assist patrons experiencing gambling problems:
Staff should be given more extensive training into the nature
of gambling and the range of visible behaviour that might be observed. The
findings in this study could be usefully included in this training.
Staff require greater specific training relating to
interactions with staff, e.g., how to approach gamblers, anger management,
conflict resolution and counselling.
Expenditure and machine usage data might be more effectively
tracked within venues so as to obtain objective information concerning player
expenditure and time on machines.[39]
6.34
This research was highlighted by Mr Mark Henley, Member, Australian
Churches Gambling Taskforce:
Can I just make one more point on this issue to highlight
some research done by Professor Paul Delfabbro in Adelaide. He looked at the
question of whether there are observable signs in a venue on any particular day
that would suggest that a person may have a gambling problem. If we go back
five years the industry was saying, 'There are some pretty good physical indicators
that a person has had too much to drink but with gambling it is impossible to
tell.' But Paul Delfabbro has identified combinations of observable behaviours:
sweating, abusiveness, going to ATMs frequently, kicking machines. There is a
whole range of observable behaviours on a gambling floor at any time which give
clear indications of a high likelihood of gambling harm. That research has
shown very clearly that there are observable signs that gambling staff can be
looking out for. So that argument, 'We can't tell who's got a gambling
problem,' really does not stack up any more because of that very sound research
that has been undertaken by Paul Delfabbro.[40]
6.35
In answers to questions on notice the Australasian Casino Association
(ACA) referred to the research undertaken by Professor Paul Delfabbro on the
identification of problem gamblers. The ACA said its members were aware of the
research 'and in many cases it has been used to develop many of the processes,
resources and staff training programs related to identification of problem
gambling behaviours'.[41]
In answers to questions on notice, the Australian Hotels Association also
reported that this research forms part of training packages.[42]
The reality as told to the
committee
6.36
The committee heard from a number of witnesses who have experienced
gambling problems during this and previous inquiries. They told the committee that
although they gambled for considerable periods of time at the same venues,
sometimes over a number of years, no staff member ever approached them to
discuss whether they had a problem and needed to seek help. Ms Julia
Karpathakis, Manager, Pokies Anonymous, told the committee that she played
poker machines for 10 years and during this time she was not approached by any
staff:
I never got tapped on the shoulder. In fact, I was
encouraged: my machine had not gone off and it could go off. I was basically
encouraged to play on the machine that had not gone off...[43]
6.37
Ms Karpathakis said she used to go back and forth to the ATM and changed
the money into coins with a person behind the counter until she had nothing.
She recalled that once she spoke to a staff member to express that she was
worried and they gave her a card with a gambling helpline number which she
never used.[44]
6.38
Miss Shonica Guy, Volunteer Coordinator, Pokies Anonymous, spoke about
her more recent experience. Miss Guy said that she could spend up to 10 hours
in a session and was known as a regular at a few hotels: the New York Bar and
Grill, the Flagstaff Hotel and the Tonsley Hotel. She told the committee that
no staff member ever approached her as indicated in the following exchange:
Senator XENOPHON: Did anyone ever come up to you when you
were playing?
Miss Guy: No.
Senator XENOPHON: Did you ever say anything to anyone as you
were changing money?
Miss Guy: No.
Senator XENOPHON: So you never indicated anything to anyone
that you were having problems?
Miss Guy: No.
Senator XENOPHON: But you were there for a prolonged period?
Miss Guy: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: Did you notice other regulars there while
you were there?
Miss Guy: Yes, usually the same people were there. I used to
play, although I do not actually know what it is called now, this particular
machine and there would be about another four people that would want to play
that. There were only three machines, so it was who could get to them first
sort of thing. There were at least four regulars that I knew just for the
machine that I liked. But the same people were there every time and they would say,
'How are you going?' or 'I just got here' or 'How long have you been here for?'
There was no conversation but we knew that we were always there.
Senator XENOPHON: Can I ask for any obvious tell-tale signs.
Did you ever get upset when you were playing? Did you ever say anything to
anybody while you were losing a lot of money?
Miss Guy: I remember once really early on, probably over 10
or more years ago or 12 years ago, getting free games and this older lady next
to me said, 'Oh, free games,' and I said, 'Yeah, I'm not getting too excited
yet because it probably won't give me anything.' Then I said, 'I shouldn't even
be here anyway because I have got a bit of a problem,' and she goes, 'Oh no,
dear!' She was horrified.
Senator XENOPHON: Was it one of the staff?
Miss Guy: No, this was just a lady sitting next to me. She
said, 'Oh no, dear, because I wouldn't want that to happen to you. I am an old
lady and I've already had my life and I'm established. I wouldn't want that to
happen to you.' After the free games finished I felt so bad that I just cashed
the money and left. I did not want to sit there anymore.[45]
6.39
In answers to questions on notice, the Australian Hotels Association
responded:
Without knowing the time frame of when these events occurred
it is difficult to respond specifically. However SA Code of Practice
requirements have changed significantly. Obligations to develop internal
reporting processes, management reviews. The Introduction of Gaming Care whose
role is to assist venues with compliance, and establishing relationships with
local Gambling Help Services. Venue visits with Gambling Help Services together
with enhanced training of senior staff have all been implemented to enhance
early intervention with problematic gambling behaviour.[46]
6.40
Miss Guy described the environment at the venues:
There is usually only one staff member. There used to be more
when there was smoking. They are serving and trying to do their thing. They are
not watching what is going on. One person cannot do all that.[47]
6.41
She and Ms Karpathakis then said that they believe the staff know who
has a problem:
Miss Guy: I think they know but—
Ms Karpathakis: Of course they know.
Miss Guy: But it is like here. Looking out here we know
exactly who is here. Everyone in there is hooked, as far as I am concerned. You
can see it. They are like zombies. The 40 per cent or whatever of people who
have got problems with pokies, I think, is an underestimate, because any time I
have been in venues everyone in there is hooked, basically. There are no people
coming in there just for two seconds or for $5 and leaving that I have ever
seen. Usually, everyone is there and they are there for a long time, along with
me.[48]
6.42
Mr Tom Cummings spoke about this issue to the committee:
I think I mentioned in my submission the staff in gambling
venues. I still pop into gambling venues regularly as part of what I write
about to have a look around. I have yet to see one staff member approach a
player and say, 'I think there's an issue,' or 'I think you might be gambling a
bit too much; maybe you ought to take a break.' I have yet to see it happen.[49]
6.43
In response to the committee, Mr Cummings emphasised that he is not
aware of anyone who has ever been approached by a staff member about their
gambling:
Senator DI NATALE: You mentioned in your submission that you
had never been approached by a staff member. In your experience in this area,
do you know of any other people who have been approached by staff members
because their gambling is getting out of control? If so, has that intervention
had any impact on their gambling?
Mr Cummings: I cannot answer the second question, because
the answer to the first question is no. I do not know anyone, and I have spoken
to a number of poker machine addicts in the last couple of years through my
blog. I do not know of anyone who has ever been approached by a staff member.[50]
6.44
Mr Ralph Bristow, Gambling Impact Society NSW, told the committee about
his experience:
I have attended most clubs in New South Wales because I used
to work out in the country. I lived in Sydney—I was born here. I have lived in
Wollongong and Lane Cove and there were clubs I frequented quite regularly when
I was home. Not once in 30 or so years would anyone have approached me as to my
gambling problem. It would have been obvious from the number of times I went up
to get change in those days but not once did I see an employee [approach]
anyone as to their gambling problem.[51]
6.45
Major Brad Halse, Member, Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce, also
spoke on this point:
That is a comment that our social workers and our counsellors
hear so often. It is often brought up in these types of venues. For all the
commentary from the industry about trying to assist a potential problem gambler
we never hear of people who were approached for whatever reason—the amount of
time they are spending or when there are obvious signs of distress and
concern—so even at the most basic level this duty of care seems to be
overlooked or disregarded. It is a very serious issue.[52]
6.46
Ms Abigail Kazal, Senior Clinical Psychologist and Program Manager,
Gambling Treatment Program, St Vincent's Hospital, told the committee that she
may have had one client who indicated that they had been approached by the
staff in a venue. Dr Katy O'Neill, Clinical Psychologist, Gambling Treatment
Program, St Vincent's Hospital, was not sure that she had anyone referred that
way.[53]
6.47
The committee notes that recently the media reported an Adelaide woman
was jailed for six years for stealing more than $800,000 from two employers to
feed her poker machine addiction. While accepting responsibility for her
actions the woman questions 'why the venues where she gambled away the cash
over seven years had never once approached her to ask if she had a problem'.[54]
What could staff intervention
achieve?
6.48
Former problem gamblers highlighted that an approach from staff would
have made them stop and think. In the following exchange, Ms Rhian Jones, Member,
Gambling Impact Society NSW, told the committee that if someone had approached
her she believed it would have been sufficient to take action:
Ms Jones:...If somebody had come up to me and said, 'I think
you have a problem', that would have been enough for me.
Ms BRODTMANN: That would have been from the staff in the
venue.
Ms Jones: Yes.
Ms BRODTMANN: Would there be anyone from the floor, the
person selling drinks?
Ms Jones: It is quite funny because everybody knew.
Everybody had access to the records so yes, but I would have preferred somebody
who had some experience. I would have liked somebody who had some training and
would have been able to come up to me and say, 'Excuse me but I think you might
have a problem,' not somebody who serves drinks.
Ms BRODTMANN: What would your response have been at that
stage?
Ms Jones: As I said, it is an extremely secretive problem.
If somebody had told me that they knew then it would have been enough to stop
me.[55]
6.49
Ms Jones added:
Ms Jones:...Staff training and recognition of that problem
would have been fantastic, and early intervention would have been brilliant. If
somebody could have mentioned to me that I was an addict or that I was becoming
an addict or that other people were aware of it, it would have helped me
enormously, and I am sure it would help others as well. So early intervention
and—
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Symond from BetSafe gave evidence
earlier today and the tenor of his evidence was that that would not work. That
can actually delay a recovery by years. You do not agree with that?
Ms Jones: Absolutely not. It would have taken one person to
mention it to me.
Senator XENOPHON: It could have jolted you into action?
Ms Jones: Absolutely.[56]
The difficulties with staff
training
6.50
The committee was told at this and previous inquiries about a number of
shortcomings with staff intervention which included: conflict of interest,
casual workforce and the reluctance of younger staff to approach patrons
displaying aggressive behaviours. Mr David Pigott, National Manager, Government
Relations, Mission Australia, spoke about the conflict of interest for staff:
...There is inherently a potential conflict of interest with
staff within venues having that role, but our early experience in the ACT is
that those roles have been quite effective. As far as training goes, yes, I
think there can always be more training, and I think it is a very useful
expenditure of funds to do that. I am not an expert in the sort of training
required, but I am not convinced national accreditation and those sorts of
things are the way to go. Part of our concern relates to even our own staff
having adequate backup and counselling support behind them to deal with these
difficult issues.[57]
6.51
This conflict was recognised by Professor Alex Blaszczynski:
The difficulty basically is that in my view they are not as
proactive as they could be in identifying and responding to problem gamblers,
because they are in a conflict position where their profits are derived from
gambling. A proportion of their revenue is derived from problem gambling, and
therefore they are in a conflict situation...[58]
6.52
Ms Amanda Jones, Member, Public Interest Advisory Group, Australian
Psychological Society, spoke about the difficult position staff are put in:
I suppose that on principle, consistent with our opening
statements, I would take the position that an on-the-floor venue responsible
gambling approach in and of itself is woefully insufficient and problematic in
many ways, not least the fact that a venue has a vested interest and it puts
its staff in a pretty invidious position to be performing that kind of role.[59]
6.53
The committee also heard that the makeup of the venue workforce also has
an effect:
Mr FRYDENBERG: But you also say that a lot of the staff are
university students and, therefore, it might be too much to expect them to have
the self-confidence to approach someone.
Mr Cummings: Absolutely.
Mr FRYDENBERG: So how do we get over that?
Mr Cummings: I wish I knew. I have spoken to a number of
Gambler's Help counsellors in the last couple of years, and very clearly the
message coming to me from them was, through my writing, 'Please do not give
people advice on how to stop gambling or what to do.' And I fully agree with
that. I am not qualified. I do not have the years of experience or the training
to counsel someone. I fail to see how a university student with an RSG could
provide the same sort of service, even as an intervention measure, to someone
that they suspect may have an issue with their gambling. It might be that
having some sort of counselling service available in-venue might be an option,
but we have a lot of venues and that is an awful lot of people.[60]
6.54
Professor Linda Hancock spoke with staff from Crown Casino where they
reported it being easy to identify problem gamblers, but floor staff are
instructed not to intervene themselves and to refer such cases to a
supervisor/manager. Despite the instruction, staff reported being too scared to
intervene anyway because of uncertainty about how patrons would respond,
lacking the skills to intervene or being scared of losing their job if they were
seen to intervene. Almost 18 per cent of staff reported that they felt under
pressure by management to keep people gambling.[61]
6.55
In answers to question on notice the Australasian Casino Association
reported that 'Casinos train their staff to report observable signs that may
indicate problem gambling behaviours'. It also advised that 'many casinos
operate an independent (third party operated) "whistle-blower"
service to take and handle any staff or supplier complaint or concern (which
may be made anonymously) in relation to matters including but not limited to,
any issues of integrity, including harm minimisation matters. Casino operators
regularly conduct awareness programs about the service'.[62]
6.56
Showing the fraught nature of such staff/patron interaction, Mr Paul
Symond, General Manager, BetSafe expressed the view that in his experience
tapping people on the shoulder if they think they are displaying problematic
behaviour forces people into therapy, which is then not very helpful:
Mr Symond: I will give you a 'for instance': in South
Australia and the ACT they have to go up and tap someone on the shoulder if
they think they are displaying behaviour that looks like they may have a
problem. I have got some issue with that, because my experience has been that when
you force someone into therapy I think it could probably knock them back five
to 10 years therapeutically.
Senator XENOPHON: How do you say that, though?
Mr Symond: It is just my gut feeling on that, because most
people who are forced into therapy resist it like you would not believe. We
have seen them up here, where they are not forced to come in but the pressure
on them by the family is very heavy. They come in, and I do not think the
counselling session is all that helpful, because they are there under duress.[63]
6.57
Contrast this view with that of an experienced clinical psychologist:
In terms of people who come really motivated to quit, there
are those whose partner has said, 'You have to go.' As an overall thing, people
who come off their own bat may be more motivated. But certainly with the other
ones, you have them in your office so there is a chance to do something. Quite
a lot of them will have come in saying, 'I don't have a problem but my wife
thinks I do.' You question them and after a while, they think, 'Yes, I'll stick
around for a bit.'[64]
Committee view
6.58
The committee was very concerned to hear that despite showing obvious
signs of problematic gambling, none of the former problem gamblers who spoke to
the committee had been approached by staff. In addition, the counselling and
other professional health services could not recall any clients mentioning they
had been approached by staff. Unfortunately the committee was unable to discuss
the experiences of the witnesses described above with the peak bodies such as
Clubs Australia, the Australian Hotels Association and the Australasian Casino
Association as they declined to appear at a public hearing.
6.59
The committee majority notes the government announcement on 21 January
2012 of a number of actions to assist problem gamblers and their families which
included improving training for staff in poker machine venues.[65]
No further detail on how and when this will occur or what aspects will be
improved has been made available. The committee is not aware of any response to
the campaign launched by Clubs Australia which makes mention of improving staff
training by providing training that encourages staff to directly intervene when
they suspect problem gambling.[66]
This appears to be an admission that the current training focused on staff
intervention is not working as well as it could, as evidenced by the personal
experiences described above. While this initiative may equip staff with better
skills to directly address problematic behaviour it does not address the other limitations
mentioned.
6.60
Without having had the benefit of speaking with industry the committee
will attempt to make some concrete suggestions to address these limitations. To
further address the issues of conflict of interest and the difficulty in approaching
people displaying problematic gambling behaviour, the committee is reminded of
a suggestion by Ms Julia Karpathakis from Pokies Anonymous during the
committee's first inquiry. Her idea was to have people visit venues wearing an
'ask me' t-shirt so players can ask them if they need help. They could also
work with venue staff. Ms Karpathakis pointed out from her personal experience
that it is very difficult to confront someone with a gambling problem and it
may be more realistic for someone to reach out.[67]
As it was not the focus of the first inquiry, details were not discussed. Building
on this and similar suggestions,[68]
there could be merit in venues exploring partnership arrangements with
non-government organisations and counselling providers who would talk to staff
on a regular basis to see if there is a player they are worried about and they
would then approach the individual. This would not replace the current
arrangements and venue responsibilities but supplement them. The committee
notes the recent announcement by ClubsNSW of a 12 month trial at Mingara Club
on the NSW Central Coast to have a Salvation Army Chaplain available at the
club.[69]
Unfortunately, as industry did not attend public hearings, the committee was
unable to discuss this trial in detail.
6.61
In addition, the committee notes the model used by casinos where staff are
trained to report observable signs that may indicate problem gambling
behaviours. It appears that the staff who directly approach and assist
customers who may be experiencing gambling problems have further training and
in some cases there are dedicated staff to do this.[70]
This seems a useful model to address the natural reticence that younger and
inexperienced staff may have in approaching people themselves who are showing
signs of problematic gambling behaviour.
6.62
The committee also notes the model used by many casinos of an
independent, third party operated 'whistle-blower' service where staff may
anonymously report issues of concern including harm minimisation matters.
Casinos with the service conduct regular awareness sessions about it.[71]
This could also be a useful model to address concerns expressed to the
committee during its inquiries about staff feeling pressured to keep people
gambling.[72]
The independence of such a system would be essential. The committee notes the
Productivity Commission recognised the limitations of existing complaint
systems through peak bodies and recommended there be a more visible mechanism
for consumers and staff to make complaints to the regulators in each state and
territory.[73]
6.63
The committee was not able to discuss these models with the industry but
would encourage all casinos as well as clubs and hotels to investigate putting
in place such programs to further improve the ability of their staff to assist
problem gamblers.
Self-exclusion in theory
6.64
Self-exclusion operates by self-identified problem gamblers 'voluntarily
surrendering the right to enter the gaming areas of their local venues.' Clubs
Australia advised the committee that:
There are a number of ways in which existing self-exclusion
schemes can be improved upon. ClubsNSW is currently rolling out a state-wide
multi-venue self-exclusion scheme, which allows patrons to exclude themselves
from multiple clubs in their local area through a single application.[74]
6.65
In February 2012, ClubsNSW launched online technology where through a
secure website at their local club problem gamblers can complete a legally
binding self-exclusion document in the presence of a gambling counsellor or a
trained facilitator. They can choose to ban themselves from multiple clubs
whereas previously patrons had to visit each club individually. In a six month
trial of 51 clubs in Broken Hill and the Central Coast, 136 problem gamblers
chose to ban themselves from a combined 569 clubs. They advised that self-exclusion
was introduced by clubs and hotels in 2000 with an estimated 3,000 people
banning themselves from a club or hotel each year.[75]
6.66
In answers to questions on notice the Australasian Casino Association
(ACA) advised that:
...casinos' experience in Self-Exclusion Programs is robust and
extensive. While there are slight variations in casino Self-Exclusion Programs
due largely to individual state jurisdictional differences, all operate on the
principle that Self-Exclusion is a tool made available for those persons who
wish to use it in assisting to manage and/or address their problem gambling
behaviours. This tool importantly allows the individual to take a pro-active
step towards making a positive change in their behaviours.[76]
6.67
The ACA added that as part of the process people applying for self-exclusion
are required to agree to legal and casino requirements. These include the
request for the person to seek counselling and treatment and the release of
liability against the casino.[77]
6.68
Regarding self-exclusion programs, the Australian Hotels Association
(AHA) noted that:
Self-exclusion is proven to help problem gamblers. It is one
of a suite of measures, such as counselling and education that can help the
small percentage of the population with gambling problems.
6.69
The AHA added:
Different self-exclusion schemes operate in all Australian
States & Territories. A feature of self-exclusion is that venues keep on
hand information, such as a photograph, of the self-excluded patron. This
allows venues to identify self-excluded patrons and prevent them from
relapsing.[78]
The reality as described to the
committee
6.70
Experiences of self-exclusion appear variable. Research undertaken by Dr
Samantha Thomas asked gamblers about their experience of self-exclusion. One
gambler:
...described how even though she was currently “excluded” from
the three gaming machine venues in her local area, two of the three venues were
not enforcing the conditions of the program, and would always “turn a blind
eye” when she went there to gamble.[79]
6.71
Others spoke of the difficulties they faced when trying to self-exclude:
“For a person like me who has taken advantage of everything I
can, the one that I couldn't really do easily was get excluded from TABs. It’s
much more of a difficult process. You had to write away and...you couldn't just
have it as a blanket sort of thing, it was almost going to be a TAB by TAB
thing. It was going to be quite difficult whereas the Hotel's Association one
is relatively easy. You go in for an interview, you know, they pull up on a
computer all the different venues, they write to them all for you. It's all
done within an interview, you know, and it's quite well-maintained. [Do we need
look at maybe some easier ways with the TAB?] I think so and then the online
gambling. I don't know how people self-exclude from all the online stuff that's
happening.” (Male, 49 years old)[80]
6.72
This was contrasted with another gambler's positive experience of
self-exclusion at Crown Casino:
“...the way I was treated I thought that was exceptional, the
way they took care. So I mean based on what I know and based on what I’ve done,
I was very happy.” (Male, 22 years old)[81]
6.73
One player who participated in the study by Dr Thomas said she felt the
need to reapply had led to her relapses:
One female participant, who at the time of the interview was
gambling daily on gaming machines, and scored 13 on the PGSI, criticized the
AHA self-exclusion program because it required her to reapply every two years as
opposed to Crown Casino where self-exclusion is for an indefinite period, and
individuals need to reapply to be included back into Crown. She described how
she believed this had directly led to relapses with her addiction with gaming
machines. She questioned the two-year maximum imposed by the AHA self-exclusion
program, and asked whether this put the welfare of “lifetime” problem gamblers
like her at risk.[82]
6.74
Ms Karpathakis described the system in South Australia:
CHAIR: How does the system of self-exclusion work in South
Australia? Is it little photos on sheets of paper?
Ms Karpathakis: That is right. If you physically go into the
IGA, they take your photo but you can self-exclude at a pub.
Miss Guy: They do not have photos at the pubs.
Ms Karpathakis: Not in the venue; not if you self-exclude. I
can [go] into a venue and say: 'Bar me from here. I don't want to come here
anymore.' If I go to the IGA, there is a photo and the records go to different
places.
CHAIR: That is distributed to all venues?
Ms Karpathakis: The venues that you have requested.
CHAIR: How effective is that system?
Ms Karpathakis: We have had people who have gone into the
venues they are barred from and they have never been noticed. I have one member
who has been noticed and he ran away and never went back there, but he went to
some other place because he was so freaked out. So there has been one record of
one person, to my knowledge from my group, who has been picked up.[83]
6.75
Dr Katy O'Neill, Clinical Psychologist, St Vincent's Hospital Gambling
Treatment Program, described how they tend to refer back to the clubs for
programs like self-exclusion and commented on the variability of it:
We tend to refer back to the clubs. In terms of, say, self-exclusion,
I have said to clients, 'You should go and self-exclude.' A lot of clients are
reluctant to and ironically enough those who are most reluctant to are probably
the ones for whom it is going to be most effective because if you do not care
about being embarrassed it is an easy thing to do. One of [the] things that
happens is that some clubs really do not do it properly and we have had to ring
up the RGF and say, 'That club is not doing it the way it is supposed to be
done.' Other clubs just do it perfectly: the person is treated with respect and
they can do it instantly. As to how the person is treated really varies when
they go for self-exclusion.[84]
6.76
Ms Leah Galvin, Manager of Social Policy and Advocacy, St Luke's
Anglicare, spoke of the difficulties with self-exclusion systems:
...I understand that it is a manual system. I think this is one
of the weaknesses. People can self-exclude, and there is a process that you go
through to do that. I think you can do it either through the venue or through,
again, a regulatory body. But sometimes those systems are really quite ad hoc;
they might have pictures of you in a security area or something like that, and
so if the security people are not alert it would be quite easy for you to pass
through.[85]
6.77
The committee notes recent media reporting that gamblers who self-excluded
from The Star Casino returned 'numerous times'. Dr Keith Garner from Wesley
Mission stated: 'It is common knowledge that self-exclusion schemes do not work
as stand-alone interventions. Self-exclusion and gambling counselling must go
hand in hand'. He called for a universal approach. The Star responded that 'it
is explained to, and acknowledged by, patrons that when they self-exclude that
ultimately this is their responsibility'.[86]
Involuntary and third party
exclusions
6.78
Mr Paul Symond, General Manager, BetSafe, reported on the availability
of involuntary and third party exclusions:
Currently we have got a large number of self-exclusions. We
also go into involuntary exclusions and this helps us out when we have got
family and other people associated with the gambler. Also we have got
third-party exclusions. We have got a fairly stringent readmission procedure.
So when the six months or two months or three months of self exclusion is up,
people cannot just walk back into the club, they have got to come to us and go
through questions and an interview...[87]
6.79
Mr Daniel Symond, Operations Manager, said BetSafe was in favour of full
venue exclusions, not just the gaming area, and provided more detail on
involuntary exclusions:
The other thing that Paul [Symond] mentioned earlier on—and
this is something that is not legislated in New South Wales—is what we call
involuntary exclusion. That is where a venue becomes aware that someone has a
gambling problem and the venue excludes that person. In New South Wales at least,
there is no legislative requirement to do that. It is very common that a patron
will approach a staff member, tell them they have got a gambling problem but
refuse to self-exclude. Under the current legislation, there is no obligation
on the club to do anything. Under our program and in our venues, we provide
independent advice in those situations, and in general our venues will exclude
someone, particularly if there is clear evidence of a gambling problem.[88]
6.80
The committee notes the Clubs Australia campaign which proposes
legislation empowering family members to approach gambling venues when they
suspect a relative has a gambling problem.[89]
6.81
In answers to questions on notice the Australasian Casino Association
reported that third party exclusion is available in some jurisdictions
(Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland).[90]
Making self-exclusion more
effective
Jurisdiction-wide self-exclusion
6.82
In the absence of industry attending any public hearings, the committee
discussed how to improve self-exclusion arrangements with others including Mr
David Pigott, National Manager, Government Relations, Mission Australia. Mr
Pigott pointed out some of the difficulties with self-exclusion including that
it is currently not jurisdiction or venue-wide. While people may self-exclude
from one club they could go to a nearby venue that does not participate. He suggested
that self-exclusion should be across a whole jurisdiction for it to work
effectively and added:
The fact that they have self-excluded is a positive step—as you
say, they have recognised that they have got an issue. I guess then it is up to
us to assist them in making that commitment.[91]
6.83
Clubs Australia responded to the suggestion of a jurisdiction-wide self-exclusion
program via questions on notice:
All clubs do offer self-exclusion, a requirement in every
jurisdiction. A mandatory jurisdiction-wide self exclusion zone would undermine
the effectiveness of self exclusion programs. By limiting self exclusion to the
local geographic residence and/or workplace of the individual gambler, the
system does not become overburdened with venues required to identify and
enforce the procedure for problem gamblers who are unlikely to enter the
premises. By limiting programs to those venues the individual is likely to
enter assists venues with focusing their attention more effectively.[92]
6.84
Mr Pigott also said that anecdotal advice from staff in NSW is that
asking staff to identify people from photographs for self-exclusion is patchy
in terms of effectiveness. He added:
It sounds like it [self-exclusion] has to be universal and,
again, I am not familiar with the Tasmanian situation, but ideally, if you
self-exclude from a venue here then it ought to be able to be recorded
elsewhere. That is, again, presumably a reasonably complicated process. If
alerts go out or whatever, I am not sure that that is ideal either. As I said,
the whole idea of self-exclusion is that the onus is on the gambler to take
some responsibility for his or her actions. Our role is to help and support them
in meeting that commitment. How big a stick you use, I am just not sure. And
what sort of technology you use to enforce that is also challenging.[93]
6.85
Further illustrating the limitations of
self-exclusion, the committee notes the problem gambler who banned himself from
four Hobart venues. While he was turned away from three of the venues he was
able to gamble undetected in one hotel for extensive periods and lost more than
$3,000.[94]
Having effective systems in place
6.86
In order to increase effectiveness, Ms Leah Galvin, Manager of Social
Policy and Advocacy, St Luke's Anglicare, spoke about swipe-in systems which
can easily identify self-excluded gamblers:
This is one of the things where we think that greater
protection could be offered for problem gamblers who have made that decision
that they want to reduce or stop their gambling. I have heard of a system where
there is almost like a swipe-in, so there is some sort of identification that
is needed before people can proceed into venues. I understand it operates in
some of the clubs in New South Wales; if people have self-excluded, the moment
they try to swipe themselves into the venue—I am sure it is not all bells and
whistles—they are discreetly removed from the venue.
It would be really great to strengthen that part of our
system, because it is not strong. We do hear stories about people who have
self-excluded because of their difficulties with gambling still being in venues
and losing vast sums of money.
CHAIR: And in fairness to the staff in some of these venues,
even the very best staff struggle to cross-reference hundreds of photos with
thousands of people walking through the door.
Ms Galvin: Yes. I totally agree with that. It is certainly
not any commentary about their capacity or their willingness; it is just that
the system is not very strong. It makes it very hard for them actually to do
the right thing by people who have tried to self-exclude as well.[95]
6.87
The committee notes that ACT clubs are increasingly using scanning
systems to order to facilitate access to venues. This system could be used to
improve self-exclusion schemes; however, currently its use is optional.[96]
Linking to prizes
6.88
The Productivity Commission recommended that prizes won by people shown
to be in breach of self-exclusion orders should be forfeited to government
revenue.[97]
Clubs Australia also supported this action and stated that it would serve as a
means of reducing the incentive for patrons to breach their self-exclusion
agreement. Clubs Australia recommended that the forfeited prizes are remitted
to a government fund dedicated to addressing problem gambling.[98]
6.89
The committee understands that the forfeiture of prizes is not currently
supported by legislation. This means that although it can be included in a self-exclusion
agreement, it cannot be enforced and no patrons have handed back any prizes. Mr
Daniel Symond and Mr Paul Symond, BetSafe, supported such legislation to act as
a deterrent for people to breach self-exclusion agreements.[99]
6.90
In answers to questions on notice, the Australasian Casino Association
advised that sanctions for breaches by self-excluded persons vary from state to
state:
For example, Victorian Legislation provides for the
prosecution of persons who breach their exclusion in the casino. In addition,
Self-Excluded persons must forfeit their winnings (including prizes) for the
State for payment into the Community Support Fund (Casino Control Act 1991
(Vic) s 77A and s 78B respectively).[100]
Committee view
6.91
The committee accepts that self-exclusion can be helpful for some
gamblers but it also has limitations and should not be used as a stand-alone
intervention. This is recognised by industry which advocates self-exclusion and
counselling. The system for some self-exclusion programs appears complex and
given the shame involved, asking people to identify themselves as a problem
gambler and possibly have their photo taken as well as reapply after a period
of time may be difficult for them. The fact that people can't self-exclude from
all venues at one time is problematic. They may only have to travel a short
distance to be able to gamble at another venue. The committee sees merit in
investigating state-wide self-exclusion programs to make it simpler for those
wishing to self-exclude.
6.92
The committee notes the recent program launched by Clubs Australia which
is attempting to assist problem gamblers by allowing them to self-exclude from multiple
venues by doing so from their local club. The committee is pleased to see a
person can also avoid gaming venues and complete the process in the office of a
certified gambling counsellor.[101]
While the committee acknowledges this is a step forward, the program is not
currently jurisdiction wide, although it notes the intention to expand the
system across NSW over the next 12 months. The system should then be expanded
to cover other states. However, it is unclear how venues will effectively identify
people who have self-excluded. Venues should have effective systems in place to
do so in order to assist their patrons. The committee notes the response of
Clubs Australia which seems to indicate a preference to limit self-exclusion to
the local geographic area of an individual gambler.[102]
As Clubs Australia refused to attend a public hearing the committee is unable
to reconcile this response with their program outlined above.
6.93
The committee supports legislation for the forfeiture of prizes by those
who are self-excluded as recommended by the Productivity Commission to act as a
deterrent to breach self-exclusion agreements.
6.94
The committee notes the government announcement on 21 January 2012 of a
number of actions to assist problem gamblers and their families which include strengthening
self-exclusion arrangements.[103]
However, no further detail on how and when this will occur or what aspects will
be strengthened has been made available.
Recommendation 5
6.95
The committee recommends that as part of strengthening self-exclusion
arrangements, governments, through the COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform, work
with industry towards jurisdiction-wide venue exclusion as well as legislative
changes which mean that prizes won by people in breach of self-exclusion orders
should be forfeited to government revenue as recommended by the Productivity
Commission.
Incentives to gamble from venues
Gifts and drinks
6.96
The committee heard that venues offer incentives to people to keep
gambling. Ms Dorothy Webb, Secretary, Gambling Impact Society NSW, told the
committee about her son:
We did not know our son was addicted for nearly 15 years; it
went on for 20 years. Early intervention certainly would have helped him. We
know absolutely, particularly after going recently to our local club for a
sandwich, that these EGM players are nourished very, very well with drinks from
the bar. We were there for half an hour, and four times in that half hour it
came over the microphone to the poker machine area: 'If you would like a drink
from the bar'—that first phrase gets them used to listening to a voice—'If you
would like a drink from the bar, please'—then the emphasis—'press the blue
button at the right-hand side of your machine and it will be brought to you.'
This is what happened to our son and of course he developed a severe drinking
problem as well; the two seem to go together.[104]
6.97
Ms Kate Roberts, Chairperson, Gambling Impact Society NSW, said that
player tracking through loyalty schemes can be used to target customers:
...player tracking is used specifically to target customers who
are seen as good customers, which I am sure you are aware of. I have already
quoted a number of scenarios in the submission where people have been selected
out as good gamblers, people having brochures sent to them from for instance
the casino with their personal name on it when they have just lost seven grand or
whatever. So it is not only that the consumer protections and the early
interventions are not there; it is the adverse side of that, which is that it
is actually being used to market to people who we know are vulnerable. Last
year at our seminar we heard from a woman who is now serving four years in jail
for embezzlement. It took four years for the case to be heard. She talked about
how, during that time, the club would send her flowers, they would send her
taxis, they would ring her up and tell her that she had not been there for a
while. They basically very clearly targeted her to come back, knowing that this
was a woman who was spending thousands and was clearly not in a position to do
that.[105]
6.98
Jurisdictions differ in their regulation of inducements. The committee
notes the following table outlining regulations covering inducements provided
by the Australasian Gaming Council:[106]
|
ACT
|
No specific ban however the mandatory Code of Practice
places restrictions on inducements including a prohibition on offering free
or discounted alcohol.
|
|
NSW
|
Legislation bans gambling-related inducements offered by
clubs, hotels and casino. Inducements cannot include free or discounted
liquor or offer free credits to players.
|
|
NT
|
A ban on all gambling related inducements
|
|
QLD
|
No legislated bans on gambling inducements however the
voluntary QLD Responsible Gambling Code of Practice provides that gambling
providers are to develop and implement strategies to ensure advertising and
promotions do not involve any irresponsible trading practices by the gambling
provider.
|
|
SA
|
The mandatory Code of Practice outlines a strict ban on
all inducements.[107]
|
|
TAS
|
Inducements are restricted by the mandatory Code of
Practice.
|
|
VIC
|
No specific ban on inducements however provisions under
the mandatory Responsible Gambling Codes of Conduct govern the activities of
the gaming provider
|
|
WA
|
Gaming and Wagering Commission Regulations 1988 govern the
activities of the casino.
|
Venue opening hours
6.99
Mr Tom Cummings also suggested looking at venue opening hours:
...little things like venue opening hours—there is no standard
across the country for when things can be open. Sometimes I start work early at
7 o'clock, and the venue that I walk past on the way to work is open and
there are people playing at 7 o'clock in the morning. I used to when I was
playing. Some of the other venues are still open at 4 o'clock in the morning or
6 o'clock in the morning.[108]
Is there a need for a legislated duty of care?
6.100
Witnesses emphasised to the committee that currently there is no onus on
venues for early intervention by staff. Ms Kate Roberts, Chairperson, Gambling
Impact Society NSW, elaborated:
Among some of the things that we have raised in our
submission is that the evidence—we know from studies both in Australia and in
Switzerland et cetera—strongly suggests that people are demonstrating problems
with their gambling; yet, at the moment, certainly in New South Wales, there is
no onus of any kind on host responsibility for early intervention. We know, for
instance, that the casinos in New Zealand have player tracking data and have
used it to do exactly that, whereas in New South Wales that is not the case.[109]
6.101
The Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce pointed to the need for a
legislated duty of care for poker machine venues:
While there is value in training of venue staff to be able to
identify clear signs that a patron is engaging in problematic gambling and that
they are skilled to deal with such patrons, such skills will count for little
if venue owners and managers do not authorise such assistance being given.
Research with venue staff has shown that in some venues staff [are] unwilling
to intervene with a patron displaying problem gambling behaviour out of fear of
disciplinary action by the venue owner for causing a loss in revenue for the
venue. The Taskforce therefore believes there should be a legislated “duty of
care” for EGM venues to take reasonable steps to prevent problem gambling, including
intervention when a person is displaying clear signs of a gambling problem.
This is already the case in Switzerland.[110]
6.102
Dr Jennifer Borrell, Adviser, Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce,
also called for duty of care regulation:
At a venue level, cash needs to be less accessible, and
venues should be made responsible for not causing and profiting from harm,
through duty-of-care regulation. In the past, people from the industry used to
say, 'You can't tell if someone has a gambling problem,' but it has been in
solid research for quite some time now that you actually can detect it. Some
years ago in Canada, Schellinck and Schrans did very good, solid research on
that, and I believe Delfabbro in South Australia has also done research. So
there is no truth in saying that we cannot tell if people have gambling
problems.
From my own research at a community level, talking to people
who work in venues, actually often they do know, but they need their jobs, so
they keep it to themselves. But they actually do know. They do see the people
who are distressed coming in, day in, day out, spending all night, so they can
detect gambling problems. They need to be responsible if they are taking their
money.[111]
6.103
Industry responses via questions on notice did not support duty of care
legislation. Clubs Australia responded:
Existing legislation is already comprehensive, and club
compliance with the legislation has resulted in falls in the prevalence of
problem gambling in every Australian state and territory. Given research into
this issue is continuing..., it would be difficult to legislate further at this
time.[112]
6.104
Regarding a legislated duty of care provision, the Australasian Casino
Association advised:
The Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce's suggestion that
there should be a legislated duty of care provision is based on the false
assumption that there is something so insidious or systematically improper
about the gambling industry that it requires the introduction of a new
statutory cause of action, which is not faced by businesses in other
industries. This suggestion is based on the mistaken assumption that resolving
conflicts through the courts is a desirable or optimal state of affairs. This
assumption is fundamentally flawed. The underlying assumption appears to be
that because very few gamblers have successfully brought proceedings against
gambling venue operators that this means the law needs to be changed.
The ACA submits that it is more likely that this is
indicative that gambling venue operators have not breached their duties and
responsibilities to gamblers and this is in fact why few successful cases have
been brought. The ACA would further submit that in order for a problem gambler
to deal with his or her problem they must recognise that they have a problem
and commit to deal with the problem. This is an accepted point by many
researchers in this area. Accordingly, the threshold tests for a breach of
common law duty of care or breach of existing consumer protection legislation
should remain relatively high, as they are now. The Productivity Commission
also accepted that it would be preferable for governments to pursue the
enhancement of compliance and complaints handling mechanisms and that this "would
improve incentives for venues to effectively implement and apply harm
minimisation requirements".[113]
6.105
The Australian Hotels Association responded:
Venue staff are now trained in the responsible conduct of
gambling. In addition harm minimisation signage is currently on display in all
gaming rooms. All gamblers are also alerted to free telephone help lines.[114]
Committee majority view
6.106
The committee majority notes that the Productivity Commission looked
very closely at the provision of a statutory duty of care but did not recommend
it:
In the draft report, the Commission floated a statutory duty
of care as a possible way of providing better redress for gamblers. While
conceptually attractive, there are several obstacles to its practical implementation:
- actions would be likely to be slow and costly
- there would be difficulties in defining ‘egregious behaviours’
and distinguishing them from unconscionable conduct (which is subject to legal
action under the Trade Practices Act and the common law).
Given such difficulties, the Commission has recommended
enhanced compliance and complaints-handling arrangements — in particular,
strengthening penalties and disciplines for serious breaches — to strongly
discourage any inappropriate venue conduct. If governments did not implement
these measures or they failed to deter egregious venue behaviour, a statutory
cause of action could be given further consideration in the future.[115]
6.107
The Chair, Senator Xenophon and participating Senators Di Natale and
Madigan have provided additional comments in relation to this issue which
follow this report.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|