Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures Consultation …



Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures Consultation Paper

Response Form

Your details

|Name |Michael, Russell |

|Organisation (If applicable) |Ferntree Gully Hotel |

|Email address |ferntree.gully.hotel@.au |

|Address |1130 Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully |

|Telephone |03 9758 6544 |

Please note:

All submissions will be published on the Department of Justice and Regulation’s website.

Please ensure that your submission does not include confidential, commercial-in-confidence or personal information.

The department reserves the right to not publish information that could be seen to be defamatory, discriminatory or unrelated to the review.

Questions: Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures

These questions should be read in conjunction with the Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures Consultation Paper

|Q.1. Is the current $200 per EFTPOS transaction limit appropriate? If not, what other regulatory measures would support the objectives of the |

|Act? |

|It must go back to being capped at $400 within 24 hours, and cease advertising for gambling rewards programs on the cash out machine. Perhaps |

|advertise YourPlay or self-exclusion instead. |

|Q.2. Is the current $1,000 threshold for the payment of winnings by cheque appropriate? If not, what should be the limit and why? |

|The limit of $1000 is quite low as problem gamblers can play credits down to be under $1000, meaning a loss of money they may need for the |

|week. |

|$2000+ should be mandatory cheque |

|$1000-$2000 should be mandatory part payment of cheque (minimum $300 cheque) and under $100 remains optional cash or cheque payment |

|Q.3. Should payment by EFT be permitted in addition to, or as a replacement for, payment by cheque? |

|No. It should not replace cheque as that is still preferred by older people. It could also result in more paperwork, and even with a delay in |

|place, transferring the funds via eftpos removes the process of putting/posting the cheque to the bank, making it easier to access the funds. |

|Q.4. Are there other payment methods that should be considered for the payment of credits / winnings? |

|No. |

|Q.5. Should venue operators be able to exchange personal cheques for cash? |

|No. |

|Q.6. If cashless gaming and or TITO is introduced, how should they be regulated so that they are consistent with other measures that limit |

|access to cash? What harm minimisation measures should apply? |

|Limit withdrawals/payments within the one venue, or sister hotels but not across a whole country or network. |

|Q.7. What opportunities are there to improve the way codes operate in Victoria? |

|Are there other models that would be more effective? If so, what are they? |

|Would a more prescriptive approach for all venue operators be better? Could the operation of codes be simplified? |

|Are there other matters that should be provided for in the Ministerial Direction for codes? |

|What requirements for loyalty schemes should be included in a code to promote responsible gambling? |

|Does the annual review process contribute to fostering responsible gambling? If not, why not? Are there other options to ensure that the codes |

|meet this aim? |

|There should be one gaming code of conduct, effective for all gaming venues Statewide (really country wide), excluding casinos. |

| |

| |

|Loyalty programs should have a statewide standard regarding how points are accumulated so as to avoid exploitation. |

|The annual review process does not help. It can at times seem like a test. There should be a greater level of co-operation between the |

|regulating bodies and venues without fear of punishment on the staff for not knowing, or on the venue for having staff that may not fully |

|understand. Better education in the RSG course would be good, and the RSG should be required before you can be issued with a gaming license. |

|Q.8. Should the requirement to interact with customers who are showing signs of distress from gambling be part of codes, or should a separate |

|offence be created for venue operators who fail to respond to suspected problem gambling? |

|It is the responsibility of the gambler’s help organisations to provide that help. Venue staff can assist, but it is above the job description |

|of a gaming attendant (or even management) to inform customers they have a gambling problem. |

|Many employees are young and inexperienced, or work in gaming on a part-time basis while studying or working another job. To take on the |

|responsibility of a councillor without the correct training or financial reimbursement would not be beneficial for the problem gambler or the |

|employee. |

|Q.9. Are self-exclusion programs best administered by the industry or by another body? |

|Another body. |

|Q.10. Should there be one self-exclusion program in Victoria? |

|Yes, and it should include TAB as well as pokies. |

|Q.11. How could self-exclusion programs be improved? |

|If they are putting themselves on self-exclusion, the person needs more help than the venue alone can provide. Any self-exclusion should |

|incorporate wagering as well as the pokies. It is harder to police wagering apps or online gambling and beyond the scope of venue |

|responsibility. |

|It should automatically include all venues, instead of allowing the person with the problem to choose which venues they wish to be |

|self-excluded from. |

|If a person is receiving centrelink payments, centrelink should be informed. The banks should be informed so that their card can not be |

|accepted automatically within gaming venues. Of course it will all remain private and confidential, but if someone is brave enough to admit |

|they have a problem and to ask for help, all the separate bodies should come together to ensure they get as much as they can. |

|Scenario: Wife of a problem gambler goes shopping, but the card is declined because the husband has spent their pay on the pokies. He was on |

|self-exclusion, but was able to spend the money by withdrawing money via posconnect from a barperson without access to the self-exclusion |

|folder. If self-exclusion was treated more seriously and there was co-operation with the banks, this could have been avoided. The transaction |

|will be flagged by the bank and penalties could be applied by the bank, giving the problem gambler more incentive to try and stay away. |

|Scenario 2: A person on benefits spends their whole pay in one go. They will be short of money for another two weeks. If centrelink were to |

|issue part of their payment in food vouchers, or fuel cards, at least they wouldn’t be hungry for two weeks. |

|Q.12. Is the annual review useful or are there other ways to report on program trends and compliance? |

|The annual review process does not help. It can at times seem like a test. There should be a greater level of co-operation between the |

|regulating bodies and venues without fear of punishment on the staff for not knowing, or on the venue for having staff that may not fully |

|understand. Better education in the RSG course would be good, and the RSG should be required before you can be issued with a gaming license. |

|Having surprise inspections is good, but when the inspector comes in determined to prove their authority, it results in the staff being more |

|concerned about ‘getting through the inspection’ than adopting more responsible gaming practices. There needs to be a mutual goal of minimising|

|the harm that problem gambling causes and it can only be achieved through co-operation. |

|Instead of a review, mandatory annual in-venue training, provided by the government to ensure everyone is up to speed. |

|Q.13. Should there be a separate offence for venue operators who knowingly allow self-excluded persons to enter or remain in the venue? |

|The current penalty is sufficient. Sometimes a venue can be busy and if a new or inexperienced staff member is on they can miss a self-excluded|

|person in busy times. Often, self-excluded people may actively avoid being spotted by staff by moving around the room. |

|That’s why if the banks and welfare office made it harder to access money, it could encourage self-excluded people to stick with the |

|self-exclusion program. |

|Q.14. Should a new requirement to undertake advanced responsible service of gaming training be introduced? |

|The RSG course should be more difficult and completion required before the licence application process can begin. |

|There should be a stricter emphasis on entitlements used to encourage gaming within the community and within gaming establishments. Patrons |

|should be encouraged to take a proper break from the machine. |

|Free annual RSG training in-venues, not online. |

|Q.15. If so, who should be required to complete the advanced training and what content should the training include? |

|It should include all employees with a gaming licence, including management. |

|Topics to cover: |

|Large win procedures, if and how to approach/deal with problem gamblers, self-exclusion programs, Yourplay, VCGLR standards – this comes back |

|to one code of conduct. |

|Q.16. Who should be responsible for the development and provision of the advanced training? |

|The State Government. |

|Q.17. Do you think regional caps and municipal limits should be maintained? Why? |

|Yes, it helps communities in need |

|Q.18. Should regional caps be extended beyond the existing capped areas and if so, why? |

|Our area is capped, cannot answer. |

|Q.19. Are the current regional cap and municipal limit levels appropriate? |

|Yes. |

-----------------------

Interested persons and organisations can make a submission on the issues raised in the Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures Consultation Paper by completing this submission form.

This response form includes the questions from the Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures Consultation Paper.

If you have any queries about this process please email the following address with the subject heading – Harm Minimisation Consultation Paper.

Email: liquorgamingandracingenquiries@justice..au

Submissions must be received by 5pm, Monday 16 January 2017.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download