Inter Church Gambling Taskforce

Summary of Recommendations

1.1. Place an immediate freeze in EGM distribution in Victoria.

1.2. Place a statewide cap on EGM numbers for all regions, based on the present average ratio of persons to EGMs in Victoria.

1.3. Banning of gaming machines in the areas of hotels and clubs accessible to minors.

1.4. There be a requirement for caps that are sensitive and responsive to the particular needs of certain regions, and for local government and the community to have a place in the setting of these.

2.1. It is clearly in the public’s best interest to ban note-acceptors on EGMs, and is a well-informed decision that would have minimal negative impact.

2.2. To introduce bet limits on EGMs of $2 (to complement a ban on note receptors) combined with controls surrounding the overall intensity of play, such as:

Restrictions on the maximum number of lines and credits per line.

Reducing the game speed of EGMs and providing greater space between button pushes.

Pre-scheduled breaks in gameplay, and/or breaks after payouts.

3.1. The concept of self-exclusion programs is flawed, in that they place responsibility of having problems with gambling back onto the individual consumer rather than with the industry and with regulatory authorities.

3.2. A comprehensive assessment of the program should be conducted by direct survey of those that have accessed the program.

3.3. Measures be introduced to allow the implementation of self-exclusion by third party members involved with the gambler.

3.4. All venues should be required to prominently display information about the availability of the program and how it works.

3.5. Enforceable self-exclusion being extended to clubs and hotels.

3.6. Penalties upon venue operators for breaches of self-exclusion would seem to be a more effective measure of ensuring that the self-exclusion program would be effective.

4.1. All written information regarding odds and gameplay, as well as any allowed promotional material must adhere to particular criteria regarding misleading information and clarity of the details presented.

4.2. That display-mounted player information be introduced to EGMs including displays of amounts won/lost as well as warning statements surrounding the nature of EGMs.

4.3. That the concept of player registration be examined and considered not only as a harm minimisation concept in itself, but as tools in the introduction of activity statements, methods of pre-commitment, and scheduled breaks.

5.1. That all public advertising of gambling should be banned.

5.2. Introduction of provisions to make it an offence for gaming operators to offer anything that would reward participation in gaming activities

5.3. Banning of trade promotion competitions that are based on the play of gaming machines in registered hotels, clubs and the casino.

5.4. A continuous strategy of main media advertising for G-line and Break Even be implemented and paid for from the Community Support Fund.

5.5. An effective and creative campaign advertising the dangers of gambling be fully researched and implemented.

6.1. That the independence of the Authority be defined and re-clarified, so that the public can be informed of the actual position of the VCGA, and the Authority itself can be asserted of its own roles, responsibilities and independence.

6.2.That there be a much stronger VCGA with significant independence and distance from government, and an ability to comment on public policy issues as well as in relating with local government and community organisations

6.3. Regular monitoring and review followed by the separation of the powers of the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority to conduct research.

6.4. That the Government establish an independent body capable of conducting regular and unannounced inspections of gaming venues. There is a need for the body to be able to initiate proceedings against gaming venues found to be in breach of the consumer protection measures introduced.

6.5. Re-attributing primary planning power to Local Government through the State Planning Scheme, the Gaming Machine Control Act 1991, and the Gambling Legislation (Responsible Gambling) Bill

6.6. To improve relationships between the regulator and local government.

7.1. That the term ‘gaming’ be replaced by the more accurate term ‘gambling’ as used by the State Government and all relevant authorities.

8.1. That ATM and EFTPOS facilities not be available at gaming venues.

8.2. That where harm is caused that there be adequate counselling and support service available through the city, suburbs, and regional Victoria.

INTRODUCTION

The churches have a long history in the issue of gambling in Victoria. Going back to the time of the Cain and Kirner governments, the churches have had long and serious discussions on gambling. However, the Interchurch Gambling Taskforce is not primarily concerned with the rights and wrongs of gambling from a moral point of view. Gambling has been a part of the Australian psyche since the days of federation, and gambling is not unknown within the churches. Nor is the Taskforce about abolition or prohibition. The recommendations and issues raised in this paper do not reflect a limit on civil liberties, but rather are aimed to promote a common set of principles which could be owned by the whole community, and hopefully the gambling industry, in establishing appropriate frameworks. There has been a significant cost to individuals, families, communities, and local businesses as a result of the proliferation of gambling in a context with few, controls, minimal accurate information, a lack of education and very weak regulation.

In the light of this aim and of the discussion and recommendations contained within this paper, the Taskforce wishes to state the following preliminary principles:

The Interchurch Gambling Taskforce is deeply committed to the principle of harm minimisation and harm reduction. While a large proportion of this paper is concerned with regulatory frameworks, policy issues and harm prevention, the Taskforce strongly believes that where harm is caused that there be adequate counselling and support service available through the city, suburbs, and regional Victoria. Harm minimisation is not a solution in itself, but as long as the gambling industry will continue in Victoria there will be those who are harmed by the activity (regardless of any measures that may be put in place). These individuals, families, and communities need to be provided with appropriate and effective education, care and support to bring them back to a place of full participation in our society.

We support the regulation of the industry rather than self-regulation. In achieving this there is the necessity to evaluate and re-invent the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. There is an urgent requirement for a much stronger VCGA with significant independence and distance from government, and an ability to comment on public policy issues as well as in relating with local government and community organisations. A separation of the roles of promotion and regulation is needed as one clearly contradicts the other.

There is a pressing need for regular monitoring and review followed by the separation of the powers of the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority to conduct research. As discussed later in this paper, there is significant evidence to state that research should be a separate responsibility with another authority or tertiary institution, with the results more accessible to the wider community.

 

The Taskforce wishes to congratulate the Government in its decision to introduce regional caps on gambling machines. Clearly, the social and economic consequences of over-saturation of EGMs in certain (especially lower socio-economic) regions has been significantly demonstrated, and returning balance and equality to the state, as well as minimising the effects of regressive taxation, is a move to be encouraged.

In the setting of a structure of regional caps, the Taskforce strongly believes that there are number of significant factors which must be considered in developing an effective and equitable regulatory arrangement.

On page 6 of the Consultation Paper, it is stated that "The targeted regions will be based on communities of interest, allowing the Government to focus on vulnerable areas in the State. The Minister will be able to set different criteria for different regions. In this way the Minister may take into account the special needs of regional Victoria." This reflects sensitivity to the needs of particular regions and communities, however there are further issues that need to be considered.

The following two cap concepts are suggestions by the Taskforce which are designed to work in conjunction with each other to minimise the harm of saturation and accessibility, and increase the power and voice of local authorities:

State imposed standardized regional caps.

While the requirements of particular regions and communities need to be specifically addressed, there is a necessity to place a statewide standardized cap on EGM numbers for all regions, based on the present average ratio of persons to EGMs in Victoria. Present saturation levels vary from 1:439 to 1:36, with a state average of 1:120. By allowing areas to have a maximum saturation level of, for example, 1:110, alleviates the problems of high concentration, involving accessibility and visibility, and the resultant negative consequences. Subsequently, regional caps should be set and put in effect throughout all regions.

There are 2 primary reasons for this: (1) The widespread and significant consequences of EGM over-saturation is often not be observed until EGM numbers reach an above-average level. Therefore, it is prudent for the Government to prevent such difficulties through harm-prevention measures such as this. (2) In any case of social and economic problems caused through over-saturation, the initial placement of these machines in a region allows venues and providers a 5-year breathing space, and 5 years in which social and economic problems can be deepened and become more manifest.

Secondary regional-specific caps.

State imposed standardized regional caps would allow for widespread harm-prevention and avoid the negative consequences associated with over-saturation. Additionally, there is a requirement for caps that are sensitive and responsive to the particular needs of certain regions, and for local government and the community to have a place in the setting of these.

Therefore, the next move after establishing a statewide regional cap network is to allow local government and the local community to, if they so wish, put forward a lower regional cap. This would be in response to the specific social and economic characteristics of the region, as well as the negative effects that EGMs have already had in the local community.

Foreseeably, this is a primary opportunity for local governments and communities to regain a sense of control over the spread of gambling throughout many of our communities. This also allows the cap to have reference to social and economic indicators such as unemployment, and uses those closest to the population, with most experience with the local community, and best able to make such decisions for the benefit of the regional population.

As well as caps in terms of location, density and accessibility, caps also have the ability to function in terms of time and and the relation of time to accessibility. In this sense, by simply restricting the opening hours of a venue a limited over accessibility can be obtained.

The Taskforce is encouraged by the move to ban 24 hour gambling venues in rural areas. However, it is essential if any significant and incisive impact is to be made into the social and economic consequences of gambling and EGMs in particular, that this ban be extended to metropolitan Melbourne. The Taskforce has therefore since been encouraged by the discussions and indications that such a ban may be considered within the moves to create a greater sense of responsible gambling within the state.

Furthermore, the Taskforce suggests that just as there has been a signficant request for this ban to be introduced in metropolitan Melbourne (indicating a widespread community belief of the dangers of gambling and the un-necessity of 24 hour venues) that this ban be extended to the Casino as well. This is not only to provide greater protection to the community, but also to prevent the formation of a monopoly during particular hours. EGM venues and the Casino are virtually the only ‘entertainment’ venues open 24 hours a day, and appear to have come to this arrangement with little or no demand from the community or consumers. Therefore, this appears to indicate that the demand for 24 hour opening is driven by industry intending to maximise their turnover, and increase the accessibility to EGMs and other forms of gambling. This subsequently leads to the familiar social and economic consequences of gambling.

The Task Force notes that there is recent evidence that minors have illegally accessed EGMs, supporting the need to ban gaming machines in unrestricted areas of hotels and clubs as well as tighter controls on access to the restricted gambling area. A survey of 200 year 10 students from 12 secondary schools in the northern and western suburbs in December 1996 revealed that 62% had engaged in gambling activities illegal for minors. Of those surveyed who gambled, 21% had played the EGMs, 6.5% had gambled at the casino and 46% had gambled before they were 12. The study was completed by a former teacher and lecturer in Health Education at University of Melbourne, Heather Hebron. Beyond this, there has been first hand evidence of illegal gambling by minors and its social and economic consequences. Such an example is that of a Melbourne teenager who stole more than $118,000 from his parent’s service station between the ages of 15 and 17 and spent it at the TAB and EGM venues between July 1998 and June 1999. The magistrate commented that she was alarmed at the ease with which the boy was able to gamble.

There is also some evidence that those people that begin gambling as minors are at a higher risk of developing gambling problems. One US study in the early 1980s reported that 37% of 35 pathological gamblers interviewed said they began to gamble before the age of 10 and 47% between 11 and 18 years of age.Such a progression is not surprising. The recent report by Alun Jackson of Melbourne University further demonstrates this, and describes the link between gambling and other risk taking behaviours in the survey of nearly 2.800 students in year 8 in Victorian secondary schools. Drinking alcohol and using marijuana are statistically significant predictors of gambling, as are interpersonal relationship difficulties, and also lack of attachment to school. Clearly, children gambling are at significant risk in other areas as well. Further, the co-location of licensed premises and gambling represents a further risk to these young people and encourages the development of long term difficulties. These issues have been further demonstrated in Australia by Alex Blaszynski, the Deputy Director of the Psychiatry Research Teaching Unit at the University of New South Wales.

The Interchurch Gambling Taskforce believes that exposure of gambling products and behaviour to children is unacceptable and socially irresponsible, and it can result in the formation of behaviours, attitudes, and cultural shifts that can lead to a greater predisposition towards gambling and subsequent problem gambling behaviours. Recent evidence from a Department of Community Services report "Impacts of Gambling on Adolescents and Children" found that of 2788 year 8 students, 50% were under the misconception that gambling was a way to make money.

On the subject of internet gambling, the Taskforce has already put forward the argument that a major negative consequence will be the effect on children:

Effect on children:- The understanding that a minor is unlikely to be gambling on the internet (17.17) because they will be unable to collect any winnings underestimates the potential danger that internet gambling poses for young people. While this is one aspect of the negative aspects to internet gambling, there are many more which are much harder to control and restrict.

· Rehearsal:- with most internet gambling sites there is the opportunity for an individual to play the games without actually betting any money. This is subsequently most often exempt from the need for identification or age restrictions. While seemingly harmless, it is establishing patterns of behaviour and an acceptance and familiarisation with internet gambling that will, on becoming an adult

and legally able to gamble 'for real', allow individuals to already be conditioned to this form of gambling. This is one aspect of the increased accessibility, in that the games will already be familiar, as will the environment and surrounding procedures. Also, this poses a danger in that after years of playing without money, this could create a false sense of security in young people, and lead them to a greater sense of self-confidence, resulting in significant losses.

· Observation:- in conjunction with the concept of rehearsal, is that of children's ability to observe gambling behaviour in the home. This works and can affect a child on two levels: (1) In observing a parent or older sibling's gambling behaviour the concept of gambling and the games become familiar, and the social acceptance of the activity is increased, and (2) in families where there are difficulties with money and gambling, patterns can be observed where gambling is used either as a hopeful means to financial security, in an attempt to meet an overdue bill, or as an escape in times of stress or depression. Such patterns being observed could quite probably lead to these negative approaches and attitudes being modelled by children and activated in their adult lives.

The Taskforce is disappointed at the VCGA’s approval of internet companies and the low fees required which will enable a few companies to hold a market advantage with little regulatory and advertising control, harm minimisation and education strategies to be put in place. A well thought out national strategy on gambling on the internet is required and it is too premature for the VCGA to be permitting such exposure. On a federal sphere, there is an opportunity to control internet gambling. The lesson to be learnt from the lack of control over EGMs should be learnt and if regulation of the internet of total banning of Australian internet gambling (The Taskforce preference) does not occur then it may be too late to try and implement controls once the access is granted.

For such reasons as these the Taskforce believes that the banning of gaming machines in the areas of hotels and clubs accessible to minors is a constructive and positive step in the minimising of problem gambling and in the prevention of significant cultural shifts towards gambling in the community.

In the recent report on Australia’s Gambling Industries by the Productivity Commission, it is boldly stated that "the Commission considers that there are grounds that bill acceptors not be included in the design of poker machines, with any cash dispensers being located outside the gaming area" .

Subsequently the Taskforce believes that it is clearly in the public’s best interest to ban note-acceptors on EGMs, and is a well-informed decision that would have minimal negative impact. This is well supported by the Productivity Commission, for "it is hard to argue that (a ban on note-acceptors) presents anything other than a minor convenience. In this instance, the precautionary principle holds: don’t do something that might be hazardous if its benefits are very small."

In banning note acceptors there is little argument against it. It does not restrict anyone’s right to gamble or to gamble substantial amounts of money if they so choose. It does not reduce the entertainment value of a machine, nor does it reduce the convenience of this form of gambling, for change can still be easily sought within a venue.

However, the positive effects that banning note acceptors presents is very affirming of this decision:

As 62% of people with gambling problems use note-acceptors, compared to 22% or non-problem gamblers, banning note-acceptors slows the rate at which people with gambling problems can lose money with little inconvenience to the majority of other gamblers.

It provides, without the need for re-programming or regulatory frameworks, pre-scheduled breaks into play, as it will eventually be required for a player to go and get change from elsewhere in the venue. These breaks can present significant opportunities for individuals to reconsider and evaluate their gambling patterns.

Banning of note-acceptors and the subsequent use of coins only can complement and work in conjunction with a scheme of bet limits to better provide an all round safer product.

While the banning of note-acceptors in itself is a very constructive step in harm minimisation and reducing the incidence and severity of problem gambling, these positive effects could be diminished by venues and providers seeking to maintain the financial benefits that they reap from the gambling behaviours encouraged by note-acceptors. For instance, providing players with staff who will change notes for them reduces the advantage of breaks brought about by the ban (however, using a staff member to obtain change may involve some sense of stigma about excessively gambling, which would provide sufficient discouragement to some).

As with the ban on note-acceptors, there are clear arguments for and benefits in limiting the size of a bet at gaming machines, and with very minimal negative consequences to the entertainment value (an argument often used by the industry) of EGMs to consumers.

In terms of entertainment, it is already proven that most patrons prefer to play machines with low denominations (eg. 2 cents), with 68% of NSW revenue coming from such machines, and with 5, 1, and 2 cent machines forming the bulk of EGMs. Therefore, while larger denomination machines may be more profitable for the industry, it is the lower denomination which provide the greatest entertainment and enjoyment value, and additionally which provide the greatest degree of harm minimisation and avoidance of problem gambling behaviours.

Consequently, consumer demand appears to request forms of gambling which allow small bet sizes, and this can be effectively combined with the harm minimisation measures brought about by introducing bet limits on EGMs. This effectiveness of this can be even further complemented by combining bet limits with the banning of note-acceptors, which therefore allow only $2 coin maximum bet limits.

However, simple bet limits should not be seen as an entire solution. The Productivity Commission states that "the principal issue is not one of the denomination of the machine, by itself, but the overall intensity of play that is possible" (16.79). Therefore, while bet limits have significant positive contributions, without parallel controls on the intensity of play, their effectiveness is somewhat restricted.

Such controls could consist of:

Restrictions on the maximum number of lines and credits per line.

Reducing the game speed of EGMs and providing greater space between button pushes. (For example: A $2 maximum bet limit, combined with banning of note receptors and the allowance for only one coin to be inserted at a time would therefore require each player to insert a coin between each button push if they wanted to gamble the maximum amount. A minor inconvenience that naturally slows down the speed of play, reduces the amount that can be lost in time, and provides a player with more time to consider their gambling behaviour.)

Pre-scheduled breaks in gameplay, and/or breaks after payouts.

It is also worth considering the concepts put forward in 16.81 of the Productivity Commission report, regarding making play cheaper for people with gambling problems, to provide harm minimisation measures, even when problem gambling behaviours do not cease.

The 14-point recommendations of the Nijpels committee are also highly regarded and cover a variety of issues surrounding breaks, bet limits and game intensity:

Breaking through the process of automatically playing on

Every game should be started consciously. Gambling machines should have the facility of not being able to play a new game until the starter has been let loose and pressed again.

All credit points are stored into a win-bank instead of the current credit meter. Betting from the win-bank is impossible.

Automatic pay-out: (a) with a win of Dfl 50 in the win-bank, (b) if during the game an amount equal to the maximum prize of 200 credit points (Dfl 50) is reached.

After every automatic pay-out there should be a waiting period of 15 seconds, in which the machine cannot be played and in which no money can be inserted.

The obligation of a limit to playing of Dfl 50 at most, in combination with an information system on playing the game. This system is activated: (a) when the limit has been reached; (b) at the player’s request; (c) at pay-out of a prize; (d) at quitting the game.

Breaking through prolonged playing

Restriction of saving constructions. A gambling machine cannot save more than 200 credit points at the end of a game, and then carry them down to the next game. In the case of exceeding this number, automatic pay-out takes place.

An act of the player may lead to a maximum of Dfl 50.

Restriction of the attractiveness of the game

Extension of the minimum average playing time to three or four seconds, with a minimum value of 3.5 seconds.

Restriction of the bets in the repeat game.

 

Restriction of the recruiting character of gambling machines.

Static lighting when the machine is not being played.

Sound limitation with pay outs.

Flanking measures.

No exchanging devices on the machine itself.

Mention of the incidental character on the machine.

Self-exclusion programs have been promoted by the gaming industry as an effective tool in helping people with gambling problems. They have also argued that the self-exclusion program is an example of the industry behaving responsibly towards their consumers. In the words of the Executive Director of the Australian Hotels Association (Victorian Branch), Alan Giles:

"We agree with the Productivity Commission that the costs of problem gambling should be reduced through harm minisation and prevention measures.

One of the most effective tools is the self-exclusion program, an Australian Hotels Association initiative."

Gaming venues are required to support self-exclusion programs through the gaming industry’s "Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice" (Article 5). The gaming machine operators TABCORP and Tattersall’s have agreed, in the "Gaming Machine Operators Code of Practice", that one of the ways they will assist people with gambling problems is through the promotion of a self-exclusion procedure.

The InterChurch Gambling Task Force believes that the concept of self-exclusion programs is flawed, in that they place responsibility of having problems with gambling back onto the individual consumer rather than with the industry and with regulatory authorities. Self-exclusion programs fit with the concept that problem gambling is something which will only effect a small number of people who are predisposed to have gambling problems, rather than accepting that all people may be at risk of having gambling problems. Also the Task Force feels the available evidence shows that the existing self-exclusion programs are far from effective for all of those that access them.

As a measure of the effectiveness of the program, the chief executive of the Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association, Mr Alan Giles stated that since the program was introduced in Victoria 950 people have taken part, with an additional 287 self-exclusions being issued by Crown Casino. However, the Australian Productivity Commission found that approximately 2.1% of Australia’s adult population experienced significant problems with their gambling, with an estimated 76,000 Victorians having significant problems with their gambling, of whom 65 to 80% will be EGM gamblers. Thus, approximately only 1.25% of Victorians with gambling problems have accessed the self-exclusion program, with a slightly higher percentage (around 2%) of those with gambling problems relating to EGMs accessing self-exclusion programs. Clearly self-exclusion is not an effective way of addressing people who have problems with gambling as issues of self identification, compulsion, access and motivation remain difficult.

Promotion of self-exclusion within venues is not immediately visible in many venues. Spot checks on 41 venues throughout the State by Church members in the period of September 1999 to April 2000, found the self-exclusion program visibly promoted in only 10% of venues. Even in the four venues where the program was promoted, some of these were only be mentioning the program in the "Gaming, More than a game. A guide to responsible gaming in Victoria" brochure distributed by the Victorian Gaming Machine Industry Secretariat. It was not through direct promotion. The AHHA has stated that they have avoided direct public promotion of the self-exclusion program on the basis of advice from counselling services. However, the BreakEven Secretariat has stated that they are not opposed to public promotion of the self-exclusion program.

The lack of commitment venue operators have taken in the voluntary industry "Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice", including the self-exclusion program, is further evidenced by the Victorian gaming industry’s own review of their codes. The Gaming Machine Industry Codes of Practice Working Group, which includes representatives from TABCORP and Tattersall’s, sent surveys to all 545 gaming venues in existence in Victoria at the time. Only 18% of the venues responded to the surveys. The majority of those that did respond indicated that the ‘implementation’ of the codes had resulted in no change at their venue, suggesting that there was little change in the venues to improve consumer protection. The review found that "there was no indicative data to ascertain whether or not the self-exclusion information packages have been of assistance." The statement is revealing in that eight months after the launch of the self-exclusion program by the gaming industry, the industry peak bodies had not made sufficient efforts to ensure venues had implemented the program and were not monitoring venue compliance with the "Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice".

The Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association states that it is willing to arrange meetings with people wishing to access the self-exclusion program in localities suitable to them if they are unable to travel to the AHHA offices in Malvern or to reimburse travel costs of people who come to the offices in Malvern. However, counsellors of people with gambling problems report that people have been required to travel to the AHHA offices in Malvern, proving to be a discouragement for people wishing to access the program. Information about the reimbursement of travel costs is not readily volunteered. The level of motivation people require for self exclusion is significant as such impediments as those described above may see any motivation to help themselves wain. The BreakEven Secretariat has expressed concern at the ability of people to access the program and has stated that they believe the program should be as accessible as it is to access the EGMs themselves. However, to avoid people accessing the self-exclusion program without due consideration, BreakEven has suggested a short cooling off period of a few days.

Counsellors report that the self-exclusion program is ineffective. One counsellor reported that her client excluded herself from a number of venues so that she would only gamble at others that she preferred. The self-exclusion program appeared to have little impact in assisting the client in question with their gambling problem. In another case, a counsellor reported that her only client on the self-exclusion program was able to walk into the venue she was self-excluded from and spend her entire pay-packet.

The experiences of counsellors help to highlight the failings of the current self-exclusion program. These failings include:

the requirement that the gaming venue staff need to identify if someone has entered the venue they are self-excluded from. This currently requires them to be familiar with the photographs of those patrons that are self-excluded;

the high level of accessibility to gaming venues which makes it difficult for someone to exclude themselves from all the venues that they could gamble in, especially in the metropolitan area; and

self-exclusion programs will only work for people with gambling problems that are willing to admit they have a problem and are willing to take action to deal with the problem.

The industry has failed to provide any independent study directly assessing the effectiveness of the self-exclusion program. Such a study would survey those people that have self-excluded themselves and ask them how effective they found the program in helping them with their gambling related problems. Instead of this the industry simply assumes that anyone that accesses the program must gain benefit from it and are conducting a demographic study of those that have accessed the self-exclusion program. The AHHA refers to the proportion of people that renew their self-exclusion arrangement as evidence of the effectiveness of the program. Mr Giles was quoted in the press as saying that approximately half those on the self-exclusion program renew when their initial term expires. While this may demonstrate that the current self-exclusion program is helpful to some people, a comprehensive assessment of the program should be conducted by direct survey of those that have accessed the program. On a preliminary inquiry it appears that self-exclusion is not effective and is certainly not utilised as widely as is needed to ameliorate the damage of gambling to individuals.

Improvements to self-exclusion could be made by requiring all gaming venue patrons to carry an identity card, similar to a video library card, being required to display the card when entering a gaming area. Consumers readily accepted the use of video library cards and the forms of identity they required, without any fear of an infringement of civil liberties. It has been accepted as a necessary precaution in the hiring process for the protection of the industry and consumers. The issuing of the card would require the display of some photographic ID, such as a drivers licence. All venues could be hooked up to an on-line central database. If a person decided to self-exclude themselves this would be recorded on the central database and their card destroyed. This would make it extremely difficult for a self-excluded person to enter the gaming area of any venue and would have the added benefit of making it difficult for minors to enter gaming areas.

Another concept that significantly increases the effectiveness and outreach of the self-exclusion program has been evidenced in the recent Queensland internet gambling legislation. In this instance an application for self-exclusion can be sought by "a person who satisfies the chief executive of a close personal interest in the welfare of the person against whom the prohibition is sought". This can therefore involve relatives, spouses, children, etc. who are often unwilling victims of the consequences of excessive gambling. This is a highly respected measure of the Queensland legislation, and a measure which the Taskforce strongly recommends as not only increasing the effectiveness of the self-exclusion program, but as a measure to empower and protect those at the mercy of a gambling problem not their own.

The Task Force approves of enforceable self-exclusion being extended to clubs and hotels, but recommends the following conditions:

a self-excluded person is excluded from the gaming areas of all venues;

breaches of self-exclusion should result in penalties upon the venue operator not the self-excluded person, to make the venue operators responsible for enforcing the program; and

that the implementation of the enforceable self-exclusion program in clubs and hotels does not divert resources away from other measures of harm minimisation and consumer protection. Again it should be noted that self-exclusion is based on the flawed premise that problems with gambling are the responsibility of individual gamblers and do not rest with the gambling industry nor the regulatory authorities.

Penalties upon venue operators for breaches of self-exclusion accompanied with education as to their responsibilites as a more effective measure of ensuring that the self-exclusion program would be effective, although even this would encourage venue operators to conceal detected breaches of self-exclusion.

Those people that breach self-exclusion arrangements should be strongly encouraged to undergo counselling, but should not be compelled to do so. BreakEven has advised that compulsory counselling is ineffective and not a useful application of the resources of problem gambling services. However, the concept of compulsory responsible gambling education programs, as opposed to composery counselling, does have support in the field for those that breach self-exclusion. Gamblers that breach self-exclusion arrangements should not be subject to prosecution or monetary penalty, in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, as such sanctions would appear to ‘criminalise’ their behavior on the basis of a program they have entered voluntarily and fails to acknowledge the degree of compulsion people may be struggling against.

Should an effective self-exclusion program across all venues be developed, then all venues should be required to prominently display information about the availability of the program and how it works, again in line with the Productivity Commission report. The spot checks of 41 venues previously referred to demonstrates that the current arrangement of gaming industry self-regulation has not led to venue operators visibly displaying information about the existing self-exclusion program. Therefore it would not be reasonable to leave it up to venue operators to voluntarily display information on the self-exclusion program.

The provision of meaningful, coherent, and specifically targeted information regarding the odds against winning, and about individual gambling behaviours is an early step in gambling harm minimisation and community education. There is presently a significant degree of misperception y consumers regarding gambling products. These misperceptions have played a major role in the expansion and profitability of the gambling industry, as well as the disturbing spread and increase in problem gambling and gambling abuse.

Such misperceptions have included:

Gambling advertising which strongly features the concept of 'everybody's a winner', and that to gamble results in one being better off socially, financially, and emotionally.

Advertising providing warnings about problem gambling and the negative impacts of gambling have not been hard-hitting, have failed to seriously convey the message that gambling will cost people money, and that having gambling problems could happen to anyone who gambles regularly.

The format of statements of odds which meet the requirements of giving an individual odds on certain games, but which are designed in such a way to encourage further gambling by emphasising the chances of winning.

The ability to reserve a particular EGM in a venue, which supports the widespread misperception that 'it is just a matter of time before a machine pays out...'. This is a particularly strong misperception, where people see EGMs as essentially large containers that fill up with the money they have put in, and therefore must eventually pay it all out. Gamblers do not observe or are not fully aware of the fact that it is being emptied of its contents from the other side.

Misperceptions based on luck, folklore, or superstition. These are widely varied and subsequently not as simple to deconstruct. However, simple education about probability and chance can achieve a great deal.

The belief that to win at gambling is to win at the industry's expense, instead of realising that the amount of money won by an individual is the same amount that has been lost by others (and primarily by those with gambling problems), as well as the other money lost which has gone into profit and expenses.

Subsequently, any attempt to properly inform consumers should be designed in such a way that properly deconstructs misperceptions in their early stages. These refers to both written information (pre-gambling), and that which should be displayed in the course of gameplay (post-gambling) and in any advertising (which the Taskforce believes should be banned anyway).

All written information regarding odds and gameplay, as well as any allowed promotional material must adhere to particular criteria regarding misleading information and clarity of the details presented. Existing payout tables and information booklets distributed by venues and providers, whilst containing true statistics, present the information in such a way that the emphasis is placed on the chance of winning, despite the fact that winning large sums in statistically insignificant.

All written information therefore should:

Provide in plain English (and in other languages for those venues with significant ethnic populations) the statistical chance of winning a major prize.

State clearly that in the long run EGMs are designed to take your money from you and make a profit for the venue and the providers.

That any winnings you do make are at the expense of another’s persons loss, and that this person is most usually somebody with a gambling problem, and thus will suffer the subsequent social and economic consequences.

Reinforce the point that EGMs operate on pre-set computer operated algorithms, that luck, time or skill plays no part, and no one machine is ‘lucky’ or will eventually return your losses.

Written information has the potential of informing the gambler with realistic representations of the true nature of the gambling industry before they play. However, information presented in actual gameplay has much more opportunity to bring to attention the facts about gambling on EGMs, and to warn people against adopting problem gambling patterns.

There are a number of possibilities in terms of display-mounted player information:

Displaying amount won/lost in dollars and cents rather than in credits: this clearly improves consumer understanding regarding the amount that has truly been lost, and that this was not merely ‘credits’, but actual cash that could have been used for other purposes. To have a window on the screen with a continual tally of the amount lost so far (since this is going to be much more likely that any individual winnings overall) allows for an individual to continually re-evaluate their gambling behaviour, and help them realise when it is time to stop or seek help.

The above recommendation has one primary problem – that being that the display of the amount lost could encourage certain types of gamblers to ‘chase their losses’, and thus only provide them with further incentive to gamble more. Therefore, any statement of amount lost or won should be combined with a closely position statement of the true statistical nature of the machine (for example: "This machine returns only 80cents in the dollar", or "EGMs are designed so that you will lose money overall." Such statements assist in overcoming the many misconceptions that encourage gamblers to keep gambling.

The requirement for activity statements also demands the requirement for players to be registered and identified. This in itself is a constructive concept, as it helps identify those with problem gambling behaviours and can be used to improve the function of the self-exclusion program. The requirement to register also avoids consumers being ‘accidentally’ drawn into gambling, for the decision to start gambling on EGMs would have to involve the registration process, which would preferably contain informing the consumer of the true nature of EGM gambling through the previously discussed written information. It also allows for much more accurate and meaningful player information to be described.

The use of activity statements (much in the same way as a household bill and user statement) is a positive step in that it not only states the amount lost overall, but can also alert other household members of an individual’s gambling behaviour. Hopefully it would contain the details and times of their gambling, the amount lost, time spent, etc.

Pre-commitment is an approach that can be developed into a reasonably effective harm minimisation strategy. However, as with the previous discussion of activity statements, it is one that will work most effectively when combined with a system of player registration.

Without registration, pre-commitment becomes a measure which relies purely on the will power of a gambler. While a gambler may insert an appropriate amount that they wish to gamble, by the time this amount has expired they may have ‘changed their minds’ due to the addictive nature of the gameplay, or simply decide to keep gambling regardless in the hope of winning back their losses. If this ‘voluntary’ system were to be even minimally effective it requires the EGM to shut-down for a period of time after the amount has expired, which then impinges on the abilities of others to gamble, and does not stop a gambler from moving to another machine.

However, with a system or registration, a player can (or be required, preferably) to state an amount they wish to pre-commit per day or per week, and the user ID can then determine when this has been reached and refuse that gambler access after that. Changing the pre-commitment level would then require a physical means of applying for a change at the venue, a certain waiting period of a week or so, and informing of the gambler about the consequences of their decision in terms of problem gambling behaviours, etc.

The system of enforced breaks does assist in the minimisation of problem gambling, in that it removes a gambler from the intense and un-relenting gameplay that forms a primary factor in the addictiveness of the product. By installing pre-scheduled breaks, the gambler is forced to take time out in which they can reconsider their gambling behaviour and their expenditure. This however is reliant upon the machine shutting down for a number of minutes, which could pose difficulties in crowded and busy venues.

Once again, combining the concept of breaks with player registration avoids the requirement for lengthy shut-down periods, as the machine can simply refuse to respond to that particular player for a longer period of time, and that player cannot overcome enforced breaks by moving to another machine.

The previously discussed concept of banning note-receptors is a very positive preliminary step in the introduction of pre-scheduled breaks. The requirement for a gambler to go to a cashier (which should be located outside the gambling area), possibly give up their seat at the machine, and come back provides significant opportunity to re-consider their behaviour, without relying on more controversial and/or harder to enforce technological constraints. However, as earlier stated, this must be combined with an inability for gamblers to seek change from venue staff in the venue itself.

Another use of enforced breaks is also in that of following a large win. After a win of a pre-determined amount (say $50), that amount is payed out in cash and a break is activated. This discourages the continued recycling of winnings into subsequent losses which is a common trait in problem gambling.

The current regulation of advertising has failed to ensure the responsible promotion of gambling. The current regulations only provide for the prohibition of false, misleading or deceptive advertising. The Productivity Commission found that existing advertising codes allow the gambling industry to exaggerate so long as the exaggeration is so self-evident that it is unlikely to mislead. However, it noted the difficulty in legally substantiating what is deceptive advertising.

Appendix I of this submission includes a number of examples of unethical advertising by the Victorian gambling industry, with a strong emphasis on winning. One of the examples presented is as recent as 10 January 2000. The emphasis on winning is misleading as it tends to imply that everyone will be a winner and the promotion of winning undermines the concept of responsible gambling.

Gambling consumers need to understand gambling as another form of entertainment that costs them money. That is for the average gambling consumer, in the long run, their gambling will cost them money. The more they spend, the more likely it is that the cost will be closer to the average cost rate. However, VCGA reports have consistently demonstrated that heavy and committed gamblers find the thrill of winning a high motivation for their involvement. The Productivity Commission report also quoted studies that demonstrate that many gamblers in counselling for gambling problems have erroneous beliefs about winning and do not see gambling as another entertainment form that, on average and in the long run, will cost them money. Therefore advertising that directly promotes winning, or places indirect emphasis on it, is undermining the concept of responsible gambling. Such advertising, which is not challenged, under the current regulations, clearly undermines the concept of responsible gambling.

Spot checks conducted on 41 gaming venues around the State by Church members found that advertising that emphasised winning, in the opinions of those conducting the checks, was found in 85% of the venues. While the assessment of when advertising emphasises winning is open to some subjectivity, the high level of advertising emphasising winning is largely a result of such materials being provided to the venues by the gaming operators Tattersallís and TABCORP.

The InterChurch Gambling Task Force believes that all public advertising of gambling should be banned. In the case of gaming venues they should only be allowed to advertise hours of operation, location, name, games available, number of machines or tables, and the provision of non-gaming facilities.

A ban on gambling advertising is justified on the grounds of the public health effects of gambling and on the basis that gamblers may have persistent misperceptions even after regular participation in gambling activities. In the words of the Productivity Commission

"However, a false view of odds can persist because of the probabilistic nature of the games played. A lottery player with a misunderstanding of the odds might never be able to correct this misunderstanding through personal experience."

A ban on advertisements that promote gambling has also been publicly supported by a number of psychologists. Forensic psychologist Ian Joblin stated that "Gambling advertisements legitimise gambling for people who have a gambling problem."

The Task Force notes that there are bans on advertising for a number of other products that are seen as public health issues. Examples include tobacco products, alcohol, and breastmilk substitutes. .In the case of tobacco products, advertising is banned altogether. In the case of breastmilk substitutes the World Health Organisation "International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes" (1981) recommends a ban on all advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of breastmilk substitutes (Article 5.1). Infant formula manufacturers and importers to Australia have agreed not to advertise or in any other way promote infant formulae to the general public. In the case of breastmilk substitutes, it should be noted that the use of breastmilk substitutes themselves is not harmful to babies (provided the instructions are followed correctly) but the product is inferior to breastmilk. Therefore, this is a case where a ban on advertising is in place in an attempt to promote the highest possible health of the consumers (the babies).

The InterChurch Gambling Task Force would fully support the introduction of provisions to make it an offence for gaming operators to offer anything that would reward participation in gaming activities. In particular, this should be applied to bonus points systems (or loyalty programs) where players of gaming machines receive extra rewards based on the level of their gaming machine play.

The Task Force also supports prohibiting trade promotion competitions that are based on the play of gaming machines in registered hotels, clubs and the casino.

Even representatives of the gaming industry are beginning to publicly support bans on promotions and rewards for EGM play. Alan Giles, was quoted in the press as supporting a ban on all incentives for EGM play:

"The product – pokies - should stand alone. We believe this is over-promotion and should be banned by legislation."

Again similar bans already exist on breastmilk substitutes with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Code forbidding "point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples or any other promotion device to induce sales directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss leaders and tie-in sales."

The Productivity Commission found that the odds of winning overall on poker machines for a regular gambler over a year are effectively zero. In the VCGA ‘Fourth Survey of Community Gambling Patterns’ January 1997, it was found that ‘the thrill or dream of winning’ was motivation for 82% of the regular EGM and casino gamblers and that the strength of this motivation had increased substantially since 1995 (p.23). The research also showed that regular EGM and casino gamblers were more likely to have another bet after losing than other gamblers (p.24). The report found that 30% of ‘committed heavy gamblers’ had high expectations of returns on gambling. Similar findings were reported by the VCGA ‘Sixth Survey of Community Gambling Patterns and Perceptions’, April 1999, although this survey found that the number of regular EGM or casino gamblers for whom ‘the thrill or dream of winning’ was a motivation for gambling had fallen to 66%.

The Productivity Commission report found that a significant proportion of people have cognitive misconceptions about gambling (pp. 16.22-16.25). Evidence was reported of people playing EGMs touching the side of the machine, pressing the buttons in certain ways or holding some item, like a lucky charm, in the belief this will increase their chance of winning. The report also presented data from a survey of 1017 young Victorians on their attitudes to gambling, which found that:

15.5% believed the chances of winning a substantial amount of money at the casino are quite high;

16.6% believed they will win a good prize in Tattslotto (over $10,000) one day;

19.0% believed to win at gambling you have to think positively;

10.0% believed they were more likely to win at lotto/gambling if they used their "lucky numbers"; and

10.1% believed you can win at pokies if you adopt the right system.

The Productivity Commission has made clearly evidenct the results of the advertising of G-Line services. Television advertising had a dramatic effect on the number of people contacting the service. It shows that when advertising is operating up to 63% of all contacts are as a result of that advertising. This drops away to a figure of only 7% when this advertising stops.

It is therefore essential that a continuous strategy of main media advertising by implemented in Victoria and paid for from the Community Support Fund. The budget level required to accomplish this would be approximately $5 million per year in Victoria, and throughout Australia would be four times this amount. As G-Line is the first line of contact for Break Even services, this budget would also serve to advertise all services for problem gamblers.

In terms of advertising the dangers and risks of gambling, there has to date been no effective advertising of this nature put in the media. Although there have been two campaigns that have been produced in Victoria, they have not been correctly directed.

This campaign would have the objective of informing all Australians of:

the truth about gambling

the odds of winning

the checks to put in place so that you don’t gamble

the dangers to people suffering from depression, grief and other crises, of becoming problem gamblers

how to recognise problem gambling behaviour in yourself and others.

This advertising needs to be carefully researched and have very creative approaches utilised if it is to work. The budget would need to be approximately $8 million for Victoria and four times that amount nationwide.

While the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority is theoretically and legislatively seen as an independent body, designed to regulate, monitor, research and inform, it has come under constant attack regarding what is perceived as a too close relationship with Parliament, thus effecting the function, purpose and direction of the Authority. It is therefore necessary that the independence of the Authority be defined and re-clarified, so that the public can be informed of the actual position of the VCGA, and the Authority itself can be asserted of its own roles, responsibilities and independence. In this re-assertion, the Taskforce recommends that any changes to the function of the Authority focus upon:

acting as one source of advice to the Minister on licensing;

deciding matters such as license applications and revocations.

In the light of this, it is highly worthwhile to consider the review of structure put forward by the Productivity Commission, which differs significantly from the present Victorian approach.

"The structure of the statutory authority will also have a significant influence on its capacity to be independent. To this end, the statute should specify that:

the authority comprise a number of Commissioners (of whom one should be full time, appointed by the Governor;

appointments should be of fixed term, with terms not able to be terminated by the government of the day without just cause (to be specified in the Act);

independence may be strengthened by a requirement that Commissioners may only serve one term;

to avoid the perception of lack of independence, no persons with present or past links to gambling providers, regulators, counselling agencies or the like should be eligible for appointment;

the authority should have its own budget, voted by Parliament;

and should employ its own staff, rather than be dependent on a secretariat from a department."

the authority should report to Parliament.

It is impossible to place too much emphasis on this role of independence, and it is clearly a suitable time for the VCGA to have it's own independence re-evaluated and re-defined. Regardless of how that is carried out or what results it comes to, it is equally important that these decision be entrenched in legislation to provide for the transparency that has frequently been lacking from past experiences with the Authority and the state government.

In terms of the research function of the regulatory body, it has been made clear that independence and transparency is just as important in this arena, with the Productivity Commission supporting the concept of an independent body apart from the control function to handle research and community development. In termrs of the funding of counselling, the Taskforce strongly believes this function should remain with the Department of Human Services, even though the money comes from the Community Support Fund. This creates an effective and beneficial separation between the research function for problem gambling, and the counselling function for problem gambling. The Taskforce strongly supports the Government’s move to establish and Independent Research Authority and strongly advocates that this body also be responsible for the research function into problem gambling. This function is currently held by the Department of Human Services, but should be transferred given that research on the social and economic impacts is linked with research on problem gambling, as are recommendations and outcomes of areas of research.

The present situation of research within the VCGA requires significant evaluation. Whilst Victoria has led the way in research projects, there is simply no question that many researchers find it very hard to provide fully independent studies due to the commercial in confidence clauses requiring the sanitising of controversial issues and findings. The impact of confidentiality agreements on researchers undertaking significant research projects for the VCGA and the Department of Human Services needs to be fully examined and evaluated in the light of how these agreements impact upon the quality of research, delays in the release of research information, and the access to the data for those wishing to assess the wider social impacts. Also, an examination of these issues also needs to consider the impact of copyright on the usefulness and accessibility of research information, and to examine ways in which all information relating to gambling and its wider social impacts can be placed under community ownership. A recent report of 5 April 2000 tabled by the Public Estimates Committee ought to see immediate action from the State government to ensure transparency. The Report’s criticisms of commercial in confidence has equal applicability on issues relating to gambling and the public interest.

The Taskforce further encourages the processes of public consultation of a body such as the VCGA, noting that the original provision under section 11l of the Gaming Machine Control Act, which unfortunately have been watered down in 1994. The Taskforce is unaware of any inquiries being conducted by the VCGA since. Subsequently, it is essential that these provisions be re-affirmed and the process of public consultation brought to the forefront of functioning of the VCGA.

Pursuant to Section 12(1)(aa) of the Gaming Machine Control Act 1991 (Vic.), there is a requirement to issue a ministerial direction that freezes the number of machines in each venue at their present amount. The Taskforce understands that this can be done by schedule, where certain areas are named, with a maximum number of EGMs stated for each venue.

Indicate to TABCORP and Tattersalls that there must be no further reallocation of machines, other than those places that already have their planning permits and gaming licences and have been allocated, and to that end, not more than 5% of machines can be moved until further notice. This 5% is to honour any existing contractual obligations the two owners/suppliers, Tattersalls and TABCORP, may have entered into.

It is the belief of the Taskforce that any future regional caps may be obviated by the time taken to bring them in and the strategic placement by TABCORP and Tattersalls to anticipate and frustrate these regional caps giving them at least five years’ breathing space.

The authority and power to control and authorise gambling developments, both in terms of numbers of venues and in numbers of machines, theoretically lies in the hands of three organisations: State Government, Local Government, and Industry Providers. The State Government has set Ministerial Directionswhich control: the maximum number of machines available; the proportion of machines located outside urban Melbourne; the maximum number of machines permitted in restricted and unrestricted areas; the proportion of machines in clubs vs. hotels; and the proportion of machines to be operated by each provider. The State also has planning power through the State Planning Scheme, which allows any venue where the gaming area is to be less than 25% of the floor area where liquor is consumed to be exempt from the need for a permit from the Local Government, prohibits venues in closed shopping complexes, and only allows venues in nominated strip shopping centres if they existed or had licences before 16 June 1998.

Local Government has planning power only with venues where the gaming area exceeds 25% of the floor space and a permit is required. In such circumstances a council may choose to refuse a permit, however, this process is open to appeal. However, in choosing to refuse a permit, the Planning and Environment Act determines that such factors as noise, impact on amenity, car parking, hours, etc. must be considered, social and economic effects may be considered, but need not be (Section 60b). On appeal, there is limited precedent for the used of 60(b) in predicting the response of VCAT, and quite obviously social and economic effects (the main impacts of gambling) have minimal influence when compared to physical effects.

Industry Providers have planning power in that machines must be available and granted to a venue. Therefore, the two providers have power over where their machines will be located, within the framework set by the State.

At present, the concept of local government having planning authority is somewhat erroneous. Whilst local government has a number of controlling powers over local developments, with the current nature of gambling legislation and planning controls, there is little local power over gambling venues. If a venue has less than 25% of the licensed floor space occupied by gaming machines, then local government has virtually no way of refusing such a development on social, economic or aesthetic grounds. And even when local government does have the ability to refuse a permit, the influence that social and economic effects can play is somewhat minimised, especially on appeal, by the nature of the Planning and Environment Act (Section 60b). The nature of State Government legislation and the State Planning Scheme has removed most planning power from the hands of local government.

Therefore, at the present time both planning and taxing authority lie primarily in the hands of the State Government, with secondary planning power in the hands of the industry providers. This has lead to the present state of affairs with high levels of gambling, saturation of EGMs in low-income areas and the continued promotion of gambling as an entertainment option.

Subsequently, the first step in improving overall equity and social consequences in Victoria would be to return planning authority to local government.

By re-attributing primary planning power to Local Government through the State Planning Scheme, the Gaming Machine Control Act 1991, and the Gambling Legislation (Responsible Gambling) Bill, it allows local communities to have a greater voice in determining the level of gambling within their municipality. Local Government is more aware of and can respond more directly to community problems created by gambling and are more aware of the consequences at a local level. At the present time, they have virtually no control over planning, and this inability to respond to community needs is the primary cause of frustration and concern at the municipal level.

Improving relationships between the regulator and local government is also a move which can improve the transparency and openness of the regulatory body. Local government is, by nature, a more transparent and open organisation to the wider community and far more accessible than any state regulatory body can be. Additionally, as discussed previously, local government has for too long been significantly restricted in its abilities to have a voice and influence the planning direction of gambling processes, especially as it relates to their municipalities.

The Interchurch Gambling Taskforce has argued significantly in the past regarding the influence of ‘cultural shifts’ on gambling behaviour and attitudes towards gambling and gambling venues. Such cultural shifts can be caused by:

The advertising of gambling, especially as it combines with images of ‘successful’ people, or ‘winners’ (eg. sportspeople, etc.)

The concept of gambling as a form of entertainment, and the basis and focus for a night out with friends or family.

The increasing trend that the most accessible and visible social opportunities are to be found in gambling venues where socialising occurs in the context of the gambling activity.

And in the continued use of the term ‘gaming’ in reference to the poker machine industry…

The Interchurch Gambling Taskforce deeply believes that the continued and encouraged use of the term ‘gaming’ by the industry, and by many sections of the media, has created a cultural shift in believing that gambling on EGMs is just a ‘game’, and where a ‘game’ cannot really be a negative influence. In truth, these are forms of gambling, where significant amounts of money can be lost in relatively short periods of time, and the Taskforce believes that they should be referred to appropriately as ‘electronic gambling machines’.

The Taskforce also encourages the re-examination of the term ‘gaming’ as used by the State Government in reference to the EGM industry, and encourages it to re-evaluate whether this should be returned to the less popular (amongst the industry at least), but more accurate term of ‘electronic gambling’ or similar.

Spot checks on 41 venues around the State found that ATMs were present in 66% of venues and EFTPOS was available in 42% of venues, with only 10% of venues having neither ATMs nor EFTPOS. The Task Force strongly believes that ATM and EFTPOS facilities should not be available at gaming venues, especially in metropolitan areas and should likewise be removed from gaming venues in rural areas, where it is reasonable to do so (that is where the ATM or EFTPOS facility could be located elsewhere). When located in rural gaming venues, where possible the ATM should have a lower daily maximum withdrawal, exclude credit withdrawals, allow only one withdrawal per customer per day, and have clearly posted warnings to consumers about problem gambling.

Removing ATMs and EFTPOS from gaming venues is another way of ensuring that people have a break from gambling and have time to consider if they wish to continue play. This was the reason given for the rule that ATMs not be located within the restricted gaming area of a venue, but it appears that there are many venues that have attempted to reduce the break time by locating the ATM just outside the door of the gaming room.

The Productivity Commission stated that "Several gambling counsellors expressed concern that their (ATMs) availability in or near gambling venues contributed to the problems of some of their clients."

The Productivity Commission also found that the large bulk of recreational gamblers never used ATMs in venues when playing EGMs, while the majority of those people with gambling problems did so, with one in five people with gambling problems always doing so.

The Task Force believes that the current regime of self-regulation by the gaming industry has failed to provide appropriate consumer protection. The voluntary Codes of Practice themselves are deficient in the measures they have provided, but have also been seriously deficient in the lack of an enforcement mechanism and monitoring of compliance. There has been no systematic of serious attempt by the industry to ensure compliance by venues operators with the Codes of Practice.

The gaming operators, Tattersalls and TABCORP, state that they conduct unannounced audits of venues against the measures provided in the voluntary industry codes. However, they have been unwilling to publicly release the results of these audits. This issue underlines again the Interchurch Gambling Taskforce’s concerns about the lack of transparency, accountability and responsibilities of the industry in light of the social harm.

The review of the industry’s voluntary Codes of Practice at the end of 1997, resulted in only 18% of venues replying to the industry’s own surveys. The survey itself failed to seek the level of compliance by venues with the measures agreed to in the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice.

The review failed to provide information on how the gaming machine operators ensured that:

Gaming machine play is conducted as an ancillary activity to a reasonable range of traditional hospitality services (Article 3 of the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice);

What steps the venue had taken to support the self-exclusion program and whether they were displaying signage and brochures promoting accredited counselling services (Article 5);

Supported the local community as part of its commitment to the provision of responsible gaming (Article 9);

That all members of staff who work in gaming rooms completed an accredited responsible service of gaming course and a responsible service of alcohol course (Article 10); and

Gaming venues fully cooperated with the independent complaint resolution process (Article 13);

There is a worrying contradiction in the industry Codes of practice. Article 15 of the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice states that :

"A condition precedent for entering into a contract with Tattersalls of TABCORP is for the venue operator to sign this Code of Practice and adhere to its provisions."

However, in the Gaming Machine Operators Code of Practice, section 3.2, Article 3 states:

"Preference will be given to venues that agree to comply with and, where appropriate, have proved their commitment to all the conditions of the Codes of Practice."

The two articles seem to create confusion as to whether or not a venue operator will be excluded from being able to obtain EGMs from Tattersalls and TABCORP if they fail to adhere to the provisions of the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice, or if simply preference will be given to those venues that adhere.

The VCGA report "Hotel and Club Industry Impact Study", December 1999 demonstrated that a significant minority of gaming venues are not complying with Article 9 of the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice. Only 51.9% of gaming hotels and 67.1% of gaming clubs responded to the survey. Of those that responded 14% of gaming hotels and 9% of gaming clubs admitted that they made not contributions to the community in the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998. This represents a significant level of non-compliance with Article 9 of the Licensed Venue Operators Code of Practice. It also suggests that Tattersalls and TABCORP are failing in their promise to ensure that venue management adhere to the sections of the Victorian Gaming Machine Industry Code of Practice that are relevant to venue operations in the Gaming machine Operators Code of Practice.

Spot checks on 41 venues around the State by Church members found that:

signage and/or brochures promoting accredited counselling services were displayed in 83% of venues. The Task Force believes the compliance with regard to this aspect of the industry voluntary code is probably even higher, as a number of those conducting the checks may not have visited the toilets where the signage is often exclusively displayed within the venue;

85% of venues displayed advertising emphasising winning in the judgement of those conducting the checks. This was regarded as a violation of Article 2.2 (1) of the ‘Gaming Machine Industry Advertising Code of Ethics’ that states "Advertising shall not be false of misleading and deceptive, particularly with respect to wining."; and

only 10% of venues visibly displayed material promoting the self-exclusion program.

The Task Force believes that the State Government has the responsibility to ensure compliance of venue operators with any consumer protection measures introduced by the Government. The Taskforce believes that the enforcement function where the terms and conditions, etc have not been complied with should remain with the VCGA. In this sense, the VCGA must re-invent itself as an independent body capable of conducting regular and unannounced inspections of gaming venues. There is a need for the body to be able to initiate proceedings against gaming venues found to be in breach of the consumer protection measures introduced.

Return to Interchurch Gambling Taskforce's Homepage
 Return to Anglicare Victoria's Homepage

The contents of this homepage remain the property of the Interchurch Gambling Taskforce
and cannot be quoted without acknowledging this source