Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation Measures

Consultation Paper Response Form

Gaming Machine Harm Minimisation MeasuresConsultation Paper

Response Form

Your details

Name / Bryan Steele
Organisation (If applicable) / Summerhill Hotel
Email address
Address / 12/830 Plenty Road Reservoir 3073
Telephone

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?
Clients need to obtain Cash, not only for Gaming but also for other purposes.
I think the limit is appropriate and fair. Could be a ceiling of say $400 may be appropriate
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?
This often causes issues w Customers. Consider Raising to $1500 or $2000.
Q.3. Should payment by EFT be permitted in addition to, or as a replacement for, payment by cheque?
Yes
Q.4. Are there other payment methods that should be considered for the payment of credits / winnings?
Nothing comes to mind on this
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?
I would check the other States to see how they handle this issue.
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?

I think the current measures in place achieve generally the objectives of Harm Minimisation.
The industry is highly regulated with many areas of compliance.
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?
In my venue, staff are vigilant of their responsibilities.
There are penalties in place for venues that fail to comply with behavioural matters.
Q.9. Are self-exclusion programs best administered by the industry or by another body?
Self exclusion is voluntary and many people know this, seek out self exclusion, and we then receive information identifying them. If you have evidence of impropriety in management by the AHA I am sure they would take the issue up and resolve it.
Can’t see the need for another body.
Q.10. Should there be one self-exclusion program in Victoria?
Not sure of the intent of this question. But, yes, one that is consistently applied throughout the Industry.
Q.11. How could self-exclusion programs be improved?
There is already significant advertising and signage throughout venues plus advertising on the radio and TV. Not knowing much about Social media I understand there could be potential in utilising this more.
Q.12. Is the annual review useful or are there other ways to report on program trends and compliance?
Compliance is a 24/7 issue. Annual is fine for a report. The VCGLR sends out regular updates and this could be targeted if an issue arises
Q.13. Should there be a separate offence for venue operators who knowingly allow self-excluded persons to enter or remain in the venue?
Maybe. We have self excluded patrons in our venue but they are not allowed in the Gaming area.
Q.14. Should a new requirement to undertake advanced responsible service of gaming training be introduced?
Maybe. Plenty of scope within the current licencing procedures to ensure Responsible service of gaming.
Q.15. If so, who should be required to complete the advanced training and what content should the training include?
Generally management, supervisors.
A good video with Content showing actual circumstances and how to handle them would be a useful tool. For all staff.
Q.16. Who should be responsible for the development and provision of the advanced training?
VCGLR
Q.17. Do you think regional caps and municipal limits should be maintained? Why?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don’t hear a lot of people complaining about this.
Victoria stands alone on many issues and I think the industry is well managed with a lot of compliance issues dealing with many areas.
Q.18. Should regional caps be extended beyond the existing capped areas and if so, why?
They should be reviewed regularly with a set of guidelines for the review.
Changes can occur within capped areas, such as population growth etc.
Q.19. Are the current regional cap and municipal limit levels appropriate?
Generally I think Yes.

Page 1 of 6