Australia Gambling Reform Plans to Ban Loved Ones from Casinos

[pereblue]

More New Gambling Reforms for Aussies:
Australia Plans To Allow Family Members To Ban Loved Ones From Casinos

 

[goatwack]

Would only be useful in extreme cases. More worrying is what they'd class as 'problem gambling'

"This would then trigger an internal “investigation” of sorts, during which the establishment would look at a number of factors to determine whether the person is indeed a problem gambler. If they are, they would be banned from the venue."

 

[irish-ranger]

Jesus I thought the UK was becoming a Nanny state but that takes the Mickey.
It will only encourage problem gamblers to become more covert causing bigger issues down the line.

 

[homerbert]

More news I see from AU government - more I understand that it seems they have ZERO IDEA what they're doing, what they should do, and with what they working. Like you know, the whole department which responsible for online gambling have zero knowledge, but they want their salaries, therefore must publish such...hm...hm 'articles'...

 

[ladyhawke]

There are two very important issues at stake which are listed in the article:

1: Should it be down to a problem gambler to realise they have a problem, and take action themselves to address the problem?

2: Should problem gamblers effectively have their free-will taken away from them by giving family members the power to make decisions which could be contrary to the gambler's own wishes?

I know problem gambling can have enormous financial and social repercussions, particularly on a family, but if this is implemented, relatives could basically begin to police a family member's activities.

I am not a problem gambler, but I sure as hell take offence at the thought of being 'monitored' by any of my family.

Can you imagine the resentment this will cause? I can see families breaking up due to what could be perceived as unwanted interference in someone else's life.

And as @goatwack says, what exactly would be classified as problem gambling?

When there is no money to pay the rent, or put food on the table, then that is a real tragedy, and the sign of a true gambling addict. But like an alcoholic, a gambler has to recognise there is a problem in the first place, otherwise as @irish-ranger so succinctly put it, if this absurd ruling was implemented, genuine problem gamblers would become even more crafty and cunning, and essentially go to ground.

This plan simply won't work. Human nature is not rational, not logical, not perfect, and all our flaws and faults simply can't be legislated away, which is what it appears the government is trying to do.

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

1. Loved one reports spouse
2. Club investigates and deems there to be no issue, either to keep the revenue stream or because the player gambles at many different locations
3. Player losses life savings
4. Spouse sues club
5a. Spouse wins lawsuit and every club thereafter automatically rules all future investigations against all players to limit liability
5b. Spouse losses lawsuit which confirms that this is another pointless piece of garbage legislation to prevent an actual solution to the issue, which would be a countrywide players card you can set limits and exclusions on.

 

[ladyhawke]

Made a few amendments to ponder over:

1. Loved one reports spouse
2. Club investigates and deems there to be no issue, either to keep the revenue stream or because the player gambles at many different locations, or because the player doesn't actually have a gambling problem.
3. Player loses life savings, or a lot of money, although not necessarily life savings (money the player may/may not be able to afford).
4a. Spouse sues club - as life savings were joint savings.
4b. Spouse sues club - even though life savings were not his/hers, therefore the spouse has no right to sue the club to begin with.
4c. Fraudster sues club - new legislation is regarded as a way to try to get back any losing deposits, by posing as problem gambler and spouse
5a. Spouse wins lawsuit and every club thereafter automatically rules all future investigations against all players to limit liability
5b. Spouse losses lawsuit which confirms that this is another pointless piece of garbage legislation to prevent an actual solution to the issue, which would be a countrywide players card you can set limits and exclusions on.
5c. In both cases, relationship breaks down due to anger, resentment and loss of trust on both sides.

However, Point 5b (a country wide players card) really does have merit. BUT:

• It would have to be a mandatory requirement that any club/pub/private premises would have to sign up.
• Every machine would have to accept a players card in order to accept deposits. Cash could not be used, as a player could use cash to bypass the system.
• Once the pre-set limit on the card is reached - no matter what location it was used at previously - no more bets can be made for a specified period.
• Would clubs be willing to accept this solution? There could be a massive loss of revenue stream if players jump from location to location. Those clubs visited last would be the ones to lose out if the deposit limit on the card is nearly reached.
• Who would set the pre-defined deposit limit, and what criteria would it be based on?
• The cost to the industry - changing machines to accept cards, production and administration of cards - would be horrendous.

 

[steveh35]

Is the current government likely to be re-elected next year, if not would any likely replacement change any of these reforms?

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

Made a few amendments to ponder over:

• The cost to the industry - changing machines to accept cards, production and administration of cards - would be horrendous.

No it wouldn't. That's a pretty obvious excuse from the industry. There's already countless databases run locally and in a linked manner for various "Loyalty" programs via ID'd cards at many different clubs. And there's no logistical reason it would be especially expensive.

 

[ladyhawke]

No it wouldn't. That's a pretty obvious excuse from the industry. There's already countless databases run locally and in a linked manner for various "Loyalty" programs via ID'd cards at many different clubs. And there's no logistical reason it would be especially expensive.

On the contrary. It is a major consideration - and headache - for those who would design, implement and monitor this scheme.

As it would need to be implemented nationwide, the local databases you mention just wouldn't cut it. Possibly in regional areas where options are more limited, but in cities, people could - and would - travel to areas totally outside the reach of those local databases.

Additionally, all player cards would have to follow the same standards, so they are tracked by any machine, no matter where the player is.

And this is where one of the main costs would be - changing machines to accept a card, and also removing the possibility of stand-alone cash deposits.

Also, who would issue the cards, set and monitor the deposit limits, etc. And would there not need to be some sort of regulatory authority to ensure the system is working correctly, as well as ensuring the law is being followed?

I still think set-up and follow-on costs would be expensive.

Having said that, I think it has the fundamentals to be a really good idea, and just could work.

Except it could end up going down the SOW route - prove that you have the funds to gamble, and have very low limits available regardless.

Perhaps we need to be careful what we wish for.

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

And this is where one of the main costs would be - changing machines to accept a card, and also removing the possibility of stand-alone cash deposits.

If my local golf club in the middle of nowhere can implement player reward cards, then it can't be too expensive.

Card readers are dirt cheap and already interfaced with the machines, which are all already networked, it would probably cost a couple weeks profit to implement.

 

[SpinUk]

On the contrary. It is a major consideration - and headache - for those who would design, implement and monitor this scheme.

As it would need to be implemented nationwide, the local databases you mention just wouldn't cut it. Possibly in regional areas where options are more limited, but in cities, people could - and would - travel to areas totally outside the reach of those local databases.

Additionally, all player cards would have to follow the same standards, so they are tracked by any machine, no matter where the player is.

And this is where one of the main costs would be - changing machines to accept a card, and also removing the possibility of stand-alone cash deposits.

Also, who would issue the cards, set and monitor the deposit limits, etc. And would there not need to be some sort of regulatory authority to ensure the system is working correctly, as well as ensuring the law is being followed?

I still think set-up and follow-on costs would be expensive.

Having said that, I think it has the fundamentals to be a really good idea, and just could work.

Except it could end up going down the SOW route - prove that you have the funds to gamble, and have very low limits available regardless.

Perhaps we need to be careful what we wish for.

Judging by the cronyism present and subsequent monopolies the B&M casinos have in Australia, im guessing this cost wouldn’t even touch the sides.

 

[ladyhawke]

Is the current government likely to be re-elected next year, if not would any likely replacement change any of these reforms?

No chance. Pollies over here regard gambling as the doorway to Dante's Inferno, and they believe it is their God-given mission to protect us from ourselves.

If my local golf club in the middle of nowhere can implement player reward cards, then it can't be too expensive.

Card readers are dirt cheap and already interfaced with the machines, which are all already networked, it would probably cost a couple weeks profit to implement.

Spread over the whole of Australia, the costs increase exponentially, as the adaptation of the current machines is not just getting them to accept player cards, but also to remove the use of cash without a card. And don't forget that those existing player cards would probably have to be scrapped, as a common format would be required. And then we have the whole monitoring/admin side to be ironed out. IMHO implementing this scheme is not going to be as cheap or as easy as you think.

Usually only jackpot machines are linked. If all machines - jackpot or not - are going to be linked to a central control point somewhere, that is another can of worms to be addressed.

Judging by the cronyism present and subsequent monopolies the B&M casinos have in Australia, im guessing this cost wouldn’t even touch the sides.

Obviously old age is getting to me. Not sure what you mean? However, if you are saying that the casinos, clubs, etc can afford it, then yes, I am sure they can. But would they want to? That is the question to which 42 is probably not the answer.

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

as the adaptation of the current machines is not just getting them to accept player cards, but also to remove the use of cash without a card.

Again, the local pub out here in the middle of nowhere was able to implement a cashless deposit/withdrawal system based on tickets, it is not that difficult or expensive.

I can see why the clubs, pubs and casinos would be making these excuses but I'm a little lost as to why you are? Do you think it would be only a matter of time until the system was "expanded" to restrict players beyond the initial scope? Because that's the only negative I could see potentially arising.

 

[ladyhawke]

Again, the local pub out here in the middle of nowhere was able to implement a cashless deposit/withdrawal system based on tickets, it is not that difficult or expensive.

I can see why the clubs, pubs and casinos would be making these excuses but I'm a little lost as to why you are? Do you think it would be only a matter of time until the system was "expanded" to restrict players beyond the initial scope? Because that's the only negative I could see potentially arising.

I have stated that I think it is a potentially very good - and workable - idea.

However I don't believe in just blindly accepting any proposal without weighing up the pros and cons - which is all I am doing here. Not sure why you are reading more into it than that.

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

Fair enough, I may have been a bit overly defensive there.

 

[ladyhawke]

Fair enough, I may have been a bit overly defensive there.

Shades of my old occupation I'm afraid - analyse the hell out of any and everything. Face Value is an unknown concept in my world.