Page 3081 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 22 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
into cash withdrawal facilities in gaming machine venues. The results of this audit were damning. It was clear that the voluntary code of practice had failed and that cash withdrawal restrictions were being circumvented by using EFTPOS facilities. This was not just one or two clubs; the report found that this was common practice across the sector.
The issue is not just that EFTPOS was available to provide cash to people playing the pokies in clubs but also that a number of clubs were actively encouraging their patrons to use those facilities to feed their gambling habits. Access Canberra found that multiple venues displayed signs near the ATM telling patrons that further cash was available and where it could be accessed. Traditionally, the limits on cash out through EFTPOS range from $1,000 per day to no limit at all. ClubsACT have since admitted that the community has a trust issue when it comes to clubs in addressing problem gambling. While it is disappointing that clubs were unable to self-regulate on this issue, it is clear that a limit on EFTPOS cash withdrawals needs to be written into the legislation and enforced through regular compliance checks.
As I said earlier, the Greens do not see this as a perfect solution—and I go to some of the comments that Mr Parton has just made—but I sit comfortably with the fact that we are actually taking steps to address this rather than simply taking the laissez faire approach that says, “There’s nothing to see here. We’re going to look the other way and do nothing at all.” These are concrete steps forward. The cash withdrawal limit applied to ATMs is $250 per card per day, and the bill does not allow customers to go back and make multiple withdrawals above the $250 limit. I have been advised that the same technology does not exist to restrict EFTPOS withdrawals to a daily limit, and that is why the minister has opted for a $200 limit per transaction as the next best option.
I acknowledge the additional protections which have been included to try to avoid a situation where a person could make unlimited EFTPOS withdrawals, leading to significant harm. The restriction to one EFTPOS terminal per venue which allows cash to be withdrawn from it still, I understand, allows multiple machines in a venue, because we know that some of these venues have different bars or restaurants and you can still pay for your meal by EFTPOS. But one site where you can take cash out, which needs to be outside the gaming area, is a positive step. It is also pleasing that the legislation requires staff to be directly involved in all stages of the transaction so that they are likely to recognise patrons who are making repeated withdrawals.
While there are currently requirements for staff to have undertaken online gambling awareness training, I would like to see these requirements strengthened so that training should be undertaken face to face with an appropriate community organisation. It is also important that staff update their training on a regular basis.
Despite these extra requirements, it is still possible for a person to continue to access large amounts of cash to fund their gambling through EFTPOS withdrawals. It is also possible that patrons could request multiple $200 transactions at any one time as a way to try to bypass the new limit. I trust that staff at gaming venues now have a greater awareness of this issue and that every effort will be made to comply with both the letter and the intent of the cash withdrawal restrictions as set out in the legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video