Tweet
Is Anyone Responsible For Their Own Actions?
Gamblers beating self-bans
By Georgia Curry
PEOPLE with gambling problems who voluntarily ban themselves from clubs are slipping through the doors, prompting the industry to question the effectiveness of self-exclusion.
This voluntary code of practice has yet to make any real impact on Canberra's 5297 problem gamblers, and according to Clubs ACT chief executive Bob Samarcq, a more comprehensive self-exclusion scheme is needed.
"If people belong to four clubs and only ask to be excluded from one, that doesn't mean they're automatically self-excluded from other clubs they're a member of," he said.
"There's a real tension here between people's rights and their privacy, and coming up with a system that applies across the board."
To implement self-exclusion, some clubs ban membership. However, people can still be signed in by another member.
Casino Canberra has a tighter screening method, requesting photographs of the person banned and using surveillance cameras to bar their entry.
The casino has about 100 self-exclusions a year.
Southern Cross Club general manager Peter Head said self-exclusion was "a difficult process".
"If someone's getting counselling as well it would help, but it's not a system that's going to work. It's a step in the process of admitting there's a problem," Mr Head said.
A review of the Gambling Code of Practice is currently under way but has yet to reach the Legislative Assembly.
Mr Samarcq said while there was a need to extend the ban, it was hard to know where to draw the line.
"Gambling takes many forms - gaming machines is one, but at the same time, do people ban themselves from going to the TAB, buying scratchies, visiting casinos or playing Keno?"
"The best system is one of individual choice, but with the option of extending it beyond venues."
A possible amendment to the Gambling Code of Practice could see the introduction of third party exclusion, allowing gaming licensees to ban people at their own discretion.
Third party exclusion operates in South Australia and people are given a right of appeal to ensure the policy is used appropriately.
ACT residents with gambling problems represent 1.9 per cent of the ACT adult population, and it is gaming machines that are associated with the highest prevalence of problem gambling.
By Georgia Curry
PEOPLE with gambling problems who voluntarily ban themselves from clubs are slipping through the doors, prompting the industry to question the effectiveness of self-exclusion.
This voluntary code of practice has yet to make any real impact on Canberra's 5297 problem gamblers, and according to Clubs ACT chief executive Bob Samarcq, a more comprehensive self-exclusion scheme is needed.
"If people belong to four clubs and only ask to be excluded from one, that doesn't mean they're automatically self-excluded from other clubs they're a member of," he said.
"There's a real tension here between people's rights and their privacy, and coming up with a system that applies across the board."
To implement self-exclusion, some clubs ban membership. However, people can still be signed in by another member.
Casino Canberra has a tighter screening method, requesting photographs of the person banned and using surveillance cameras to bar their entry.
The casino has about 100 self-exclusions a year.
Southern Cross Club general manager Peter Head said self-exclusion was "a difficult process".
"If someone's getting counselling as well it would help, but it's not a system that's going to work. It's a step in the process of admitting there's a problem," Mr Head said.
A review of the Gambling Code of Practice is currently under way but has yet to reach the Legislative Assembly.
Mr Samarcq said while there was a need to extend the ban, it was hard to know where to draw the line.
"Gambling takes many forms - gaming machines is one, but at the same time, do people ban themselves from going to the TAB, buying scratchies, visiting casinos or playing Keno?"
"The best system is one of individual choice, but with the option of extending it beyond venues."
A possible amendment to the Gambling Code of Practice could see the introduction of third party exclusion, allowing gaming licensees to ban people at their own discretion.
Third party exclusion operates in South Australia and people are given a right of appeal to ensure the policy is used appropriately.
ACT residents with gambling problems represent 1.9 per cent of the ACT adult population, and it is gaming machines that are associated with the highest prevalence of problem gambling.