Problem Gambling - ATM/EFTPOS functions and capabilities (in gambling venues)  

• 4.1.1 State and territory regulation of ATM and EFTPOS
• 4.1.2 Regulatory framework
• 4.1.3 Harm minimisation/responsible gambling measures
• 4.1.3.1 Tasmania – licensed venue operator responsible to monitor transactions
• 4.1.3.2 South Australia- Limitations on the number and dollar amount of ATM and EFTPOS transactions, issues with implementation and impact
• 4.1.3.3 ACT – review of the current regulation of gambling, issues to be considered
• 4.1.3.4 Victoria – banning ATM cash advances and imposing transaction limits
• 4.1.4 Conclusions

This section of the report reviews:

• the current state and territory regulatory framework for the use of ATM and EFTPOS facilities in the Australian gambling environment;
• potential or pending regulatory models in the Australian states and territories to strengthen the limitations to cash and credit (cash advances) as part of a ‘package’ of responsible gambling and harm minimisation measures;
• where applicable, the methodology and approaches adopted by state and territory governments in regulating cash facilities (ATMs and EFTPOS); and
• the impact of measures implemented to restrict the access of cash and credit in the gambling environment. Particularly the impacts (both positive and negative) on problem gamblers, recreational and non-gamblers, licensed gaming venue operators and the banking sector.

4.1.1 State and territory regulation of ATM and EFTPOS

It is generally accepted that following the release of the Productivity Commission findings and recommendations the states and territories commenced, or accelerated, the introduction of gambling harm minimisation strategies.

Since 1999 all Australian states and territories have either introduced or strengthened voluntary and/or mandatory responsible gambling and harm minimisation measures.

It should be noted that various states had already limited the physical access to ATMs in the casino environment, either in legislation or codes of practice, prior to the findings of the Productivity Commission.

[ top ]

4.1.2 Regulatory framework

Responsible gambling and harm minimisation legislation and regulation varies between states and territories. The only common legislation adopted by all states and territories is prohibiting minors from gambling and the provision of credit (by the gaming venue to the patron).²⁰

Responsible gambling and harm minimisation measures have been implemented in each state via:

• mandatory Acts and Regulation;
• voluntary Codes of Practice either implemented and administered by government regulators and/or other industry stakeholders; and
• a combination of regulation supported by codes of practice.

It is clear the extent of regulation varies between gambling sectors (e.g. gaming machines, wagering, lotteries) within each state and territory. In general, the regulation of gaming machines in licensed gaming venues (casinos, clubs and hotels) is tighter than other forms of gambling. This is a result of the increased prevalence of gaming machines and the community’s concerns regarding this prevalence and the perceived ‘harm’ associated with gaming machines.

The following table summaries the extent of state and territory regulation of ATM and EFTPOS accessibility and functionality.

In summary the table indicates that:

• all states and territories have banned ATM and EFTPOS facilities in the gambling/gaming area of the licensed gaming venue; 
• it is generally accepted that EFTPOS facilities are restricted from payment for gambling products, and ‘cash out’/ ‘cash advance’ capabilities via credit cards. However credit cards can be used for food and beverage purposes in licensed gaming venues;
• South Australia is the only state that allows cash advance transactions linked to credit from ATMs;
• the extent of regulation varies greatly between states and territories. For example, in Queensland restrictions to the access of ATM and EFTPOS facilities is incorporated in the recently introduced Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. The Code is voluntary and covers all forms of gambling.
• The Code allows for the legislation of minimum standards (within the Code) if there is no evidence of voluntary compliance; and in contrast, NSW introduced ‘umbrella’ mandatory responsible gambling legislation (1999), and subsequently strengthened ATM/EFTPOS legislation with respect to access in the gambling venue.
 

[ top ]

4.1.3 Harm minimisation/responsible gambling measures

The following section identifies approaches taken by the states and territories to limit ATM/EFTPOS functions in gaming and gambling venues.

4.1.3.1 Tasmania – licensed venue operator responsible to monitor transactions

In addition to banning the location of cash facilities in the gambling/gaming area, Tasmania further restricted the access to cash by banning ATMs from licensed gaming premises. This measure supports the key theme of the Tasmanian Code of Practice being the responsibility of staff to monitor withdrawals and ensure the cash withdrawn is not being used to participate in gaming.

This Code places responsibility solely with the licensed gaming venue operator and staff. The guidelines state:

If cash is provided as part of a transaction and that cash is used for gaming, then no further cash transactions will be permitted unless the staff member:

• Is reasonably satisfied that the cash being obtained will not be used for the purpose of gaming; or
• Could not reasonably be expected to know that the first transaction was used for the purposes of gaming.

If cash is provided under the above circumstances but the patron uses the cash for gaming, then the patron is required to leave the restricted gaming area.²²

When the Tasmanian Gaming Commission first developed the rules in September 1999, the guidelines banned ATMs from licensed gaming venues and EFTPOS facilities were not to be used for dispensing cash. This was opposed, particularly by rural venues where patrons relied on EFTPOS transactions because banks had left their community. Therefore the guidelines were amended to allow cash dispensing from EFTPOS.

To date the regulator has suggested the key factor limiting the overall effectiveness of the various codes of practice is the inability of venue operators to monitor multiple transactions by patrons, particularly in larger licensed gaming venues. Gaming patrons who wish to utilise multiple EFTPOS transactions for gaming purposes will wait until staff at a particular venue change shifts or will access cash from another area of the venue to avoid detection. Similarly, venue operators have claimed difficulty in enforcing the Commission’s rules due to the large number of staff working at venues.

In an effort to ensure compliance, the Commission requires venue operators to develop internal controls to ensure compliance with the Code and Rules. The most common approach adopted by venues is additional signage and authorisation of EFTPOS withdrawals by senior gaming staff.

[ top ]

4.1.3.2 South Australia- Limitations on the number and dollar amount of ATM and EFTPOS transactions, issues with implementation and impact

The South Australian Government introduced legislative amendments (effective January 2002) to the Gaming Machine Act 1992 introducing a cash withdrawal limit of $200 per transaction from any one debit or credit card in gaming venues. To date South Australia is the only state or territory to introduce transaction limits (Victoria has passed legislation but it is yet to be implemented).

The legislation still allows multiple transactions of $200 amounts. The only restriction cap is the multiple amounts reaching the maximum daily cash withdrawal limit per card imposed by the bank, a feature of all credit and debit cards.

With respect to the successful implementation of this legislation:

• all the banks have the capacity to introduce the $200 limit per transaction to ATMs. It is the responsibility of the individual licensed gaming venue to contact the bank and request the software change as the banks are unable to identify ATMs in licensed gaming venues to implement a ‘blanket’ change;
• as at the time of implementation (January 2002) only Westpac and the Commonwealth bank had the software/technical capabilities to introduce the limit to the EFTPOS systems (again at the request of the individual venues). The South Australia regulator has been advised by ANZ and NAB that system upgrades are required to enable EFTPOS cash withdrawal limits to be introduced. As yet there is not time frame for implementation; and
• in the interim the regulator has requested individual gaming venues to introduce internal management practices/controls to ensure the $200 transaction limit is enforced.

Given the relative short period since the legislation was introduced (January 2002) there is no available data regarding the effectiveness and impact of this legislation on gambling stakeholders.

To further strengthen the limit on transactions, the South Australian government has legislated (on a date yet to be proclaimed) to restrict a patron to one transaction per debit or credit card per day to a maximum of $200 at a licensed gaming venue.

Considering the current software issues impeding the successful implementation of the first phase of the legislation, it is suggested progression to the next phase will be determined by the pace of software development by the banks.

We understand the effectiveness of phase two of the legislation is reliant on the EFTPOS and ATM systems being linked and having the capacity to monitor transactions within an individual gaming venue. We understand the banks have advised the South Australia regulator the two systems do not currently have the capacity to interact.

[ top ]

4.1.3.3 ACT – review of the current regulation of gambling, issues to be considered

The ACT is currently developing a voluntary Code of Practice for all forms of gambling in the territory (under the legislative power of the ACT Gambling and Racing Control Act 1999).

The Code specifically addresses the location of ATM and EFTPOS facilities, providing support to the relevant Acts regulating casino gaming, gaming machines and betting.

The following issues were considered by the regulator in developing ATM and EFTPOS guidelines within the Code:

• Should there be a restriction on gaming licensees on the provision of facilities that enable a patron to access cash at a gaming licensee’s premises? And if so, what should the restriction be?
• The ACT Gaming Machine Act 1987 provided for cash facilities to be located outside the gaming area. However in many cases the facilities were located within a few metres of gaming machines. Should cash facilities be excluded from the licensed gaming premises altogether?
• Should the Code only permit cash withdrawals from cash facilities that require a patron to interact with staff, thus removing the anonymity of ATMs and making excessive and repeat withdrawals obvious?
• Should all cash facilities be restricted to a cash withdrawal limit that would permit other forms of entertainment, but restrict excessive expenditure on gaming?
• Should ATMs located at a gaming venue display screen messages in relation to responsible gambling and problem gambling?
• Should it be mandatory for cash facilities provided by a gaming licensee to show account balances following each transaction?
• Should there be a restriction that prohibits access to credit accounts through cash facilities in licensed gaming premises?²³

After considering the above issues the following regulations with respect to cash facilities in the gambling environment were adopted in the draft Code of Practice:

• a gambling licensee for a facility must not place a cash withdrawal facility so that it can be seen from the gambling area of the facility; and
• the gambling licensee must not install or make available for gamblers an ATM or EFTPOS facility in the facility from which cash can be withdrawn by the gambler from the account other than a savings or cheque account.

In addition to the development of a Code of Practice, the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission is in the process of reviewing the Gaming Machine Act 1987 to ensure the Act ‘meets the needs of the ACT community’.

The Commission developed a Policy Paper (December 2001) based on public consultation, developments in other states and territories, recent research projects completed by the Commission and the Commission’s own experience. The following points specifically relate to the discussions in the Commission’s Policy Paper (December 2001):

• public responses to the Policy Paper suggested the removal of the capability of EFTPOS facilities to issue cash. The Commission questioned this measure because EFTPOS ensures provider/customer interaction and excessive transactions by the customer may become obvious to the provider;
• the Commission considered the restriction to debit accounts only via EFTPOS and ATMs had some merit, as adopted in some other states. However one consideration was the use of credit cards by patrons for food and beverage purchases;
• a total ban on cash facilities in licensed gaming premises was dismissed by the Commission because it ignored the other uses of cash facilities by patrons at the venue;²⁴ and
• overall, the Commission questioned the benefit of restrictions on the availability of cash through cash facilities as an effective harm minimisation strategy. The Commission suggested:
• problem gamblers will simply open different accounts and/or withdraw money from different outlets;
• any cash withdrawal limit would still allow significant cash withdrawal (eg $200 per day is still $1400 per week);
• there are many other sources of cash that can be accessed if the person wishes to (eg: go to the bank during the day in preparation);
• restrictions on withdrawals were likely to be a major inconvenience to other patrons;
• patron safety in withdrawing money in a venue rather than on the street is a major factor to be considered; and
• problems of changing software of ATMs only in gaming venues.

[ top ]

In 2001 the Commission engaged the Australian Institute of Gambling Research (AIGR) at the (University of Western Sydney) to undertake a ‘Survey of the Nature and Extent of Gambling and Problem Gambling in the ACT – July 2001’.

The AIGR survey replicated the Productivity Commission National Gambling Survey question regarding the extent gambling participants used ATMs at a venue when playing poker machines. It should be noted the AIGR survey refined the question to link the withdrawal of money from an ATM for direct use in gaming machines. The following table shows the results of the AIGR survey compared with the Productivity Commission survey.

The AIGR report commented:

‘the ACT 2001 survey indicated that problem gamblers in the ACT are 3 to 4 times more likely than recreational gamblers to withdraw money from ATMs for the purposes of gambling at the venue. These figures suggest that there is a positive correlation between problem gambling severity and the likelihood of using ATMs at the venue. These findings may have some bearing on debate concerning the relationship between withdrawal limits and accessibility to money and problem gambling prevalence’²⁶

Based on the findings of the AIGR and the Productivity Commission surveys, the Commission considered the removal of ATMs from licensed gaming venues, as opposed to removal of both ATMs and EFTPOS from venues. The Commission suggested the benefits of EFTPOS only facilities were:

• patrons generally withdraw lower cash limits (via limits imposed by the venue). The venue can also impose maximum withdrawal limits (as is the case in some retail outlets) or a limit could be imposed via the Code of Practice;
• staff would become aware of repeat transactions by patrons. This ‘exposure’ may support identification of potential problem gamblers, promotion of self exclusion, promotion of problem gambling counselling/assistance or exclusions imposed by the licensed gaming premises;
• patrons who wish to access cash are still able to do so via EFTPOS (from debit cards only); and
• problem gamblers will be subjected to ‘breaks in play’ by either engaging with the EFTPOS operator of leaving the venue to access an ATM facility.

Based on the outcomes of the Policy Paper a Second Stage Consultation Paper has been issued for public comment. The Paper makes recommendations for changes to the Gaming Machine Act and the principles and approaches in developing these recommendations.

The Commission made the following recommendations as part of a number of harm minimisation measures:

• ATMs to be prohibited from the gaming licensee’s premises;
• the current restrictions on other cash facilities such as EFTPOS that prohibit them from being available within a gaming area should be maintained; and
• the placement of ‘limits’ of the amount of cash available per day may be included in the mandatory Code of Practice (however no limit has been defined).

Essentially, if the above recommendations are adopted cash transactions would only be allowed on debit cards via EFTPOS facilities, with the potential for licensees to impose a limit on the number of cash transactions per day and/or a limit on the cash amount withdrawn.

At a minimum, the direct benefits may be: 

• ‘breaks in play’ and loss of anonymity that is usually sought by excessive or problem gamblers;
• no capability to access cash advances on credit cards; and
• allow for the payment of food via credit or debit card and still have the capacity to access cash from debit cards.

The potential issues with such a model may be: 

• identification of a suitable cash amount limit or number of ‘cash out’ transactions that strikes a balance between harm minimisation strategies and access to cash by recreational and non-gamblers;
• the impact on services levels of venue staff and inconvenience to non gambling patrons; and
• the technical issues surrounding implementation and monitoring.

[ top ]

4.1.3.4 Victoria – banning ATM cash advances and imposing transaction limits

Victoria recently passed legislation to strengthen the regulation of ATM and EFTPOS accessibility and functionality in gaming venues. Two of the key measures were:

• a cash withdrawal limit of $200 per transaction from a debit or credit card; and
• banning cash advances on credit cards from ATM machines.

It is our understanding the Victorian government has had positive discussions with the banking sector regarding the logistics of introducing the $200 transaction limit.

The above measures will effectively restrict patrons to accessing own cash funds (noting EFTPOS is not able to offer cash advance on credit cards).

4.1.4 Conclusions

In summary:

• the states and territories have strengthened restrictions on the access to cash via ATM and EFTPOS following the findings and recommendations of the Productivity Commission;
• the extent of ATM and EFTPOS regulation varies from state to state and between gambling sectors, for example, Tasmania has adopted an approach that places primary responsibility and accountability for responsible gambling on the venue;
• South Australia is in the process of adopting mandatory limitations to restrict access to cash and credit taking away any responsibility from the gambler or the venue;
• in each state and territory the regulation of ATM and EFTPOS has been one aspect of a range of responsible gambling measures. However considering the relative infancy of responsible gambling measures/programs there has not been any formal review of the effectiveness of the measures and the impact on the various gambling stakeholders;
• the Productivity Commission National Gambling survey, and the ACT government commissioned survey showed a link between the frequent use of ATMs by problem gamblers however the scope of these surveys did not extend to exploring usage patterns of cash facilities by problem and recreational gamblers (i.e. number of transactions, average withdrawal, spending pattern of money withdraw, source of funds etc);
• the regulators talk of a real need to conduct further research into this issue and collect baseline data on a national level to review. Both avenues of research would:
• measure the effectiveness of the current regulations; and
• assist with the formulation of more effective measurement and future evaluation.
• regulators have identified that the problem to date has been an overall lack of specific research and baseline data into the linkages between problem gambling and access to cash, hence the current position where each state has implemented varied approaches to the same problem; and
• all state and territory gambling regulators acknowledge the need to restrict access to cash and credit by problem gamblers and there is a general sentiment by regulators that there is a need for a consistent, national approach.

20. It should be noted that South Australia do allow cash advances allowed on credit cards via ATM and EFTPOS.
21. EFTPOS cannot issue cash out on credit card.
22. Tasmanian Gaming Commission Licensed Premises Gaming Operators Code of Practice – Provision of Cash for Gaming
23. ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, Code of Practice, Discussion Paper, April 2001
24. ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, Gaming Act 1997, Policy Paper, December 2001
25. Source: Australian Institute for Gambling Research – Survey of the Nature and Extent of Gambling and Problem Gambling in the ACT
26. Australian Institute of Gambling Research, Survey of the Nature and Extent of Gambling and Problem Gambling in the ACT, July 2001, p125-126