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? The requirement for clubs to operate in accordance with a Responsible Gambling Code of Conduct has had a positive effect on the awareness of gambling-related harm within clubs. Gambler’s Help Venue Support Workers have been able to use the CCV RG Code as a handy practical reference point for their interaction with club staff. That said, there is a need to refresh the Codes using plain English. The annual review of the CCV RG Code reinforces the high levels of Code awareness amongst members and high levels of compliance to the Code’s requirements. The CCV RG Code includes specific provisions for dealing with loyalty schemes as defined in the Act. These provisions provide consumer information and harm minimisation measures. excluded persons are not permitted to join or remain in a loyalty scheme. The annual review process provides a formal opportunity for review and improvements to RG Codes. Feedback from clubs is that they utilise the review process as an added RG educational opportunity for staff. 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? The CCV codes commits adherents to specific interactions to support customers/members whose behaviour is deemed to be problematic. The Code assists staff to intervene on a when certain behaviours are observed. customer/member’s behalf The CCV code describes that these signs may include, but not be limited to a person self-identifying as a problem gambler; displaying aggressive, anti-social or distressed behaviour while gambling; making requests to borrow money from staff or other customers or continuing to gamble with the proceeds of large wins; gambling every day over an extended period of time - that is, gambling for three hours or more without a break; avoiding contact while gambling, communicating very little with anyone else, barely reacting to events going on around them.
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? The requirement for clubs to operate in accordance with a Responsible Gambling Code of Conduct has had a positive effect on the awareness of gambling-related harm within clubs. Gambler’s Help Venue Support Workers have been able to use the CCV RG Code as a handy practical reference point for their interaction with club staff. That said, there is a need to refresh the Codes using plain English. The annual review of the CCV RG Code reinforces the high levels of Code awareness amongst members and high levels of compliance to the Code’s requirements. The CCV RG Code includes specific provisions for dealing with loyalty schemes as defined in the Act. These provisions provide consumer information and harm minimisation measures. persons are not permitted to join or remain in a loyalty scheme. The annual review process provides a formal opportunity for review and improvements to RG Codes. Feedback from clubs is that they utilise the review process as an added RG educational opportunity for staff. 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? The CCV codes commits adherents to specific interactions to support customers/members whose behaviour is deemed to be problematic. The Code assists staff to intervene on a customer/member’s behalf when certain behaviours are observed. The CCV code describes that these signs may include, but not be limited to a person self-identifying as a problem gambler; displaying aggressive, anti-social or distressed behaviour while gambling; making requests to borrow money from staff or other customers or continuing to gamble with the proceeds of large wins; gambling every day over an extended period of time - that is, gambling for three hours or more without a break; avoiding contact while gambling, communicating very little with anyone else, barely reacting to events going on around them. excluded