Mystery Shopper Safer Gambling Venues Casinos December 2014

What we are trying to achieve • Through our regulatory activity, we minimise harmful and criminal behaviours and contribute to a safe and prosperous nation. • We can achieve this by promoting compliance that minimises harm and maximises benefit. • We want to proactively minimise and prevent gambling harm.

Why a Mystery Shopper Exercise? What we knew What we didn’t know • The Gambling Act 2003 requires casino and class 4 operators to develop and implement policies for identifying problem gamblers. • How proactive / effective are staff at putting their training into action? • Staff can play an important role in minimising gambling harm – host responsibility. • There can be a number of barriers to approaching gamblers. Ø Is there a problem – what is the extent of the problem? We had no baseline information, and were unable to measure the impact of future initiatives. The mystery shopper results allow for retesting. Department of Internal Affairs

Our Approach / challenges • This was a research exercise (as opposed to a compliance exercise). • We carried out the exercise across the class 4 and casino sectors. Ø We didn’t mystery shop clubs – but we are interested in their harm minimisation practices. • We used an external provider to ensure independence. • Ethical considerations were taken into account e. g. creating problem gamblers, winning jackpots etc. Department of Internal Affairs

The Casino Exercise • A total of 16 scenarios were carried out across all casinos: Ø SKYCITY Auckland = five visits Ø Christchurch casino = three visits Ø SKYCITY Hamilton, Dunedin casino, SKYCITY Queenstown, SKYCITY Wharf = two visits • The exercises were all focussed on behavioural indicators of potential problem gambling = ‘un-carded players’ playing the pokie machines. • There were five different scenarios carried out: Ø Length of play = 10 hours of play – no problem gambling indicators displayed Ø Length of play = 10 -12 hours of play with problem gambling indicators displayed Ø Frequent cash withdrawals from the cashiers – with problem gambling indicators displayed Ø Frequent cash withdrawals from an ATM– with problem gambling indicators displayed Ø Setting gambling spend limits / pre-commitment – with problem gambling indicators displayed

Other points of note • Shoppers recorded information on: Ø Ø Ø the presence of staff other patron behaviour staff monitoring and interaction with patrons Staff responses to problem gambling indicators displayed by other patrons staff responses to the scripted scenarios and the problem gambling indicators that were displayed by the shoppers • The results rely on the interpretations of our shoppers. However, the shoppers: Ø Went through a careful selection process – ensuring experienced shoppers Ø Were given comprehensive training Ø Were given regular debrief sessions as the exercise progressed

The casino key findings • 14 out of 16 scenarios did not receive any known direct intervention from casino staff to indicate they had noticed the behaviour: Ø One scenario where a shopper asked about pre-set expenditure limits on arrival resulted in information being given about problem gambling Ø In one scenario a staff member asked if a shopper was OK, but did not take any follow up action or record the interaction. • Staff were observed visibly monitoring the gambling floor for the majority of casinos. However, patron-centric monitoring appeared irregular and mostly driven by other tasks. • For some scenarios shoppers indicated staff engaged in friendly conversations with them: Ø It is possible these interactions involved casino staff making an assessment of the shopper Ø However, checks of the harm minimisation logs held by casinos do not indicate this

Next Steps • Media release about the exercise and results issued after consultation with the sector. • The Department considers education and support as the best way to improve the situation at this time. • The Department may choose to undertake another mystery shopper exercise as it is an effective tool for determining actual practice. • The Department may take enforcement action for future results.