Gaming Machine Consumers May Lose Consumer Protection Rights, Brack's Government Seeks Legal Opinion

A challenge to Section 161(a) of the Fair Trading Act by the Victorian government over gaming machines may result in consumers losing protection.

Victoria, Australia (PRWEB) March 22, 2005 -- Duty of Care, an independent consumer protection association with offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, has discovered that the Victorian government has sought legal advice to determine whether Section 161(a) of the Fair Trading Act applies to gaming machine operators.

Victorian gaming machine consumers may lose their existing consumer protection rights as a result of the decision by the Minister of Gaming, as advised by Consumer Affairs Victoria to a Duty of Care committee member.

In January, Duty of Care alerted Victorians to the fact that gaming operators were breaking the law by failing to issue receipts for gambling purposes.

The Herald-Sun article "Gamblers need proof of losses" and additional pressure by Duty of Care has led to TABCORP introducing a policy where receipts for gambling sessions are issued upon request.

However as the legislation states that services costing more than $50 MUST have a receipt issued, the TABCORP policy does not go far enough and still breaks the law.

Duty of Care would view such a decision as gross negligence on the parts of the Victorian state government as well as the gaming industry, who have also actively undertaken to provide a safe recreational service for Victorians.

Any change in interpretation of our legislation or any other move that may be made to reduce rather than to increase the protections of the already vulnerable gaming machine consumer group, will be vigorously contested by Duty of Care.

Elizabeth Mitchell, Vice President for Duty of Care said The Victorian government appears to be irresponsibly attempting to 'get the gaming industry off the hook by considering its exemption from consumer and trading laws to better suit the needs of the gaming industry and its shareholders rather than the vulnerable consumer group that both the government and the gaming industry promised to protect."

In no other industry would this be tolerated," she said.

They [the Victorian government have chosen to consider the reinterpretation of our law whilst ignoring the urgent health and safety needs of consumers. All responsible consumers need a clear record of their spending, including gaming machine consumers," she said.

Exactly what right does the gaming industry have to ask for reinterpretation of a clear and well intended, very much needed consumer protection law such as the Fair Trading Act?"

Exactly what right does the Minister for Gaming have to consider or to encourage future action that would take consumer rights away from the vulnerable gaming machine consumers in his promised care?"

Exactly what right does the Minister for Gaming have to condone changes or reinterpretation of legislation that would pervert the intentions and course of justice for consumers in Victoria, when his own Parliamentary party leader has decreed that consumer protection strategies must be improved as a top priority to increase consumer empowerment?"

Mitchell said that she suspects that when the facts are known, the Victorian public will not tolerate a further strengthening of gaming industry rights at the expense of its weaker and disadvantaged citizens, no matter how much the gaming industry supposedly supports 'community development.'

"The public is left to manage the social devastation that results for so many of its citizens, from the unconscionable commercial activities of the gaming industry."

Contact:
Elizabeth Mitchell
Ph: 613 9775 5275
Em: enquiries@dutyofcare.org.au
Web: http://www.dutyofcare.org.au

# # #