Trying to ease Pokie pain - My submission to the Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania
The Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance has engaged a Consultant, the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, to undertake a Social and Economic Impact Study into Gambling in Tasmania.Written submissions were invited from the public to inform the study, which is due for completion in March 2008.
The scope and objectives of the study appear to have been strategically set to ensure that the Consultant doesn't actually provide commentary on their findings or specific recommendations. None-the-less a well designed study should expose the suffering caused by this trade, particularly with regard to the poker machine industry, and the hollowness of claims that the industry has a net economic benefit to Tasmanians. It will hopefully provide a strong platform on which to campaign for meaningful reform to the control and administration of gaming in 2008.
National Council of Women Launceston have put in a submission to SACES informed by their successful "Both Sides of the Coin" forum and I've independently submitted the following to add weight to NCW's campaign and encourage SACES to produce a rigorous and well thought out study.
Re: Social and Economic Impact Study into Gambling in Tasmania
I am writing to express my concern about the social impacts of gambling in Tasmania, particularly with respect to problem gambling on poker machines.
As
From empirical observation I believe the prevalence of problem gambling has increased with the decision to extend poker machines into licensed hotels circa 1998, because it essentially engages and enslaves a different demographic of psychologically vulnerable people who would not previously have had ready physical access to poker machines. This is true because in my experience people who become addicted to poker machines are not people who gamble excessively on other forms of gaming, but who have become mesmerised and seduced by these machines after being exposed to them for at critical times in local venues. Obviously I’m not in the position to explain the psychology of such addictions but I have no reason to doubt the testimony of addicts that the machines filled a personal void in their lives by offering them the illusion of participating in socially acceptable and exciting entertainment.
But this is not entertainment and nor is it socially beneficial. What benefit is there in people losing their dinner money, or family rent, or dignity, as I have observed? What social benefit is there in people being driven to commit crime to pursue a form of gambling that the well referenced Productivity Commission report into Australia’s Gambling Industries (1999) has already exposed as attracting 42% of its revenue from problem gambling?
I would argue that the industry and Government are morally culpable and potentially legally liable, for knowingly putting such a dangerously addictive product onto the market and in over supply. Given this background knowledge why has the Tasmanian Government allowed, and why does it continue to allow, this product to be sold in the two most socio-economically disadvantaged suburbs by SEIFA index in my City of Launceston (namely Rocherlea and Ravenswood)?
If it does not know now who is contributing to the turnover in poker machines in these two suburbs and their disposable incomes, I would urge your study to find this out and inform them. I think you’ll find that the money is coming from local people with limited disposable incomes. People who we do know are statistically less advantaged in terms of personal transport and who wouldn’t normally have had ready access to poker machines if the current Tasmanian Government hadn’t extended licences beyond the existing Casinos. Fortunately for those in Rocherlea who cannot afford a car, they now can be encouraged to walk to the Rocherlea Tavern by an advertising balloon that informs them the new gaming room is open from 8 am everyday.
Clearly the addictive nature of poker machines and their obvious social disbenefits aren’t obvious enough to the Tasmanian Treasurer for him to implement a rollback of poker machine licences. The assumed reasons are the alleged economic benefits to the State, operators, hotel licensees and hospitality staff that accrue through poker machine addiction.
With respect to the operators, the Federal Group, the economic benefits would appear to be very real and undiminished by community debate about the morality of their trade.
I think that the net economic benefit to hoteliers and employees is less clear and deserves study within your current commission. Are hotels with gaming rooms really more profitable as a direct result of providing that product or are other factors influencing turnover (such as the shear fact that these venues have had an overdue make over)? Are they losing patrons who are turned off by gaming? Are they also losing potentially skilled employees who are uncomfortable with providing service in venues that knowingly profit from human suffering (in contrast to the ethics involved in the responsible service of alcohol)? I would urge you to rigorously consider these questions in the preparation of your Report.
Finally and most importantly in terms of your work, I look forward to you demonstrating the net economic disbenefit to Tasmania from gambling, particularly from poker machines.
The income to Government from taxation is readily calculated, but the financial costs are equally obvious to people working in the human services in this State.
For every social impact there is a direct and often quantifiable financial cost.
Some of these social consequences and their direct costs to Government include:
· Homelessness (eg crisis accommodation and support, outstanding debt to the State through unpaid public housing rent).
· Crime (to finance the addiction) (eg police, courts, prisons).
· Family breakdown (eg counselling, family court services, restraining orders, additional housing for new households formed as a result).
· Increased Alcohol & Drug use by gamblers and affected family members (eg counselling and treatment services, police, courts and prisons)
· Increased incidence of Family violence (trigger) (eg counselling, police, courts, prison)
· Negative Mental Health effects including Depression/Suicide (eg counselling).
· Negative labour market effects (eg decreased productivity, loss of skilled staff).
Given the finding that every problem gambler directly affects seven people, these costs are potentially multiplied many times throughout society.
This list is by no means exhaustive and I would implore you to be very thorough in your own analysis of the nexus between problem gambling, social impacts, and the direct and indirect financial costs to all levels of Government in Tasmania.
I note with some disappointment that the scope and objectives of this study do not require you to deliver recommendations to Government for the future management and control of gambling in Tasmania.
Despite that I hope that you will feel ethically compelled to make recommendations that follow as a consequence of your findings.
Such recommendations should include enhanced legislative protections of problem gamblers by both the Tasmanian and Australian Governments, including a mandated Code of Conduct that requires Federal Hotels to adhere to best practice in harm minimisation.
Reforms that I would particularly support include, but are not limited to:
· Rolling back the number of poker machines, particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged areas;
· Ensuring venues aren't allowed to employ psychological techniques (eg dim background lighting/absence of clocks) in venue design which are unethically intended to promote the hypnotic, timeless state experienced by many problem gamblers (i.e. "the zone");
· Ensuring that Poker machine manufacturers and venues limit the use of linked jackpots etc that promote excess gambling;
· Limit the cash changing facilities on poker machines to a realistic $200 maximum;
· Ban ATMs from venues or their immediate vicinity (750 m);
· Ban cash advances on credit accounts at venues or their immediate vicinity (750m);
· Ban rewards/loyalty schemes linked to Poker machine use;
· Adequately publicise the virtually unknown Tasmanian Government Exclusion Scheme, particularly the very good provisions for third party and Commissioner of Police exclusions (by mandating a variety of media and public education strategies that Federal Hotels must fund and employ as part of their license conditions).
· Ensure that Third Party exclusions are automatically granted subject to later Review so that relief can be immediate.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this Study. I look forward to reviewing your findings and trust that they’ll reflect a rigorous and critical examination of the harmful personal, social and economic consequences of this industry.
Yours sincerely
Alan Melton
posted by Alan Melton @ 4:45 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home