Current Policies and Programs and Ongoing Controversies
Historically, problem gambling has been examined mainly from a psychological perspective and viewed as a behavioural problem experienced by particular individuals. Over time, the repercussions of problem gambling for members of the problem gambler’s family and wider social networks have also been recognized and seen as an important area for public policy development. As noted by the Productivity Commission (2009), all state and territory governments in
37
Australia now provide free treatment services for problem gamblers and individuals who are adversely affected by their behaviour. These services include: (i) 24 hour gambling help-lines offering counselling, information and referral services; (ii) websites providing information, online counselling, self-help therapy and tools; (iii) face-to-face counselling, including intensive clinical therapy, financial and relationship counselling and group support.
Today, problem gamblers are considered to be a heterogeneous group whose gambling behaviour is driven by varied constellations of biological, psychological, family and environmental factors (Peele, 2001). Reflecting and fuelling this shift in understanding, theorists such as Korn & Shaffer (1999) contend that problem gambling is best tackled from a public health perspective. Under this perspective, problem gambling is construed as a public health issue and placed in its broader social and economic context. Hayward & Coleman (2004: 5) also applaud the public health perspective, arguing that it moves beyond a narrow and individualistic view of problem gambling and provides a wide lens for analysing the costs and benefits of gambling, the effects of gambling on different social groups and possibilities for preventive and remedial intervention. Citing Korn, Gibbins & Azmier (2000), they summarize the essence of this perspective as follows:
A public health approach emphasizes the prevention of gambling-related problems and harm reduction to decrease the adverse consequences of gambling behavior. It addresses not only the risk of problems for the gambler but also the quality of life of families and communities affected by gambling. It takes into consideration the multiple biological, behavioral, socioeconomic, cultural, and policy determinants influencing gambling and health. A public health approach encourages a life-cycle approach to measuring social and economic impacts, one that recognizes significant changes in the social context within which gambling takes place. It embodies public health values that reflect concern for the impact of gambling expansion on vulnerable, marginalized and at risk population groups. Finally, a public health framework recognizes that there are both costs and benefits associated with gambling.
38
In Australia, the Productivity Commission (2010) has taken a public health and consumer approach to problem gambling, contending that the core aim of policy should be the prevention and amelioration of the detriment people face when either they or others gamble. This detriment (or the risk of it developing) can be assessed or measured in several ways. These include: (i) ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of cases where gamblers (or others around them) suffer adverse consequences; (ii) establishing the costs or harms associated with gambling on the community in general; and (iii) identifying aspects of the environment and its interaction with consumers that increase the likelihood of harm.
Consonant with the preventive and environmental emphases of the public health perspective, a number of jurisdictions have already implemented policies aiming to minimize the likelihood of gambling- related harm. Specific initiatives include: setting ‘caps’ on EGM numbers based on simple measures such as gaming machine density, instituting licensing criteria and processes, limiting the maximum bet that can be made on EGMs in hotels and clubs and requiring venues to pay winnings above $1,000 in the form of a cheque or an electronic funds transfer. The value of these measures is controversial; for example, McMillen (2009) argues that caps policies wrongly assume that venues primarily attract local residents and that current licensing processes are defective.12 13
12Elaborating on this point,McMillen & Pitt (2005) refer to a study they conducted in the ACT
in 2004-05. The study appraised recent reforms requiring venues to pay gaming machine winnings above $1,000 as either a cheque or electronic funds transfer. It found support from recreational and problem gamblers for the new policy; however, the authors note that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether the policy had been effective in preventing or reducing problem gambling. It appeared that restrictions on cash payment of winnings had affected gambler behaviour, but many gamblers were bypassing the restriction (e.g. by gambling their winnings down) so that they had cash to continue play.
13
McMillen (2009) notes that although many regulators require applications for venue/EGM licences to identify the potential impacts on disadvantaged groups/areas, social capital assessments of community capacity and/or resilience are not required. Moreover, regulators do not always monitor the actual impacts or changes around a venue after a licence is granted. This is an issue of special concern when localities experience development or decline.
39
A further initiative being mooted at the present point in time is that of voluntary pre-commitment. Under this scheme, participants decide what money (and/or time) they wish to pre-commit to gambling and receive an electronic player card (smart card) which monitors their gambling activities. Although commentators such as Clarke (2008) suggest that voluntary pre-commitment schemes will help both problem and recreational gamblers to limit their expenditure, others are cautious. As Hare (2010) points out, the extent to which members of either group will accept and use smart cards is not yet clear.
In summary
Accumulating research findings suggest that problem gambling is governed by a complex set of interrelated causes and determinants ranging from biology and family upbringing to social norms and legal statutes. The number of problem gamblers in Australia is not great, but it is reasonable to assume that if public participation in gambling continues to rise, more and more people will be at risk of developing gambling problems. At present, the policy and regulatory environments for Australian gambling vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. By extension, gambling accessibility, participation patterns and problem gambling prevalence also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As McMillen (2009) advises, one challenge for the future is to gather evidence to inform and develop practical intervention strategies tailored to the needs of particular regions and groups. Another is to develop and implement nationalstandards of consumer protection and service delivery for all Australians, irrespective of their socio-cultural background or place of residence.
40