tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/responsible-gambling-10995/articlesResponsible gambling – The Conversation2019-10-06T18:55:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1240852019-10-06T18:55:32Z2019-10-06T18:55:32ZNew research shows pokie operators are not nearly as charitable as they claim<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295371/original/file-20191003-49373-1kmehwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New research has found that contributions to charitable causes by gambling operators amounted to just 1.5% of total net revenue during a three-year period in Victoria.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gambling operators often seek to persuade governments and the public of their virtue by funding “good causes”. Lotteries, for example, have been used to fund such things as the <a href="https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/our-story/sydney-opera-house-facts.html">Sydney Opera House</a>, <a href="https://highgatehill-historical-vignettes.com/2018/01/06/golden-casket/">hospitals in Queensland</a> and <a href="https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes">health, arts, sport and education initiatives in the UK</a>. </p>
<p>In Australia, and other countries, gambling operators are also required by law to donate some of their revenue for community and charitable purposes. In Victoria, for example, club pokie operators must document their contributions annually. This qualifies them for a reduction in gambling tax.</p>
<p>Our recently published <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16066359.2019.1663834">research</a> examined three years of these contributions in the state of Victoria. We sought to determine how much of the money claimed as benefits to the community did, in fact, reach such charitable or philanthropic causes.</p>
<p>What we found was that clubs donated mostly to themselves. Operating expenses accounted for the vast majority of ‘community benfits’. This is permitted under the regulations, but is strongly at odds with the claim that that clubs provide significant support to the community. </p>
<h2>What clubs are required to give under the law</h2>
<p>These charitable contribution schemes tacitly acknowledge that gambling is a harmful activity. It has significant costs to individuals, families, communities and government. </p>
<p>In Victoria, a study funded by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation estimated the social costs of gambling in the state at <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/the-social-cost-of-gambling-to-victoria-121/">$7 billion for 2017</a>. These costs include health impacts, relationship breakdowns and divorce, neglect of children, loss of major assets, bankruptcy, crime and imprisonment, and suicide. </p>
<p>Because of this, it’s important to know whether community contributions from gambling actually offset some or all of this harm. </p>
<p>Gambling losses in Victoria in 2017, meanwhile, totalled <a href="https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/statistics/theme/society/gambling/australian-gambling-statistics#current-release-australian-gambling-statistics">$5.5 billion</a>, and total state government revenue from gambling was <a href="https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/state-budget-statement-of-finances-bp5-2016-17.pdf">$1.9 billion</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-crown-allegations-show-the-repeated-failures-of-our-gambling-regulators-121173">The Crown allegations show the repeated failures of our gambling regulators</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Victorian community benefits scheme is unique in its relative transparency. Clubs are <a href="https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/gaming-venue-operator/understand-your-gaming-licence/your-obligations/community-benefit">required by law to spend at least 8.33%</a> of total pokie losses on community contributions. </p>
<p>These community benefits are defined by a <a href="https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Ministerial%20order%20-%20Community%20benefit%20statements.pdf">ministerial direction</a>, last amended in 2012. This allows clubs to claim philanthropic, charitable, or benevolent contributions, as well as operating expenses.</p>
<p>If this target is met and documented, clubs enjoy an <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/gra2003190/s3.6.6b.html">8.33% tax break</a> compared to <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/gra2003190/s3.6.6a.html">hotel operators</a>. The law requires clubs to provide an <a href="https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/gaming-venue-operator/understand-your-gaming-licence/your-obligations/community-benefit">annual statement</a> of contributions and these reports are published online.</p>
<p>We used <a href="https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/gaming-venue-operator/understand-your-gaming-licence/your-obligations/community-benefit">these records</a>, published by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, as the basis for our research. </p>
<h2>Clubs fall far short in charitable giving</h2>
<p>In the three-year period from July 2012 to June 2015, Victorian clubs took in net gambling revenue of $2.6 billion (adjusted for inflation at 2014-15 values). </p>
<p>From this amount, they claimed $853 million (32.5%) as benefits provided to the community. </p>
<p>Our research sought to determine the actual extent to which claimed benefits were, in fact, provided to charitable or philanthropic purposes. <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/hawks-claim-2m-pokies-revenue-as-community-benefit-20081004-4txr.html">Considerable</a> <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/pokie-venues-in-charity-scheme-rort-20070427-ge4r80.html">media</a> <a href="https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/4650664/pokies-community-benefits-a-farce/">attention</a> (and some previous <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-real-are-claims-of-poker-machine-community-benefits-49136">research</a>) has suggested that such <a href="https://www.starweekly.com.au/news/pokies-venues-exploiting-community-benefits/">benefits</a> may be largely <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/which-community-benefits-from-afl-poker-machine-venues-20160120-gm9lf1.html">illusory</a>. </p>
<p>We found that contributions to charitable or philanthropic purposes amounted to just $38.7 million, or 1.5% of total net gambling revenue. This is obviously far less than the mandated 8.33%. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-odds-youll-gamble-on-the-grand-final-are-high-when-punting-is-woven-into-our-very-social-fabric-124157">The odds you’ll gamble on the Grand Final are high when punting is woven into our very social fabric</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In contrast, venue operating costs amounted to $602.5 million, 70.7% of all community benefit claims. This included wages and on-costs, capital costs, outfitting and update of club equipment, insurance and utilities.</p>
<p>This is indeed permitted under the ministerial direction. But when these operating costs are taken into account, the clubs are falling well short of their claims of contributing substantially to the philanthropic or charitable needs of their communities. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="ycffi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ycffi/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>In a statement in response to our research, Community Clubs Victoria refuted suggestions </p>
<blockquote>
<p>there is such little community benefit to club members and the local communities from the revenues derived from clubs with gaming.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The group said the gaming machines allow it to pay for, among other things, maintenance of sporting fields, team jumpers for junior sporting
members, opportunities for volunteers and sporting competitions.</p>
<h2>What AFL, golf and racing clubs gave</h2>
<p>We also examined three categories of clubs that operate pokies in greater detail – AFL clubs, golf clubs and racing clubs. </p>
<p>Golf clubs spent 96% ($109 million) of their supposed community contributions on business operating costs. Direct contributions to the community in the form of donations to charities and other community-based organisation, for example, amounted to just $1.6 million, or 0.75% of net gambling revenue. </p>
<p>Racing clubs spent 94% ($211.5 million) of their community contribution claims on business operating costs. Their direct donations to communities were $1.7 million (0.45% of net gambling revenue). </p>
<p>AFL clubs claimed a more modest 74% ($38 million) of community contributions as business operating costs. These clubs donated $6.7 million directly to communities, or 2.7% of net gambling revenue.</p>
<p>Although Victorian clubs did not give the required 8.33% of total pokie losses on what might reasonably be regarded as actual community contributions, they did claim the 8.33% tax break offered by the state.</p>
<p>This meant the clubs received a tax discount of $217.4 million over the three-year period. Note that clubs, as mutual organisations, do not generally pay corporations tax. This is despite many operating as highly profitable businesses.</p>
<h2>Similar disparities in other states</h2>
<p>Our research is backed up by the <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2010/report">Productivity Commission</a>, which was scathing of the community benefit schemes operating in most Australian states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The (gross) value of social contributions by clubs is likely to be significantly less than the support governments provide to clubs through tax and other concessions.</p>
<p>Given this, there are strong grounds for the phased implementation of significantly lower levels of gaming revenue tax concessions for clubs, commensurate with the realised community benefits.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, this is not just a problem of the Victorian system. The ACT <a href="https://www.audit.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1193610/Report-No-5-of-2018-ACT-clubs-community-contributions.pdf">auditor-general</a> raised similar concerns in a 2018 review of the charitable giving regulations there. </p>
<p>Betty Con Walker, a former NSW state treasury officer, <a href="https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/products/78656?_pos=2&_sid=99c8aeef3&_ss=r">criticised</a> the system in NSW, as well. She noted that claims for business expenses by gambling operators in that state also far exceeded contributions to actual community purposes. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-long-way-to-go-on-responsible-gambling-101320">Australia has a long way to go on responsible gambling</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Victorian community contributions scheme allows for scrutiny of charitable giving to a much greater extent than other states. </p>
<p>However, from examining the available data, we know that claims of community benefits in NSW amounted to just <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/community-suppport/grants">$120 million in 2015</a>, or <a href="https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/statistics/theme/society/gambling/australian-gambling-statistics#current-release-australian-gambling-statistics">2.1% of net pokie revenue</a>. And in Queensland, community contributions amounted to <a href="https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/club-community-benefit-statements-2003-2012">$36.5 million in 2012</a>, or <a href="https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/statistics/theme/society/gambling/australian-gambling-statistics#current-release-australian-gambling-statistics">1.9% of total pokie revenue</a>.</p>
<p>It may be that pokie operators do support worthy causes. However, in the absence of readily available and transparent data, we don’t know. </p>
<p>Data about how much benefit clubs provide to the community are not presented transparently. They do not accord with a straightforward understanding of what constitutes community benefit. </p>
<p>Because of this, an accurate assessment of the costs and benefits to the community of the gambling industry is close to impossible. What is certain, however, is that the amounts actually contributed to good causes by gambling operators are a tiny fraction of the money lost by people using pokies. They are also a miniscule proportion of the best available estimate of social harms. </p>
<p>If we persist with the idea that gambling can support community causes, we need community benefit systems that demonstrably deliver such benefits. Instead, we have what appears to be a smokescreen. </p>
<p>Behind this, industry claims to support communities, while redirecting most of the money back to themselves. Governments receive significant tax revenue from gambling. They need to make sure that they are not justifying their dependence on harmful products with such schemes. </p>
<p>A transparent scheme that defines community benefits clearly, and in line with reasonable community expectations, is long overdue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124085/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Francis is the recipient of an Australian Government Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship (formerly Australian Postgraduate Award from the Commonwealth government. Louise has contributed to projects that have received funding from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform and existing harm minimisation practices. Louise is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia.
</span></em></p>Gambling operators are required by law to donate some of their revenue for charitable purposes. But a review of data in Victoria shows that charitable giving is actually far less than they claim.Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLouise Francis, PhD Candidate, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1013202018-08-16T06:04:55Z2018-08-16T06:04:55ZAustralia has a long way to go on responsible gambling<p>At the beginning of August, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) released its <a href="https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/casino-review">sixth review</a> into Crown Casino’s operations. The review made 20 recommendations, 11 of which referred to the provision of “responsible gambling”. In this area, the review indicated that Crown had lagged behind community expectations.</p>
<p>The release of the review comes at a bad time for Crown. Earlier this year, a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-24/crown-casino-picks-new-poker-machine-claims/9691494">whistle-blower accused</a> the casino of misconduct, including providing gamblers with a “pick” to jam poker machine buttons in place. And following another allegation of machine tampering, the VCGLR <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/27/crown-casino-fined-300000-in-victoria-for-poker-machine-tampering">fined Crown AU$300,000</a>. This was an historically high fine.</p>
<p>Another recent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-28/woolworths-tracks-pokies-customers-to-boost-profits-wilkie-says/9490730">whistle-blower</a> case concerned Woolworth’s subsidiary ALH, Australia’s largest gambling machine operator. Earlier this month, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-admits-pub-staff-collected-personal-data-on-pokies-players-20180806-p4zvpo.html">ALH admitted</a> that patrons were “spied upon” and provided with inducements to continue gambling. </p>
<p>The idea of “responsible gambling” is at the core of both these cases.</p>
<h2>What is responsible gambling?</h2>
<p>Responsible gambling has been a cornerstone of government gambling policy since at least the 1990s. The concept was a gambling industry invention, developed as gambling was legalised and expanded globally. It allowed the industry to circumvent stricter regulations in response to the harmful side effects associated with the spread of gambling. This has been a wildly effective strategy for the gambling industry, but largely ineffective in terms of minimising harm. </p>
<p>Responsible gambling is largely implemented via <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/sites/default/files/webinar_rintoul_coc_8jun17arlb.pdf">codes of practice</a>, required in <a href="https://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/Codes-of-Conduct">all Australian casinos, pubs and clubs</a> and many other jurisdictions. These require gambling operators to provide warning signs and intervene when someone shows signs of harm, among other measures. </p>
<p>Other responsible gambling regulations impose limits on game offerings. This is especially so with <a href="http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/GMNS2016.pdf">electronic gambling machines</a> (EGMs, or “pokies”). In most Australian states, the maximum bet in a pub or club pokie is A$5. There are other pokie restrictions, as well, such as the load-up (the amount of money that can be inserted at one time) and the speed at which individual bets can be placed (generally every two to three seconds). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/responsible-gambling-and-the-spectacle-of-the-problem-gambler-13579">Responsible gambling and the spectacle of the 'problem gambler'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But in research I’ve conducted with other academics, we’ve found little <a href="https://www.exeley.com/exeley/journals/evidence_base/2014/2/pdf/10.21307_eb-2014-002.pdf">evidence</a> that responsible gambling measures are effective. </p>
<p>This is partly because of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459795.2017.1377748?journalCode=rigs20">recent public health research</a> showing that, even with responsible gambling measures in place, gambling harm remains a serious problem. This is partly because gambling mechanisms are ubiquitous in Australia, and partly because responsible gambling measures are unconcerned with preventing harm. At best, these measures act as an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff – not the fence at the top. </p>
<p>As with alcohol, the “responsibility” for over-consumption is generally offloaded by the gambling industry onto consumers. The industry argues that problems affect only a tiny minority, and are a result of flawed individuals who can’t control themselves. Exposure to gambling itself is not considered a cause. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-history-of-courting-the-chinese-gambler-67441">Australia has a history of courting the Chinese gambler</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/assessing-gambling-related-harm-in-victoria-a-public-health-perspective-69/">recent research in Victoria</a> demonstrates that the harm associated with gambling is of a “similar order of magnitude” as major depressive disorders and alcohol misuse. The social costs of gambling, including family breakdown, relationship problems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/areas-with-more-poker-machines-have-higher-rates-of-domestic-violence-66982">domestic violence</a>, and emotional and psychological distress, depression and suicide, are estimated at nearly <a href="https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/the-social-cost-of-gambling-to-victoria-121/">A$7 billion per year</a> in Victoria alone. </p>
<p>Another recent study found that on average, every “problem gambler” <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14459795.2017.1331252?src=recsys">affects six other people</a> in his or her life. Every “moderate-risk” gambler impacts three others. Even “low- risk” gamblers affect one other person. </p>
<p>Thus, the costs and effects of gambling harm are much more widespread than the gambling industry or government concedes. This has also been corroborated by <a href="http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Measuring-gambling-related-harms.pdf">recent research in the UK</a>.</p>
<h2>Contradictions between practice and law</h2>
<p>Responsible gambling measures were intended to address these social costs, but research shows that some “codes of practice” are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16066359.2017.1314465">rarely enforced and often ignored</a>. ALH has also <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-06/woolworths-confirms-clubs-monitored-poker-machine-customers/10077940">admitted this is true</a>. </p>
<p>Even more troubling is that Crown is permitted by <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst10.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/825B00190A3E560FCA2581F70001CFDE/$FILE/91-47aa094%20authorised.pdf">Victorian law</a> to allow patrons to play pokies in “unrestricted” mode at its casinos. This means gamblers can bet unlimited amounts, at unlimited speed, and on “autoplay”. (The “unrestricted” mode is banned outside casinos.) </p>
<p>Considering the law also requires Crown to pursue “responsible gambling” regulations, the contradiction is quite striking.</p>
<p>There are other contradictions. In its casino review, VCGLR recommended more staff, with time to actually intervene, when patrons display signs of harmful pokie use. However, using the “unrestricted” mode allowed only at Crown would be a clear sign of harmful gambling.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gambling-industry-finds-plenty-of-political-guns-for-hire-to-defend-the-status-quo-70124">Gambling industry finds plenty of political guns for hire to defend the status quo</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>VCGLR also wants the casino to implement real–time data analytics to identify gamblers using pokies in harmful ways. Implementation of this recommendation would allow the casino to clearly identify people gambling harmfully, which would probably also reduce gambling revenues. Perhaps this is why VCGLR felt that Crown was lagging somewhat in its adoption of this measure.</p>
<p>Responsible gambling has provided a smokescreen for business as usual by the gambling industry for many years. Australia needs to recognise the significant harms caused by gambling and abandon the idea of “responsible gambling” as we have understood it. </p>
<p>In its place, the government should pursue better-conceived and well-resourced regulations and enforcement. That is, if we genuinely want gambling harm to be reduced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens.</span></em></p>Even with responsible gambling measures in place, excessive gambling remains a problem and a significant cost to society.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701242016-12-13T19:06:14Z2016-12-13T19:06:14ZGambling industry finds plenty of political guns for hire to defend the status quo<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149556/original/image-20161212-31364-1kraoqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stephen Conroy is to head up a new gambling industry body, Responsible Wagering Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former Labor senator Stephen Conroy, who left parliament in September, has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/stephen-conroy-to-head-up-responsible-wagering-australia-body/news-story/654a0ae279758b78584751702968f322">gone to work for</a> the gambling industry as head of a new body, Responsible Wagering Australia.</p>
<p>This is unsurprising. Conroy has been preceded in this course by several colleagues and opponents, including Labor’s former national secretary <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/bitar-says-casino-role-is-to-promote-tourism-20110525-1f4hv.html">Karl Bitar</a> and ex-Labor senator <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/casino-empire-grows-with-help-from-powerful-friends-20130622-2opa0.html">Mark Arbib</a>. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-man-of-influence/2007/05/11/1178390548792.html">David White</a>, a former minister in the Cain-Kirner Victorian Labor government, ended up working as a lobbyist for Tattersalls via lobbyist firm Hawker Britton.</p>
<p>Of the Liberals, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/peta-credlin-takes-up-packer-policy-position-at-consolidated-press-holdings-20160827-gr2inc.html">Peta Credlin</a>, former chief-of-staff to Tony Abbott, works for James Packer’s Consolidated Press Holdings, which owns a major share of gambling giant Crown. And one-time federal Liberal minister <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-26/coonan-offered-position-on-casino-board/2856858">Helen Coonan</a> continues to be a board member of Crown.</p>
<p>Former NSW premier <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/former-nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-appointed-racing-australias-new-chief-executive-officer-20161207-gt5qrh.html">Barry O’Farrell</a> recently accepted a job as CEO of the industry body Racing Australia. He replaces former federal National Party minister Peter McGauran, who has gone off to work for Tabcorp.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, the gambling industry certainly holds an attraction for former politicians. Perhaps it’s all that money and the attraction of staying in the game – even if at a peripheral level.</p>
<h2>The ‘responsibility’ of gambling</h2>
<p>Conroy’s job seems a little different to most; his new employer is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/stephen-conroy-to-head-up-responsible-wagering-australia-body/news-story/654a0ae279758b78584751702968f322">Responsible Wagering Australia</a>. It was born from the ashes of the Australian Wagering Council, an industry peak body that imploded under the weight of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australian-wagering-council-to-disband-after-inplay-bet-ban/news-story/2b4ee70e82e2839040cbfc9e6917cbd0">its own contradictions</a>. This time around, it looks and sounds like a SAPRO, or social aspect public relations organisation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110957/">SAPROs</a> have been around for a long time, particularly in the alcohol field. But none have so far popped up in Australia for gambling.</p>
<p>The key international SAPRO is the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490544/">International Center for Alcohol Policy</a>. Its function is to provide the appearance of concern and action on the part of a specific industry while keeping things on an even keel. Business as usual is very much the unwritten motto of any SAPRO.</p>
<p><a href="https://drinkwise.org.au/">DrinkWise</a> is a good Australian example. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781203">It says</a> it is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… an independent, not-for-profit organisation. Our primary focus is to help bring about a healthier and safer drinking culture in Australia. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seeks to do this by promoting change in the way Australians drink alcohol. It is also worried about the age at which young people are introduced to the products manufactured or sold by its <a href="https://drinkwise.org.au/about-us/about/#">14 industry sponsors</a>. And, like the UK gambling SAPRO the Responsible Gambling Trust (recently rebranded as <a href="http://about.gambleaware.org/about/">GambleAware</a>, DrinkWise also commissions research.</p>
<p>Importantly, what DrinkWise does is nuance its message around “responsible drinking” – that is, the idea that individuals are essentially responsible for their own behaviours. The solutions it suggests are those from the more ineffective end of the harm reduction/prevention spectrum, such as education and individual behaviour change.</p>
<p>What you won’t find in DrinkWise’s repertoire (or, indeed, in that of other SAPROs) are interventions that affect the industry’s bottom line. Forget about price increases, restrictions on advertising, or proliferation of alcohol outlets. It’s all about individual responsibility.</p>
<p>Tobacco consumption <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco">has declined</a> in Australia and some other parts of the world because we stopped telling people what to do (“don’t smoke”) and helped them make better decisions about smoking. </p>
<p>The way to do this was to stop tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sport, restrict where smoking was permitted, increase the price of tobacco, and help people quit. The effect has been a dramatic reduction in the incidence of lung disease, especially <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2953697.htm">lung cancers</a>. None of that would have been achieved had a “responsible smoking” mantra held sway.</p>
<p>The Australian gambling industry, up to this point, has not seen the need to launch a SAPRO. Perhaps the bookies are feeling a little pressured, given the federal government <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2016-11-10-coalition-government-introduces-legislation-combat-illegal-offshore-wagering-0">has introduced legislation</a>, including some consumer protection interventions, to help stop people getting hooked on online gambling. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://lovethegame.vic.gov.au/?gclid=CNuyrcOm7tACFYSYvAodoicCxA">bombardment of advertising</a> from bookies inflicted on anyone who watches sport on TV (including lots of kids) has helped make everyone hate the bookies. The evidence is the bookies make a lot of money out of people experiencing <a href="https://financialcounsellingaustralia.org.au/getattachment/Corporate/Home/FINAL-PDF-Duds,-Mugs-and-the-A-List-The-Impact-of-Uncontrolled-Sports-Betting-low-res.pdf">high levels of gambling harm</a>. So, ramping up the “responsible gambling” rhetoric and arguing that you don’t want anyone to get into trouble with your product might seem like a good idea.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459790701601810">Responsible gambling</a>”, like “responsible drinking”, is a clever-sounding way of deflecting attention away from the product. Gambling, like alcohol and tobacco, is an addictive product that generates significant super profits from those it addicts. This is why the industry has <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25175598">tried very hard</a> through various means to hang on to its current arrangements.</p>
<h2>How will Conroy go?</h2>
<p>Conroy was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=3L6">senior minister</a> in 2010 when independent MP Andrew Wilkie signed <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110620/wilkie/docs/agreement.pdf">his agreement</a> with Julia Gillard to introduce a mechanism to let people decide in advance how much they wanted to lose on the pokies. The industry launched a <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">massive campaign</a> to stop that happening. </p>
<p>In addition, it has donated <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">considerable amounts</a> to help keep politicians on side.</p>
<p>Conroy is known to be from the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Whatever_it_Takes.html?id=FLdUAAAACAAJ">whatever-it-takes school of politics</a>. His approach to his new job will therefore be interesting to observe. His connections are impeccable and his capacity to persuade appears to have been perfected by years of influence in the ALP’s internal machinations.</p>
<p>Ultimately, his job will be to make sure it is business as usual for the online bookies. If successful, that means hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Australians will suffer avoidable harm (and in some cases illness and premature death) because of the harms associated with gambling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian government agencies (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. </span></em></p>The gambling industry certainly holds an attraction for former politicians. Perhaps it’s all that money, and the attraction of staying in the game – even if at a peripheral level.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/491362015-10-19T19:06:59Z2015-10-19T19:06:59ZHow real are claims of poker machine community benefits?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98606/original/image-20151016-30710-1m8pg69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The level of contributions made by clubs to community purposes is low as a proportion of poker machine revenue.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Coghlan</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/about-us/club-industry">claims</a> made by poker machine clubs in Australia is that they provide significant support to local communities. Usually this is signified by the support clubs provide to causes such as junior football clubs or charities.</p>
<p>In New South Wales, the state with the most poker machines and the <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-31st-edn-aus-gambling-stats-31st-edn-summary-tables-2013-14.pdf">most poker machine expenditure</a>, peak body Clubs NSW claims to have distributed <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/community-suppport/grants">A$92 million in grants last year</a>. That’s a lot of money. </p>
<p>But, as a percentage of total poker machine revenue, it’s quite modest. In 2013-14, poker machines in NSW <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-31st-edn-aus-gambling-stats-31st-edn-summary-tables-2013-14.pdf">made $5.4 billion</a>. As a proportion of that revenue, $92 million is 1.7%.</p>
<iframe src="https://charts.datawrapper.de/rPj43/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="330"></iframe>
<p>In 2012, the lead author of this article and colleagues <a href="http://www.unitingcare.org.au/images/stories/publications/2012/120412_pub_rep_UA-Monash_Assessment_of_poker_machine_expenditure_and_community_benefit_claims_in_selected_Commonwealth_Electoral_Divisions.pdf">found</a> that the level of contributions clubs made to actual community purposes was low as a proportion of poker machine revenue. It ranged from 1.3% in NSW to 6.6% in the Australian Capital Territory.</p>
<h2>The data gap</h2>
<p>In 2010, the Productivity Commission <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report">argued</a> that although clubs made community contributions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The claimed benefits of gambling revenue on sporting activities and volunteering do not appear strong. Indeed, the presence of gambling may adversely affect volunteering rates.</p>
<p>The (gross) value of social contributions by clubs is likely to be significantly less than the support governments provide to clubs through tax and other concessions.</p>
<p>Given this, there are strong grounds for the phased implementation of significantly lower levels of gaming revenue tax concessions for clubs, commensurate with the realised community benefits.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clubs, generally incorporated as “not for profit” mutual organisations, do not pay corporate tax and usually benefit from reduced gambling tax rates compared to corporate gambling operators.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/21KJD/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<p>One of the difficulties noted in the 2012 study was that data on the actual poker machine revenue gained by clubs are not publicly available in NSW and Queensland; in the ACT and Victoria, these data are published. This gap in data availability makes it difficult to determine how much particular clubs are actually providing to the community compared to what they make from that community via the losses of people using poker machines.</p>
<p>In Victoria, club pokie venues are required to submit an annual <a href="http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/home/gambling/gaming+venue+operators/community+benefit+statements/">community benefit statement</a>, which demonstrates that they have provided at least 8.3% of their pokie revenue to community purposes. If they do this, they get a reduction of 8.3% on the gambling tax they pay, compared to hotel venues. </p>
<p>Venues don’t pay corporate tax. And when the GST was introduced, poker machine taxes were reduced proportionately. The tax breaks pokie venues get are quite significant, and the Productivity Commission’s comment about these arrangements was based on this rather special treatment.</p>
<h2>What do we know?</h2>
<p>Recently, we examined the most recent consolidated set of community benefit statements lodged in Victoria for 2013-14. Various categories of claims are available under the <a href="http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/vcglr/resources/5878b1a9-e905-4cc9-bce4-3f11da0e53e9/ministerialorder_cbs_2012.pdf">Ministerial Order</a> prescribing these claims, including the venue’s operating costs – such as wages, insurance, electricity costs and renovations or equipment.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GcsTr/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>We found that contributions to what most people would regard as genuine community benefits were very low. This category includes philanthropic and charitable purposes and gifts provided to community organisations. Across the entire club sector in Victoria, community benefit statement claims amounted to A$273.7 million in 2013-14. Of this, 6.8% – or A$18.5 million – was classed as “donations, gifts and sponsorships”. </p>
<p>In contrast, $209.4 million – 76.5% of claims – went to operating expenses, including wages, superannuation, management costs and insurances. </p>
<p>As a proportion of total club pokie losses ($846 million), donations, gifts and sponsorship amounted to 2.2%. </p>
<p>We examined three major Victorian AFL clubs – Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong – all of which operate multiple gambling venues.</p>
<p>In its 2013 report, Carlton claimed more than A$1.1 million in contributions to sporting facilities from the four pokie venues it operates – all of which went to Ikon Park, its training base for elite AFL footballers in inner-city Melbourne. </p>
<p>In 2014, no such claims were made. Instead, Carlton made claims of donations of nearly A$1.3 million to Ikon Park. These were regarded as donations, gifts and sponsorships, rather than sporting subsidies. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, these amounts went to the same purpose – one that arguably fails to provide little if any benefit to residents of the outer suburbs where their pokie venues are located.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98607/original/image-20151016-30715-kd7pmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">AFL club Carlton claimed donations and contributions from its pokie venues towards its inner-city training ground.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Collingwood claimed donations, gifts and sponsorships of A$180,000 from its two club venues in 2014. The overwhelming majority of its community benefit statement claims (more than $1.8 million) were operating costs – wages, superannuation and so forth.</p>
<p>Geelong operates two club venues. In 2014, it claimed donations gifts and sponsorships of A$111,000. The majority of its claims were for the operating costs of the venue – A$1.5 million, 93% of the total claimed.</p>
<h2>What now?</h2>
<p>It’s clear claims by clubs that they provide significant benefits to the community are overstated.</p>
<p>Greater benefits could be provided by applying the additional tax collected from hotel venues – in Victoria’s case this would be 8.3%, or more than A$70 million per year – and from the imposition of corporate tax on gambling revenues, particularly in the case of large clubs such as big NSW clubs. These are, in many ways, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Clubs-NSW-Profits-politics/dp/1920899405">little different</a> from large commercial operations.</p>
<p>Some clubs do provide genuine benefits to their communities. Unfortunately, clubs have developed significant poker machine dependency – an average of about 60% of total revenue. Some club representatives may <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/victorian-clubs-campaign-against-poker-machine-tax-hike/5583502">gild the lily</a> in their claims of community support, fearful perhaps of the consequences of more effective harm-minimising regulation or fairer taxation. </p>
<p>But to have a meaningful debate about the pros and cons of widespread pokie gambling, we also need to be able to understand exactly what they contribute, and what they cost in adverse community impacts. Given the data blackout that prevails in NSW and Queensland, we’re a long way from achieving that right now.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of our special package on poker machines. See the other articles here:</em></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/15-things-you-should-know-about-australias-love-affair-with-pokies-49230">15 things you should know about Australia’s love affair with pokies</a></p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/bright-lights-big-losses-how-poker-machines-create-addicts-and-rob-them-blind-49143">Bright lights, big losses: how poker machines create addicts and rob them blind</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49136/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. This included funding for the preparation of the Uniting care Australia report referred to in this article. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Alliance for Gambling Reform and the Australian Greens. He was interviewed for the forthcoming ABC documentary 'KaChing!', and provided some technical advice to its producers.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Francis is a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship funded by the Australian Government.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>During some stages of completing this research, Taylah Wynen was employed casually by the ALH Group, one of the largest operators of hotels and pubs across Australia that operate poker machines.</span></em></p>Some clubs provide genuine benefits to their communities. Unfortunately, clubs have developed significant poker machine dependency – an average of about 60% of total revenue.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLouise Francis, PhD Candidate, Monash UniversityTaylah Wynen, Research Student, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319342014-10-30T09:47:52Z2014-10-30T09:47:52ZThe problem with gambling research<p>Casino gaming is on the rise across much of the developed world, with governments increasingly unable to resist the allure of windfall taxes and a hefty influx of cash for the local economy. Massachusetts embraced the trend in 2011 when the state legislature voted to legalise casinos. <a href="http://www.wbur.org/2014/09/26/problem-gambling-big-business">Construction is underway</a> for the state’s first casino at Plainridge Park, with 1,250 slot machines, harness racing and an estimated 500 new jobs.</p>
<p>That decision is now up for review, with a repeal referendum to be considered in the November midterms. In deciding whether to support the repeal, Massachusetts voters will need unbiased information about the social impact of gambling and its downsides. Sadly it’s going to be much harder to come by than you might think.</p>
<h2>A compromised research agenda</h2>
<p>Anyone looking for good quality evidence about the consequences of gambling first needs to understand how knowledge about gambling is produced. How do we know what we know? Who dictates the research agenda? How is research funded? How do we ensure that we have a sound base of impartial knowledge on which to build policy? </p>
<p>The answers to these questions are profoundly depressing. While in the fields of tobacco and alcohol research, academics regularly debate conflicts of interest and interrogate the strategic use of research and evidence, many gambling researchers remain dependent on industry funding. Gambling is an area largely devoid of disclosure policies, and many researchers are unreflective or outright defiant about industry influence. </p>
<p>Researchers, regulators and policy makers champion a “partnership model” for producing research, not so much “business as usual” as “we are all in this together.” This remarkable state of affairs contrasts markedly with other fields and produces a weak knowledge base that is unevenly influenced by industry interests.</p>
<p>The impact on the discipline is striking. A large proportion of spending goes on prevalence studies – <a href="http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/16066359.2012.680079">counting problem gamblers</a> in the general population. These surveys are popular with industry because they make it possible to downplay the absolute numbers of pathological gamblers, along with the percentage of the general population at risk from gambling problems, the percentage of gamblers who experience problems and the proportion of profits that come from problem gamblers (<a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/95707/24-appendixb.pdf">estimated at between 30 and 50%</a>). </p>
<p>Prevalence studies also tend to sidestep the question of social class, thus disguising the inconvenient fact that <a href="http://theconversation.com/who-wins-from-big-gambling-in-australia-22930">most of the harm from gambling occurs in disadvantaged populations</a> – those with the least capacity to absorb it.</p>
<h2>The problem with problem gamblers</h2>
<p>Complementing prevalence studies is a vast body of research on problem gamblers. Much of it rests on the assumption that gambling is a <a href="http://www.gla.ac.uk/research/horizons/spring2014/gamblingwhytaketherisk/">harmless leisure activity</a> which makes a <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-95742011001000022&lng=en&nrm=iso">net contribution to public funds through either taxation or out of town tourism</a>.</p>
<p>The idea that normal consumers gamble without ill-effect creates a separate category of defective consumers labelled as “<a href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/1/33.abstract">problem gamblers</a>”. According to this framework, solutions to problems with gambling are to be sought on an individual level. The alternative approach – to see gambling as an aspect of public health that may be managed by limiting the supply of particular products - is poorly supported by industry or government funding, particularly where taxes on the profits of gambling have become an important source of state income, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-25/key-facts-gambling-in-australia/2730414">as in Australia</a>, <a href="http://www.utppublishing.com/Casino-State-Legalized-Gambling-in-Canada.html">Canada</a> and, increasingly, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/101575912">the United States.</a> </p>
<p>A minority of critical researchers continue to agitate for change – arguing that research should not be funded by the industry, that priorities should not be set by industry-influenced panels, and that research should have a public health remit.</p>
<h2>The role of researchers</h2>
<p>So far, these arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Senior researchers are not only content to take industry money, they are also prepared to defend these arrangements. </p>
<p>In December 2000 Nottingham University decided to accept a donation from British American Tobacco of £3.8 million to establish an International Centre for Corporate Responsibility. The executive editors of leading respiratory medicine journal Thorax, John Briton and Alan Knox, wrote an <a href="http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_388.pdf">open letter</a> arguing that “accepting money from the tobacco industry degrades the reputation of our University and undermines the work of all with a commitment to the teaching of medicine and the promotion of public health.” </p>
<p>Professor Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, resigned from his post at Nottingham, followed by a team of 20 cancer researchers, led by Professor David Thurston. </p>
<p>Almost 14 years later, Professor <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/science/people/alex.blaszczynski.php">Alex Blaszczynski</a>, editor-in-chief of the journal International Gambling Studies, and one of the most prominent gambling scholars in the world, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clubs-bet-12m-on-gambling-research-xenophon-claims-stalling-tactic-20140530-399ud.html">received $1.2 million from the New South Wales clubs industry</a> to study problem gambling in Australia. Australians have the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6313083.stm">highest gambling losses</a> per resident adult of any country in the world and spend more on gambling than they do on alcohol or petrol.</p>
<p>Asked to defend this arrangement, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clubs-bet-12m-on-gambling-research-xenophon-claims-stalling-tactic-20140530-399ud.html#ixzz3E8ize5Eu">Blaszczynski said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Because of the nature of gambling, you do have to start looking at gaining access to data held by the industry, by patrons who are in industry venues and start looking at real life research that provides sensible, evidence-based information.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Blaszczynski’s defence is disappointing. It does not engage with the most pressing criticism: scholars in the fields of alcohol and tobacco have shown that industry funding <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12384/abstract">systematically influences</a> findings. </p>
<p>Further, by accepting that industry can control such access, Blaszczynski is, in effect, arguing for a monopoly on knowledge production for those who get along with the industry. </p>
<h2>How industry funding frames the agenda</h2>
<p>Blaszczynski’s acceptance of industry funding is not, however, exceptional and many in the field of gambling studies in the US, where <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20131210/101570/HHRG-113-IF17-Wstate-VolbergR-20131210.pdf">funding for research is one-twentieth that of Australia and Canada</a>, would vigorously defend his actions. </p>
<p>US universities enter into <a href="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/03/las-vegas-sands-donating-7-million-unlv/">partnerships with individual casino companies</a>. US academics compete for funding from the National Centre for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) which is paid for by the <a href="http://www.americangaming.org/about-aga">American Gaming Association</a> and claims to have mandated, “stringent firewalls to separate the gaming industry’s contributions from the research it funds”. The effectiveness of these firewalls, and similar mechanisms in the UK and Australia, <a href="http://www.parliament.nz/resource/mi-nz/50SCHE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL12021_1_A333056/040eb61e1717887db3b1a708ec93aae95fa17474">is debatable</a>. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, the National Centre for Responsible Gaming focuses exclusively on the disease model of gambling addiction and does not fund research with a wider social purview. Senior research director Christine Reilly recently <a href="http://the2x2project.org/gambling-public-health/">justified this approach</a> by saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>To me it seems kind of silly to spend time and money on an issue that is extremely difficult to research, because you can’t count on people’s memory.“ </p>
</blockquote>
<p>John Warren Kindt, Professor of Business and Administration at the University of Illinois recently <a href="http://the2x2project.org/gambling-public-health/">described NCRG output</a> as "research designed not to hurt the gambling industry and to misdirect the debate”.</p>
<h2>The trust deficit</h2>
<p>Some research with a broader public health remit can be found in <a href="https://ama.com.au/position-statement/health-effects-problem-gambling">Australia</a> and the <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9156.html">US</a>, but, as I discovered when I interviewed researchers for my <a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/gamblingineurope/report/">study of gambling research,</a> it is likely to be criticised and ignored. The price of independence is the loss of funding and access to data. </p>
<p>We depend on researchers and public health organisations to inform us about the potential harms associated with gambling, consuming alcohol or smoking. The purpose of this research is to better understand how risky activities affect communities and help us to judge what restrictions, if any, should be placed on their supply and promotion. </p>
<p>We cannot trust gambling research. We must therefore be sceptics. Every expert invited to give evidence to a committee on gambling should be asked, “Have you ever accepted money from the industry to conduct a piece of research, write a paper or attend a conference?” </p>
<p>In the absence of a culture of disclosing interests, every paper submitted as evidence should be contextualised – again we must ask “Who paid for this research?” and “How did this person gain access to data?” </p>
<p>It’s not much - it doesn’t produce the independent research that we so urgently need - but until the field of gambling research undergoes meaningful reform it’s the least we need to do. </p>
<p>In the meantime, voters such as those in Massachusetts looking for independent research, will have little choice but to roll the dice.</p>
<p><em>This article is part of a series on gambling in America. You can read the rest of the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/gambling-in-america">here.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31934/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Cassidy is funded by the European Research Council, grant number 263433. Between 2006 and 2009 she received £90,697.22 from ‘Research into Problem Gambling’, a collaborative research initiative between the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (lead organisation) and the Responsibility in Gambling Trust (RiGT), now the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT). All aspects of the grant were administered by the ESRC. Near the end of the project, I was asked by the RiGT to submit publications for prior approval, a request that I declined. Between 2007 and 2009 I received ad hoc support from the National Lottery Commission for the Gambling Research Network, a group of early career and PhD researchers coming together in London two or three times a year. Money covered refreshments and no explicit restrictions or inducements were placed on the group by the NLC. I have not received any other direct or indirect payments from the industry or any other groups substantially funded by gambling to conduct research or to speak at conferences or events. I have paid to attend industry-sponsored events and attended free, industry-supported events in order to conduct anthropological fieldwork. No funding was received from any source in relation to the contents of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone is a Chief Investigator on a current Australian Research Council Grant investigating the mechanisms of industry influence of government by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Gambling industries. He has previously received grants from the Victorian Gambling Research Panel and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority, and an international partner grant from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Council, organisations which distribute funds derived from the proceeds of gambling. He has also received funding from local government and non-government organisations in relation to (i) the provision of expert evidence in relation to gambling applications and (ii) for specific research projects focused on aspects of gambling policy, the costs of problem gambling, distribution of gambling derived-harm, and the extent to which gambling funds provide community benefits. He was a member of the Australian Government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling (2010-11). He is an editorial board member of the journal Independent Gambling Studies. He is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia and the National Association of Gambling Studies (Australia), and of the Australian Greens. He has not received research or other funding or support from and has not entered into any collaborative agreements with any gambling, alcohol or tobacco industry body. No funding was received from any source in relation to the preparation of this article.</span></em></p>Casino gaming is on the rise across much of the developed world, with governments increasingly unable to resist the allure of windfall taxes and a hefty influx of cash for the local economy. Massachusetts…Rebecca Cassidy, Professor of Anthropology, Goldsmiths, University of LondonCharles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, Global Health and Society, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254932014-06-16T20:35:52Z2014-06-16T20:35:52ZResponsible gambling: why occasional use is generally safe<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51171/original/cnndhdrp-1402895739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gambling products are only harmful when people consume too much of them.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/biggreymare/9592063632">Carol Von Canon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most people are aware of the harms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/problem-gambling">problem gambling</a>. Playing pokie machines, placing bets and visiting casinos can be a very expensive form of entertainment. And when gamblers lose more than they can afford, the consequences can be disastrous for the person playing and their family.</p>
<p>But gambling products are only harmful when people consume too much of them. Gambling is like alcohol: occasional use is generally safe. So, just like the two-drink maximum for alcohol, establishing guidelines for “responsible” gambling could reduce the risk of overuse. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Use, do not abuse… neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy –– Voltaire</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Defining problem gambling</h2>
<p>Is problem gambling a mental illness? Unfortunately there is no simple answer. “Disordered gambling” is the only purely behavioural form of addiction recognised in the fifth edition of the <a href="http://www.psych.org/practice/dsm">Diagnostics and Statistical Manual</a> of the American Psychiatric Association, known as the psychiatrists’ bible. </p>
<p>Gambling disorders are associated with very serious harms, making them a legitimate focus of public concern. People with gambling disorders are <a href="http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/jspui/handle/1880/260">more likely</a> to die by suicide than people suffering from other substance-related addictions, and many otherwise law-abiding people end up in jail for crimes committed to support their gambling.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, some experts are hesitant to view gambling as a medical condition because it suggests that medication is the most appropriate treatment. It also ignores the role that the gambling industry, government regulation and personal responsibly play in either promoting or protecting people from gambling harms. </p>
<p>Australian researchers have devised a pragmatic approach to <a href="http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/gambling/publications/ProblemGamblingAndHarmTowardNationalDefinition.pdf">define gambling</a> in terms of people’s difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community. </p>
<p>As suggested by this definition, problem gambling can be neatly defined as consuming “too much” of gambling products. In fact, many people with gambling problems tend to consume too much of <a href="http://www.iga.sa.gov.au/pdf/agr-2011-5.pdf">many other products</a> that cause some harms: unhealthy foods, alcohol, tobacco and illicit substances. This over-consumption can end up destroying a person’s physical health and mental well-being.</p>
<p>The proliferation of gambling products offer abundant opportunities for consumption. Likewise, developed countries have become adept at fulfilling our nearly insatiable desires for food, consumer goods, chemical substances and stimulating activities.</p>
<h2>The evolutionary drive to gamble</h2>
<p>Gambling is an activity that fulfils a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23429429">deep biological need</a> to acquire resources for our betterment. In our evolutionary past, this overwhelming desire was a psychological mechanism conferring fitness. Those people with the “need to acquire” efficiently accumulated resources to survive and procreate, and thereby ultimately became our ancestors. </p>
<p>Gambling is a potent abstract means to satisfy this biological urge for acquisition, and gambling products are carefully constructed through much iteration of successful and unsuccessful games of chance to maximally appeal to consumers’ interests. Although gambling products bear little functional resemblance to tasks and rewards in our evolutionary past, they have been enhanced and refined to create an outsized appeal to our motives.</p>
<p>Within this framework, <a href="http://lccn.loc.gov/2009037078">supernormal stimuli</a> are exaggerated versions of original stimuli that evolved in our past as adaptive responses. Supernormal stimuli can create an over-reaction in animals; for example, where a bird is attracted to care for an abnormally large egg that is outside of the normal range for the species. </p>
<p>Gambling, likewise, is a supernormal stimulus for acquisition of a universal resource, money, that is symbolically – and in some cases actually – a resource that conveys fitness. This can cause people to invest too much of their time or money in an activity that only has real value as entertainment.</p>
<h2>How much gambling is ‘too much’?</h2>
<p>It is possible to set safe levels of gambling, where people can enjoy the recreation of gambling without causing themselves or other harms through overspending. North American addiction researcher <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16548936">Shawn Currie</a>, for instance, found that Canadians who spent less than 1% of their gross income on gambling, gambled no more than two to three times per month, and spent less than CAN$1,000 a year were unlikely to experience harm from gambling. </p>
<p>The Canadians have given us some indication of how much gambling is “too much”, but ultimately Australian research will be needed to provide simple guidelines for our country and our gamblers.</p>
<p>Unlike tobacco smoking, which can be harmful at any level of use, modest levels of gambling can be both entertaining and non-harmful. In fact, a recent <a href="http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/rr_prevalence_study_2012.asp">New South Wales prevalence survey</a> found that many regular gamblers nominated that their lives had been made “more enjoyable” as a result of their gambling.</p>
<h2>Ending the blame game</h2>
<p>It is easy to blame the gambling industry, lax regulation or gamblers themselves for the harm that gambling can cause. But rather than getting caught in a cycle of shifting responsibility, it’s much more productive to see that everyone can play an important role in limiting gambling consumption under “safe” thresholds. </p>
<p>The gambling industry can promote responsible playing behaviour, and make it clear to consumers how much gambling is “too much”. </p>
<p>Government can implement soft controls, such as pre-commitment technologies and requirements to notify players about how much time and money they have spent gambling. And public health agencies can promote other healthy alternatives to gambling to mollify consumptive urges. </p>
<p>Finally, gamblers can take personal responsibility for keeping their gambling within the known safe limits. </p>
<p>When everybody takes responsibility for preventing gambling problems, everybody wins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Rockloff receives funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Gambling Research Australia and the Department of Social Services. In the past he received funding from the Victorian Treasury and the Queensland Treasury.</span></em></p>Most people are aware of the harms of problem gambling. Playing pokie machines, placing bets and visiting casinos can be a very expensive form of entertainment. And when gamblers lose more than they can…Matthew Rockloff, Deputy Director, Institute for Health and Social Science Research, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.