tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/tim-costello-12251/articlesTim Costello – The Conversation2017-05-01T05:06:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768572017-05-01T05:06:38Z2017-05-01T05:06:38ZAction on problem gambling online is a good first step, but no silver bullet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167327/original/file-20170501-12963-1dd5gg2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greater protections for online gamblers are clearly needed, given its growth and higher rates of problem gambling among its users.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reactions to new measures <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-and-state-ministers-agree-on-online-gambling-reform/news-story/fd3ea0c6e084e81c1f24a70e38072b3d">designed to tackle problem gambling online</a> have so far been mixed. The federal human services minister, Alan Tudge, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-state-and-territory-ministers-tackle-problem-gambling/news-story/3465297b894e0959067862df9437386d?nk=b00925f1a16d0be259f3f1f1cd361795-1493595808">said he was</a> “hopeful that in combination [they] will have a profound impact”. But Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce chair Tim Costello <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-state-and-territory-ministers-tackle-problem-gambling/news-story/3465297b894e0959067862df9437386d?nk=b00925f1a16d0be259f3f1f1cd361795-1493595808">dismissed them as “cosmetic”</a>. He called instead for a total ban on betting ads on TV during sports broadcasts.</p>
<p>Greater protections for online gamblers are clearly needed. Online gambling is <a href="https://theconversation.com/gambling-gallops-on-stats-reveal-but-what-can-be-done-to-curb-its-harms-64299">growing rapidly</a>, and up to three times higher rates of problem gambling <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4610999/">have been found</a> among internet compared to non-internet gamblers.</p>
<p>There is reason to suggest these new reforms will have some impact in helping tackle problem gambling. However, none of the proposed measures, either alone or in combination, will completely eliminate it online.</p>
<h2>What’s being introduced?</h2>
<p>Under the new <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2016-11-25-gambling-ministers-agree-consumer-protection-framework-online-wagering">National Consumer Protection Framework</a> for online gambling, the main changes will be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Australian betting sites will no longer be allowed to offer credit or “free-bet” inducements (where customers are given betting credit to sign up);</p></li>
<li><p>the establishment of a national online self-exclusion register to allow gamblers to voluntarily ban themselves from any site for between three months and life; and</p></li>
<li><p>the introduction of pre-commitment options – where gamblers can set a maximum amount they can lose – and activity statements detailing gambling wins and losses.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Credit and free-bet inducements</h2>
<p>Several studies have identified credit betting as a risk factor for problem gambling. </p>
<p>The use of digital credit has been associated with lower <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023053630588?LI=true">psychological value compared</a> to physical money. This means gamblers feel less of a “sting” when losing digital credit, which leads to increased gambling losses – particularly among problem gamblers. </p>
<p>Credit betting on in-person gambling forms (like on poker machines and at the TAB) has long been prohibited in order to protect problem gamblers. So, it is reasonable that similar measures be put in place for online betting.</p>
<p>There is also some research on the effect of inducements, such as free bets. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459795.2014.903989">Studies report</a> that online gambling promotions may lead internet gamblers to gamble more money than they had first intended. It was also found that promotions triggered urges to gamble in people seeking treatment for gambling problems. </p>
<p>Thus, there is evidence to suggest a ban on such inducements will be an important protection for problem gamblers.</p>
<h2>Self-exclusion registry</h2>
<p>There are few examples of national online self-exclusion schemes, mostly because online gambling is illegal in many countries and these schemes require the co-operation of multiple betting operators. </p>
<p>In the UK, a <a href="http://www.rga.eu.com/pages/en/noses.html">national online self-exclusion scheme</a> is currently in the piloting stages, with full implementation planned for the end of this year. <a href="https://www.svenskaspel.se/">Svenska Spel</a>, the Swedish state-owned gambling operator, also provides a self-exclusion scheme. </p>
<p>Evaluations of self-exclusion programs generally show <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016676/">positive outcomes</a> in terms of reduced problem gambling, and various social and psychological benefits. This suggests this reform may also be of benefit to gamblers. </p>
<p>However, the main drawback is that while such a register will prevent self-excluded gamblers from opening accounts with Australian betting operators, it will not stop them accessing offshore and illegal betting sites.</p>
<h2>Pre-commitment and activity statements</h2>
<p>Although many betting sites currently provide a limit-setting option, the inclusion of a pre-commitment scheme in the reforms allows governments to prescribe the exact features that are likely to be most effective – for example, limits that are binding. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/15599/1/200584_6987%20Griffiths%20Publisher.pdf">study</a> involving Swedish Svenska Spel customers reported that more than half (56%) had used the spend limit feature. Most (70%) found them to be “quite” or “very” useful. </p>
<p>Similarly, people perceive gambling activity statements <a href="http://www.responsiblegambling.org/docs/research-reports/play-information-and-management-systems.pdf?sfvrsn=10">as useful</a>, provided the data is presented clearly. However, this finding is open to interpretation. And some researchers have expressed concern about the potential for gamblers to misinterpret information displayed by activity statements – thus causing them to chase their losses.</p>
<p>Given most research on these reforms is indirect and has been conducted overseas, there is a need for systematic and empirical research to evaluate their effectiveness once implemented. It is therefore highly encouraging that state and federal government ministers <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2017-04-28-ministers-agree-tackle-major-online-gambling-reform">have promised funding</a> of up to A$3 million to launch a national gambling research model, beginning July 1, that may help answer some of these questions. </p>
<p>These reforms should not be looked at in isolation, but in combination with other proposed measures for tackling problem gambling. This could include <a href="https://theconversation.com/wide-ranging-ban-on-gambling-ads-during-sport-broadcasts-is-needed-to-tackle-problem-gambling-74687">tighter controls on gambling ads</a>, which is also likely to have a significant impact.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76857/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan Pickering receives funding from ClubsNSW. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher John Hunt receives funding from NSW Responsible Gambling Fund.</span></em></p>There is reason to suggest new reforms, such a banning credit bets and establishing a self-exclusion register, will have some impact in helping to tackle problem gambling online.Dylan Pickering, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, University of SydneyChristopher John Hunt, Clinical Psychologist, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711462017-01-30T19:08:41Z2017-01-30T19:08:41ZFactCheck: What are the facts on Australia’s foreign aid spending?<blockquote>
<p>Aid was at its highest under Menzies, at 0.5% … when per capita income was much lower. – <strong>World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html?deviceType=text">quoted</a> in The Sydney Morning Herald, December 28, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html">news report</a> highlighting the fall in Australia’s foreign aid spending quoted World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello as saying aid was at its highest under Prime Minister Robert Menzies, at 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) – at a time when per capita income was much lower.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, Reverend Tim Costello referred The Conversation to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data published <a href="http://www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=801&cr1=oecd&lg=en&page=1">here</a>. He added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If anything, I perhaps understated the case because aid was actually a bit higher than 0.5% in the 1960s. </p>
<p>Aid first went over 0.5% in 1963, dipped slightly in 1964, then went over 0.5% again from 1965 and every subsequent year into the 1970s. In 1967 and again in 1970 it hit 0.62%. </p>
<p>The highest single year was 1975 at 0.65%, but the highest decade taken as an average was the 1960s under Menzies. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read Costello’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-reverend-tim-costello-71268">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Is it true Australia’s foreign aid spending was at its highest under Menzies?</h2>
<p>In making his statement about foreign aid spending, Costello relied on data published by the OECD that go back as far as 1960.</p>
<p>Given <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">the difficulty</a> of obtaining data from Australian government sources on aid spending during the Menzies era (meaning 1949-66 for present purposes, though Menzies <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/">also served</a> as prime minister from 1939-1941), this is understandable. However, it’s not safe to depend upon OECD aid statistics in this instance.</p>
<p>Based on the most up-to-date Australian government data, the highest ratio of aid to gross national income under any Australian government since annual reporting began was 0.48%. That was in the financial year 1967-68 under three prime ministers in quick succession: Harold Holt, John McEwen and John Gorton.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader point is correct. Australian aid generosity is a fraction of what it once was. Australia’s share of aid to GNI is projected to decline to 0.22% in 2016-17, its <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">lowest level ever</a>. Generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though GNI per capita was less than half of its present level in real terms.</p>
<h2>What’s the problem with using OECD data on aid spending?</h2>
<p>A careful review of the statistics published by relevant Australian government agencies, including some that are tricky to find, indicates that the OECD’s aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia are quite inflated for the three decades or so from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s. </p>
<p>This inflation is mainly down to differences between the OECD’s estimates of Australia’s <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gross-national-income-gni.asp">gross national income</a> and Australia’s own estimates. </p>
<p>While OECD data on Australia’s GNI over time are based on the Australian government’s reporting to the OECD, the Australian government periodically revises its estimates of past GNI. Such revisions appear not to have been reflected uniformly in OECD data. </p>
<p>On average, the aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia published by the OECD up to 1995 are inflated by about 20%. For some individual years, including 1975, the ratios are inflated by more than 40%. </p>
<h2>How else can we track Australia’s aid spending?</h2>
<p>The Development Policy Centre’s <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">Aid Tracker</a> uses the most readily available Australian government statistics to show Australian aid flows since the financial year 1971-72. The highest aid-to-GNI ratio between then and now was 0.47%, in 1974-75.</p>
<p>But what about the Menzies era? </p>
<p>It’s no straightforward matter to obtain statistics from Australian government sources on annual aid flows under Menzies, or any other prime minister before Whitlam. But they can be found with a little <a href="https://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">detective work</a>. Data on annual aid spending as far back as 1961-62 are buried in old Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) year books. </p>
<p>Australian government data, including the old ABS data just mentioned, show that the highest aid-to-GNI ratio under <em>any</em> Australian government was 0.48%. That ratio was seen under Prime Ministers Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>The chart below compares Australia’s actual aid-to-GNI ratios (blue line) with those asserted in OECD statistics (orange line). The <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">red line</a> represents the 0.5% aid spending target that both major political parties had, for a time, pledged to meet by 2015. The purple line represents the 0.7% United Nations target for foreign aid spending.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Data from: ABS Annual Year Books, 1970-72; AusAID Blue Book 2012-13; DFAT Green Book 2013-14; Federal Government Budget Papers 2014-15 to 2016-17; OECD Development Assistance Committee Official Development Assistance database.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>See <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpu46qhp7qcnvcy/Data%20and%20charts.xlsx?dl=0">this spreadsheet</a> for a collation of the data on which the above chart is based. You can read more about my methodology, including how the chart was constructed, <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-71470">here</a>.</p>
<h2>How has Australia’s foreign aid spend changed over time?</h2>
<p>Australia’s overseas aid spending has had <a href="https://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854">unprecedented reductions</a> since the Coalition came to office in 2013. </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/portfolio-budget-statements/Pages/budget-highlights-2016-17.aspx">aid budget for 2016-17</a>, at $3.8 billion, is around one-third less in real terms than the $5.1 billion spent in <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/summary-of-australia-s-overseas-aid-program-2012-13.aspx">2012-13</a>.</p>
<p>The $5.1 billion spent in 2012-13 represented the peak of Australia’s aid effort in dollar terms. But in terms of the ratio of aid to GNI, it was well below the levels of the 1960s and 1970s.</p>
<p>Based on the economic growth forecast in the government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/myefo/download/01-Part-1.pdf">December 2016 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a>, Australia’s 2016-17 aid budget is estimated to amount to 0.22% of Australia’s gross national income. </p>
<p>In dollar terms, that’s 22 cents in every $100, compared with 34 cents in every $100 in 2012-13, and 48 cents in every $100 in the late 1960s. </p>
<p>In recent years both major Australian political parties have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3657243.htm">made and subsequently abandoned time-bound commitments</a> to meet an aid-to-GNI ratio of 0.5%. </p>
<p>A ratio of 0.5% would be well below <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm">the UN target of 0.7%</a>, which <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/development-aid-rises-again-in-2015-spending-on-refugees-doubles.htm">six OECD donor countries</a> met or exceeded in 2015 (the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden).</p>
<p>Given that estimates of gross national income have been revised over time, it’s important also to consider policy intentions. ABS year books from the early 1970s show that Australian governments believed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that they were allocating more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income to aid. </p>
<h2>Australians are much wealthier than they were 50 years ago</h2>
<p>Costello is certainly right to say per capita income (gross national income divided by the number of Australians) was much lower in the Menzies era than it is now.</p>
<p>Growth in per capita income has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/18/even-though-myefo-figures-might-cost-us-our-aaa-rating-the-coalition-faces-greater-dangers">slowed lately</a>, and household disposable income has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/the-population-booms-hidden-secret/news-story/d2a892dcea0ab8e9967455880502f4c1">fallen</a> over the last several years. But Australia’s per capita income remains well above the average of OECD member countries, and of all high-income countries.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators">The Conversation/Data from World Bank - World Development Indicators</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>So while Australians have grown richer, our aid generosity has declined.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Tim Costello’s underlying point is correct, even if his specifics were a bit out. </p>
<p>The highest aid-to-GNI ratio under any Australian government was in fact 0.48% under Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>Costello relied on OECD statistics that are unreliable for the period in question. Even so, he was only out by a year and a fraction of a percentage point. Moreover, governments at the time did believe they were spending more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income on aid.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader message – that Australia’s foreign aid generosity has diminished while Australians have become wealthier – is correct.</p>
<p>Aid generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though per capita income was less than half of its present level. <strong>– Robin Davies</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. The author has provided a careful, sophisticated and impartial analysis of Australia’s foreign aid spending from the 1960s to the present day. We know little about how Australian aid spending levels prior to 1971 compare to today’s and it is terrific that the author has delved into this area despite the data-related and methodological challenges.</p>
<p>I would add that it is worth considering how the Australian government has measured foreign aid spending, whether this has changed between the early 1960s and the present, and — if there have been changes — whether they affect our ability to compare ratios of aid to gross national income across this time period. I expect that doing so will not materially affect the analysis, but it would be useful to know. <strong>– Andrew Rosser</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71146/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Davies is the Associate Director of the Development Policy Centre, a think tank on aid and development which is hosted by the Australian National University and funded by the university and two foundations, the Harold Mitchell Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Development Policy Centre has received project-related grant funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Rosser has received funding from a range of donor organisations including AusAID/DFAT. He has also received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>We check the facts on how Australia’s foreign aid spend has changed over time.Robin Davies, Associate Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.