(MENAFN- The Conversation) SA-Best, led by high-profile former senator Nick Xenophon, has announced its ahead of next month's South Australian election. Xenophon has backed away from the 'no pokies' policy that characterised his earlier approach to gambling reform. However, the evidence behind his party's proposed suite of measures is reasonably strong.
What's in the policy?
Key aspects of SA-Best's proposal are:
-
a five-year plan to cut poker machines numbers in South Australia from 12,100 to 8,100;
-
a reduction in maximum bets to A$1, from the current $5;
-
a reduction in maximum prizes from $10,000 to $500;
-
removing particularly addictive features such as ;
-
prohibition of political donations from gambling businesses; and
-
the removal of EFTPOS facilities from gambling venues.
The policy would also empower the state's to implement and evaluate these proposals.
The policy is targeted at commercial hotel operators; clubs, 'community hotels' and the casino are exempt from the reduction provisions.
There are also proposals to cut trading hours from 18 to 16 per day, with the introduction of a seven-year pokie licence for venues, from January 1, 2019. Increased resources would go to counselling and support for those with gambling problems.
Notably absent from the policy is the introduction of a system, which would enable pokie users to decide in advance how much they want to spend. Along with $1 maximum bets, this was a key recommendation of a in 2010.
The policy has attracted the from the gambling industry. The Australian Hotels Association argued the changes would 'rip the guts' out of the gambling industry and attack the '26,000 jobs' it claims the industry directly creates.
Does evidence support SA Best's policies?
We've known for some time that is likely to reduce the amount wagered by people experiencing severe gambling problems. This in turn reduces the harm they suffer.
Read more:
Reducing maximum prizes reduces ', meaning pokies may have more consistent loss rates.
Reducing access to pokies is also an important intervention, since easy access is a for developing a gambling problem. Reducing the number of machines, and the hours they are accessible, support this.
Read more:
However, are needed to meaningfully reduce harm. A cut of the magnitude SA-Best proposes may not be sufficient to prevent those with serious gambling habits from readily accessing pokies. This is because pokies are rarely fully utilised at all times of the week.
Removing has also been identified as an important harm-reduction intervention. This had a positive initial effect in Victoria (especially among high-risk gamblers), when ATMs were removed from pokie venues in 2012.
The harms associated with gambling generally affect than just the gambler. The , from 2012 indicates that 0.6% of the SA adult population is classified as at high risk of gambling harm, 2.5% are classified as at moderate risk, and another 7.1% at low risk.
Based on , this equates to about 8,000 South Australians experiencing severe harm from gambling. Another 33,100 are experiencing significant harm, and about 94,000 are experiencing some harm.
However, each high-risk gambler affects six others; each moderate-risk gambler affects three others; and each low-risk gambler one other. So, the problems of each high-risk gambler affect another 47,660 South Australians. These are children, spouses, other relatives, friends, employers, the general community via the costs of crime, and so on.
Another 99,300 are affected by moderate-risk gambling, and another 94,000 by low-risk gambling. All up, this amounts to 241,000 people.
Of these, 190,000 are affected at high or significant levels. financial disaster and bankruptcy, divorce or separation, neglect of children, intimate partner violence and other violent crime, crimes against property, mental and physical ill-health, and in some cases, suicide.
Most gambling problems (around 75%) , and by far the greatest expenditure goes through them. Nothing has changed in this regard since the Productivity Commission identified this in 2010.
In this context, SA-Best's policy has substantial justification.
Read more:
Does it go far enough?
The , like their and the Tasmanian Labor Party, want to get all pokies out of pubs and clubs. They argue gambling's social and economic costs are far in excess of the benefits.
For Tasmania, the costs of gambling can be estimated at about . This is more than three times as much as the total tax take from all gambling in the state.
A similar calculation for South Australia suggests its overall costs of problem gambling are more than $1.6 billion per year. This is more than four times the total taxes from gambling the South Australian government ($380.3 million).
With a cost-benefit ratio like that, some strong measures could well be called for. Xenophon says the proposals encapsulated in his party's policy are the start. However, Tasmanian Labor has set the new benchmark for pokie regulation – removing them entirely from pubs and clubs.
It is remarkable that a party traditionally in lockstep with – and – the gambling industry has adopted such a position. Perhaps the harms have become too much to ignore?
How these policies might be implemented, amid the resistance they will face from a well-heeled and gambling industry, presents an intriguing prospect over coming months.
MENAFN2102201801990000ID1096491635
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.