|
COPYRIGHT 2006 University of Queensland Press
In recognition that they largely control the context in which legalised gambling is operated, state governments in Australia have taken an increasingly active role in encouraging the gambling industry to implement responsible gambling practices. In the state of Queensland, the government introduced the voluntary Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice in May 2002. This article reports part of a larger study investigating gambling providers' awareness of this Code, their implementation of its provisions and their views on its likely effectiveness in hotels, casinos and clubs in certain case study areas in remote, regional and urban Queensland. This article draws only on data for the selected regional area, Townsville. Semistructured interviews with managers and staff in 12 venues revealed mixed awareness of the Code, limited implementation of its component elements and variable support for its likely effectiveness. However, a committed group of five venue managers was much more proactive in implementing the Code than those in the remaining venues and much more supportive of its potential effectiveness. These five venues--two clubs, two hotels and the casino--subsequently formed a responsible gambling consultative committee, a regional network initiated by the local Centacare welfare agency. The experience of this committee points to numerous benefits that such a network can provide in addressing regional challenges regarding responsible conduct of gambling. As such, this study highlights some of the possible facilitators and challenges in implementing responsible gambling practices in regional areas, particularly those with similar characteristics to Townsville.
**********
As in many other countries, commercial gambling in Australia has shown significant growth over the last few decades. National expenditure on gambling is now over $15 billion, up from around $4 billion (in real terms) in 1977-1978 when the first national figures were collected (Tasmanian Gaming Commission, 2004). Accompanying this growth in gambling has been vocal public concern for its negative impacts, particularly problem gambling, given that per capita gambling expenditure has more than doubled to $1026 over the last 25 years (Tasmanian Gaming Commission, 2004). In Australia and elsewhere, some governments and gambling industries have responded by introducing a range of responsible gambling practices, typically aimed at consumer protection and harm minimisation in gambling. However, as Blaszczynski, Ladouceur and Shaffer (2004) note, there are currently no common frameworks guiding responsible gambling efforts, at either national or international levels. Thus, there is a great deal of variation in the nature and extent of responsible gambling practices in place, and their levels of implementation. Fuelling this inconsistency is the varying degree of willingness by governments and gambling industries to embrace responsible gambling practices. The inherent conflict between gambling as a major source of government revenue (10%-12% of state taxation revenue in most Australian states) and the responsibility of the state to protect the public, particularly its most vulnerable segments (Blaszczynski et al., 2004), means that some governments have been hesitant to legislate for practices which may reduce that source of revenue. Similarly, intense competition and reliance on gambling profits have undermined the willingness of some industry sectors to embrace their corporate social responsibilities in gambling. Other confounding issues include lack of conceptual clarity in defining and measuring gambling-related harm; no consensus on what responsible gambling means; unclear boundaries of responsibility among governments, industry and consumers; lack of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of responsible gambling practices; and confusion over who these practices should target (Blaszczynski et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, significant progress in responsible provision of gambling has recently been made. For example, an audit of responsible gambling initiatives in Australia (Hing, Dickerson, & Mackellar, 2001) identified a recent and generally ongoing realignment of state legislation aimed at harm minimisation in gambling and the existence of 30 voluntary responsible gambling codes of practice. However, that report also levelled various criticisms at those initiatives, including lack of definitional clarity, a failure to draw on experience in dealing with other public health issues, lack of strategies based on established principles or causal themes in the research literature, avoidance of targeting those most at risk of gambling problems, and little independent evaluation of the efficacy of these measures. Similarly, Blaszczynski et al. (2004) have been critical of the lack of a strategic framework for responsible gambling that allows key stakeholders to develop socially responsible policies based on sound empirical evidence and that differentially target vulnerable community members and sectors. Other criticisms of current responsible gambling measures have been well documented in various Australian government and academic inquiries into gambling (e.g., Hing, 2003; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, 1998, 2004; Productivity Commission, 1999). However, despite these criticisms, Australia is generally held in high regard internationally as one of a growing number of jurisdictions to address problem gambling from a public health perspective.
Responsible provision of gambling remains a controversial issue in Australia, reflected in the ongoing debate over appropriate harm minimisation and consumer protection measures in gambling, and the very different approaches taken by the various Australian states. For example, the states of New South Wales and Victoria have taken a legislative approach to responsible conduct of gambling; while in Queensland the industry is guided by the voluntary Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. This article investigates the efficacy of this Queensland Code from an industry perspective and in a regional Queensland centre. Given the voluntary nature of the Code, its recent introduction and the distinctive features of regional centres, it is appropriate to examine how well these responsible gambling practices have been embraced in a nonmetropolitan setting. Thus, this article reports on an empirical study that assessed awareness of this Code and the extent of implementation of its various elements in selected hotels, clubs and casinos in the Townsville region of North Queensland. It also investigated the opinions of venue managers and staff on the Code's likely effectiveness in encouraging responsible gambling. While awareness and implementation of the Code were patchy in many venues, five venues stood out as being particularly proactive in implementing and supporting the Code, subsequently joining a regional network to advance responsible gambling in the Townsville region.
Gambling in Queensland
The history of gambling in Queensland can be traced back to the convict ships and, even before the Colony of Queensland had separated from New South Wales, gambling had emerged as a significant aspect of the national identity (Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation [QOGR], 1998). By the early 1900s, on-course betting had gained popularity and not-for-profit art unions were permitted; the state's first lottery--The Golden Casket--was introduced in 1916, while off-course betting through totalisator agency boards (TABs) was introduced in 1962; the state's first casinos opened on the Gold Coast in 1985 and in Townsville in 1986 (Queensland Government, 1998). Since the early 1990s, this expansion of legalised gambling has gained significant momentum, particularly in the casino, hotel and licensed club sectors. Electronic machine gambling (gaming or poker machines) were introduced into the state's pubs and clubs in 1992, additional casinos opened in Brisbane in 1995 and Cairns in 1996, and keno operations expanded from casinos to licensed clubs, hotels and TAB agencies in 1996 (Queensland Government, 1998).
It was in this recent context of industry growth that the Queensland Government introduced a range of initiatives to minimise harm in gambling and to promote responsible gambling. These have included funding for problem gambling counselling services, establishment of a 24-hour toll-free problem gambling hotline, funding for gambling research, and establishment of the Queensland Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee (Queensland Government, 1998). One initiative of the Queensland Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee has been to develop a voluntary Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice which 'provides a proactive whole-of-industry approach to the promotion of responsible gambling practices ... [and] encourages the creation of gambling environments that minimise harm to individuals and to the broader community' (Queensland Treasury, 2002, p. 4). Launched in May 2002, the Code is expected to be implemented across the state by 744 hotels, 612 clubs and the four casinos, as well as by TAB agents, keno venues, race clubs, lottery agents and bingo operators (Queensland Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee, 2002).
As background, this article now briefly discusses problem gambling and responsible gambling, including Queensland's approach to addressing these issues. Some theoretical aspects of regional networks are outlined and some contextual information on the case study region of Townsville provided. The article then explains the research methods used, before the results are presented and discussed.
Problem Gambling and Responsible Gambling in Queensland
Using the Canadian Problem Gambling Index, the Queensland Household Gambling Survey (Queensland Treasury, 2001) estimated that 0.83% of the Queensland adult population (21,910 people) can be classified in the Index's 'problem gambling' group, comprising 'those who have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour' and whose 'involvement in gambling is likely to be heavy'. An additional 2.7% (71,227 people) were classified in the 'moderate risk gambling' group, described as those who 'may or may not have experienced adverse consequences from gambling' but who 'may be at risk'. The remainder were classified in the 'low risk', 'nonproblem' or 'non-gambling' category.
While these statistics indicate that the number of Queensland residents with gambling problems is low, other research highlights that the impacts from problem gambling often extend beyond the individual concerned, with each case typically impacting on another five people (Productivity Commission, 1999). This flow-on effect is recognised in a widely accepted Australian definition of problem gambling as 'the situation when a person's gambling activity gives rise to harm to the individual player, and/or to his or her family, and may extend into the community' (Australian Institute for Gambling Research, 1997, p. 2).
This definition reflects a public health view of problem gambling, which places some responsibility on venues such as hotels, clubs and casinos to operate gambling in a socially responsible manner and to provide a gambling environment that encourages harm minimisation and consumer protection in gambling. While definitions vary, responsible provision of gambling generally refers to operator practices that aim to achieve these objectives (Dickerson, 1998). In Queensland, these have been codified in...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
