Towards a Responsible Gambling Policy?
The Victorian Gaming Minister, John Pandazopoulos, recently issued a paper for public
discussion titled Responsible Gaming: The Issues for Consultation. The most
disappointing feature of the paper is its announcement of the Government’s intention
to preserve the current duopoly control of gaming machines in Victoria. The Productivity
Commission took the view in its recent report that competition would be more likely to
ease social problems arising form gambling than regulation. The discussion paper
nonetheless proposes some measures that are well worth considering. Following are the
questions it poses:
- What is the most appropriate method for deciding the maximum number of gaming
machines allowed within a particular region?
Should one of the criteria used to determine the cap on gaming machines in a region be
based on a State-wide average of adults to gaming machines?
Should cap setting have reference to social data such as unemployment above the
average, or income levels in the region?
Are there other useful criteria that could be used?
- Should gaming machines be permitted in areas of hotels and clubs that allow
for the presence of minors?
Should the Government ban gaming machines in the areas of hotels and clubs accessible
to minors?
- Should note-acceptors be restricted to small denominations, or be banned
altogether?
Should the Government ban note-acceptors, or restrict them to accept only smaller
denomination notes: i.e., $5, $10 and $20?
- Should there be a limit to the size of a bet at gaming machines?
What are the pros and cons of limiting the amount a player can bet with a single button
push on a gaming machine? Would it be an effective step in promoting responsible gambling?
- How could the operation of self-exclusion and diversion programs be improved?
Should the Government extend the enforceable self-exclusion arrangements to club and
hotel gaming venues?
Would an alternative to prosecution and monetary penalty, such as gambling counselling,
be more appropriate for people who breached their self-exclusion arrangements?
Should the casino and gaming venues be required to display information about the
availability and operation of self-exclusion programs?
- How could players be provided with meaningful information about the odds
against winning or about their individual gaming?
How should player information be presented on gaming machines? Should gaming machines
display in dollars and cents rather than in credits?
Should players be issued with activity statements giving information on the amounts won
and lost? Would allowing a player to set limits on the amount of money and time they can
spend in one sitting (commonly known as pre-commitment) be an effective harm minimisation
strategy?
Would enforced breaks in play of gaming machines assist problem gamblers, and, if so,
what is a reasonable duration of play and reasonable break from play?
- To what extent should the Government regulate the advertising of gaming
venues?
Does the current regulation of advertising ensure the responsible promotion of
gambling?
What restrictions should the Government place on the advertisement of gambling at the
casino and gaming venues?
Should the Government ban promotions that reward or are based on the play of gaming
machines?
- How should the regulation of bingo be changed to guarantee returns to local
charities?
Should the Government change the framework for bingo to guarantee a return to community
and charitable organisations conducting it?
Should the Government change the framework for bingo to allow the proceeds from all
sessions of bingo conducted at a bingo centre to be paid into a common pool?
Should the Government permit new forms of bingo, including linked bingo and electronic
bingo terminals?
- What changes, if any, should be made to the secrecy provisions that currently
prevent openness and transparency in the regulation of gambling?
Should secrecy provisions be modified to allow for public disclosure of information
that is in the public interest? What sort of information is in the public interest?
How could the necessary privacy requirements for due process be protected if the
secrecy provisions were modified?
Should the VCGA conduct public hearings?
Are there other areas where the VCGA can be made more transparent?
The Geelong Catholic Social Justice Committee will make a submission to the Minister on
these questions, but we invite readers put their views to us also by writing to Dr Michael
Leahy, 138 The Avenue, Ocean Grove 3226. Readers can also respond directly to the
Government’s policy unit at Responsible Gaming Consultation, Gaming Policy Unit,
Department of Treasury and Finance, GPO Box 4379QQ, Melbourne VIC 3001.
| 
