Legalized Gambling in Australia - Essay Example

Running Head: Australian Club and Gaming Management Australian Club and Gaming Management Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 Main Body 4 Benefits and Drawbacks of Legalized Gambling 6 Conclusion and Recommendation 8 References: 12 Executive Summary In this paper I have discuss Legalized gambling in Australia. The main focus of the paper is the benefits and drawbacks of legalized gambling to the contemporary Australian community, and what legislative changes should be made. The paper also has some statistics discusses in the main body of the paper. There is also major section in which Benefits and Drawbacks of Legalized Gambling has been discussed. In the end, I have commented on the legislatives and given some recommendations for the gambling industry Introduction Legalized state-sponsored gambling is in no way a uniquely Australian phenomenon. Throughout the country, governments not only operate lotteries, but they also maintain and sponsor many other forms of gambling. The lottery industry alone accounted for total spending at the consumer level of approximately $80 billion in 1993 (CALDWELL, G. T. 1994). Basically, Gambling as a form of recreation in Australia has become a national and very divisive issue. As state governments rely more on gambling for revenue-up to 15 percent of the state revenue in Victoria-unease in the community has grown over compulsive gambling and its social effects. In South Australia, the No Pokies Party elected Nick Xenophon to the upper house on an anti- gambling ticket in the last state election; in Victoria, the Baptist minister and social activist Tim Costello (the polar opposite brother of the Federal Coalition Government Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Peter) has conducted a long campaign against Premier Kennett's gambling fixations (Kennett lost government in 1999). Costello sees gambling as the very antithesis of the "spirit of Victoria," as it is touted, and believes the avalanche of gambling with the Internet, TABs (totalisator agency board betting shops) and pokies is tearing at the social fabric of the nation. As the Canadian social critic and theorist John Ralston Saul frequently points out, gambling is the last refuge of governments that have lost social consensus and the capacity to raise revenue for the common good. It is the sign of a nation in decay. (Interview of Costello April 23, 2000; John Ralston Saul, 1997) Main Body Since the early 1990s, there has been a marked increase in state sponsorship of all types of gambling. Some of these gambling activities include casino gambling, video poker, offtrack betting, keno, video lottery, and riverboat gambling. The rationale behind the introduction of all these new types of gambling ventures is the same as the one that was used to legitimize the lottery: The ever-increasing need for more state revenue more than supersedes any reservations about the appropriateness of sponsoring additional forms of gambling. Obviously, the gamble here is that the public not only will tolerate but will participate in these additional forms of gambling. The Australian nation spends $100 billion per year on gambling; it sucks off enormous sums from all areas of the economy and reduces funding which could be employed in the capital-starved public sector. In 1999, according to the December report of the Productivity Commission to the Howard government, gamblers lose more than $12 billion-or $886 per adult-a year and even the Coalition parties now want to call a halt to the spread of gambling further in Australian society. In 1998, 80 percent of Australians engaged in some form of gambling. In casinos on the Yarra (Melbourne), the Torrens (Adelaide), and the Derwent (Hobart), as well as in thousands of clubs and pubs and in the ubiquitous TABs, Australians are fixated on recreational gambling as part of their national birthright. These venues are touted as fun for all; in Victoria, where the state reaps a massive $600 million per annum in gambling revenues, the casino is hailed as a fun entertainment center for the whole family. The nation as a whole takes $4 billion in revenue from gambling. No wonder Australians are told that the family that gambles together stays together. The promotion of mindless gambling as good for the nation seems to have wide support and the growth of gambling at the end of the 1990s does not yet appear to have peaked (The Australian, 1999, pp. 1, 4. The Advertiser, May 10, 2000, the Australian, January 10, 2001, p. 4). Most commentators on lotteries as well as the lottery commissioners themselves agree that the lottery is a form of entertainment. Like all other forms of entertainment, it provides its users with an outlet for escape or a way to fulfill a dream. Since different bettors have different dreams, a lottery needs to provide different outlets for different dreams. Variety is the spice of life, and this truism is especially applicable to businesses that are trying to provide for those who have a need to change their lives. Because a lottery is a form of entertainment and escape, in formulating and implementing a strategic plan for a state lottery, a lottery commissioner needs to develop a variety of games for his or her customers. Hence, the vast majority of lotteries have "diversified" into all three games (daily numbers, instant games, lotto). As part of state-sponsored gambling activity, states are also introducing casino gambling and video games (mostly poker games).But even though all lotteries have used an overall diversification strategy; it is striking to observe how certain games predominate the operations of most lotteries. Benefits and Drawbacks of Legalized Gambling Though, there is great debate over benefits and drawbacks of legalized gambling to the contemporary Australian community. Those who advocate the institution of a state lottery or other forms of gambling appeal to a very different ethical argument. They argue that people are natural gamblers and will gamble whether or not the government allows gambling. So since people are going to gamble, shouldn't government legalize gambling as long as it uses these gambling proceeds for a good purpose After all, government cannot legislate morality. Those who oppose the adoption of lotteries or other types of state-sponsored gambling usually invoke the argument that lotteries and gambling prey on the poor or those who become addicted to gambling. Therefore, it is in the best interest of society that lotteries and gambling be outlawed. They would maintain that society cannot permit any activity that uses the addiction of some segment even if the rest of society might derive benefit. When sacrifice is used as a moral concept to advance the merits of a particular public policy issue, public policy makers must be able to persuade the public that it must give up some benefit or right in order to achieve a noble goal or end. While it can easily be invoked by religious leaders, it can also be employed by political leaders in times of great national crisis, especially in times of popular wars such as World War I and World War II. In terms of traditional ethical or moral categories, the ethics of sacrifice is teleological; that is, it is goal or end oriented. The goal is the good of society, and the goodness of any action is measured by what it contributes to maintaining the good of society. In terms of public policy, the "good end" is a harmonious society. Traditionally, this ethic has been invoked by those who want to maintain social structure that they deem as desirable and that should be maintained at any cost. Witness the concern of public policy makers over maintaining "family values:" While some might associate this type of ethical reasoning with conservative policy makers, it actually has been used by both conservative and liberal thinkers to justify their stance on major public policy issues. Liberal politicians such as John F. Kennedy certainly invoked the ethics of sacrifice with his famous phrase: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country!" In essence, those who utilize the ethics of sacrifice are asking the public to sublimate what is good for the individual for the good of all. An interesting example of a public policy issue in which supporters invoked the ethics of sacrifice was Prohibition. Supporters of this total ban on alcohol consumption argued that the abuse of alcohol was a factor that led to the disintegration of many families throughout the Australia. So in order to preserve the sanctity of the family, the right of a person to drink alcohol had to be sacrificed. Society could no longer condone the waste of human life that could be attributed to alcohol. In the eyes of prohibitionists, the good that was achieved through the establishment of Prohibition more than outweighed the right of an individual to drink alcohol. However, it soon became apparent that the majority of the public were quite unwilling to make the sacrifice of avoiding the use of alcoholic beverages. Prohibition was repealed, and this experiment of enforced sacrificial morality was abandoned. At its most extreme, those who invoke the ethics of sacrifice can be accused of employing the motto "The ends justify the means:" The individual's ability to decide what is best for himself or herself needs to be subservient to, the needs of the state. The good of the state overrides the rights and needs of the individual. This ethic is certainly the one under which the military and religious orders operate. However, when it is applied to a society with many diverse parts, it can have disastrous consequences. One only need recall the Communist experience throughout the past five decades. Yet it is an ethic that calls forth what some would maintain is the noblest of human characteristics: the ability to give of one even if that giving is detrimental to that individual. Thus, The level of that toleration varies according to the need of government for revenue versus a society's need to regulate activity that it deems as unhealthy but not necessarily evil if that activity can be used to raise funds for good causes. Hence, legislatives must always take these two factors into account as he or she is formulating a strategy by which he or she hopes to run this lottery. One helpful way of defining the term strategy is to use its Greek origins as the "art of the general." While the militaristic connotations of this definition frighten many individuals, it does provide a very useful analogy for those who operate any organization, particularly a lottery. A general cannot make a strategy for defending or attacking unless he or she is ready to cover all the flanks. Similarly, legislatives has to be able to satisfy a variety of governmental interests such as the legislature and the executive branch as well as a host of interested social groups who oppose gambling ranging from church groups to Gamblers Anonymous. Conclusion and Recommendation Gambling is an activity enjoyed by a majority of the population and one, in this day of increased leisure time that is likely to gain favor. This means that more of the vulnerable will be exposed to risk and may develop patterns of activity in which they lose control of their behavior and subject themselves and their families to problems which may result in intolerable distress for all concerned. Risk taking is a pleasurable activity for many, and it is exciting and, when successful, gives a feeling of exhilaration and satisfaction to the participants. Knowledge of the risks and education in minimizing them and understanding the implications of the whole range of problems will enable rational individuals to make an appropriate judgment of whether they wish to participate or not. Thus legalized gambling has become morally adequate in the contemporary Australia simply in association through the idea that there cannot be any society broad objective moral norms. Legalizing gambling in order to generate revenue for the state must be assessed in terms of the equity of gambling as a tax source, i.e. the regressivity of gambling taxes, and the efficiency of raising revenue through gambling taxes, i.e. the cost-effectiveness of gambling legalization. Related to the second criterion, the revenue potential of legalizing gambling is determined by (A) the total amount wagered on presently legal forms of gambling; (B) the total amount wagered on presently illegal forms of gambling; (C) which forms of gambling are legalized; (D) the degree of substitutability among the various forms of gambling and between legal and illegal forms of gambling; and (E) the price elasticity of the demand for gambling, i.e. the sensitivity of the potential gambler to total gambling take-out rates, including government-imposed tax rates. To tolerate other opinions or life-styles, morality has become a subjective preference, not an objective requirement; and the further we carry this line of reasoning, the more acceptable gambling becomes, since it is merely a subjective choice of the individual. Since the individual gambler is not hurting anyone else, then it is quite acceptable for the state to profit from this activity. The strategy that the states will employ to achieve this new structure for the gambling industry will be privatization. The role of the state or government in general will change radically from owning and operating lotteries to regulating the various private gambling enterprises. This privatization strategy is one where the state takes no risk in operating these gambling establishments but will willingly take a rather substantial share of the gambling pot. Politically, this privatization of gambling allows the state to remove itself from the gambling arena. No longer can the critics of gambling accuse the state of fostering vice. The state merely is regulating and profiting from an activity that obviously the majority of Americans now approve. Hence, the economic and political consequences appear to be positive in both the short run and the long run. The criteria for a successful privatization appear to be fulfilled and the stage set for a new era of legalized, privatized gambling. However, the ties between privatization and gambling cannot be limited to just those that are economic and political. The social acceptability of gambling signals a shift in the morality by which Australians sanction acceptable behavior. The rationale used by public policy makers to justify both of these trends (namely, gambling and privatization) in public policy has profound implications for the conduct of public policy in general. Furthermore, this connection between the privatization movement and the rise of gambling also coincides with the gradual diminution of concern that public policy makers have for the welfare and the rights of the lower classes and with a corresponding preoccupation that these same public policy makers have for preserving individual rights and a conception of the self. This new understanding of the goal of public policy results in the minimal state, and this minimal state has in turn spawned a conception of the self that is similarly minimal. www.internet-casino-gambling-information.com/ References: CALDWELL, G. T. (1994). The gambling Australian. In D. E. Edgar (Ed.), Social change in Australia (pp. 13-23). Melbourne, Australia: Cheshire. Interview of Costello on Sunday Program, Television Channel 9, April 23, 2000; John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization (New York, 1997). The Australian, December 17, 1999, pp. 1, 4. In February 2000, the new Victorian Labor Premier, Steve Bracks, announced he would "stem the tide of pokies"; it remains to be seen whether his measures will be effective and many observers were skeptical. The Advertiser, May 10, 2000, p. 38. By January 2001, the anti- gambling crusader and Baptist Minister Tim Costello was accusing Bracks of "welshing" on the pokies issue: The Australian, January 10, 2001, p. 4. www.internet-casino-gambling-information.com/ Read More