Sorry, Labor, you’ve got a drink and gambling problem

Governments need to seriously consider pragmatic reforms to reduce the huge health, social and economic burden on our communities resulting from the gambling and drinks industries. Picture: iStock

High-risk gambling and high-risk drinking overlap greatly.

The distribution of consumption is very similar, with a minority of consumers accounting for most of the demand. Plus there is a huge over-representation of vulnerable groups in those addicted to gambling and to alcohol.

The enormous social costs of gambling in Australia are still not fully understood.

But many studies accurately demonstrate that gambling imposes a heavy burden, especially on low-income groups and some ethnic populations. They and their families not only lose loved ones from suicide but many families and relationships also are destroyed by the mental illness and financial disaster caused by addictive gambling.

In Australia, uncontrollable gambling is very common among high-risk drinkers and those who misuse other drugs. Many people struggling with poor impulse control and gambling debts also smoke heavily.

Addiction problems tend to be “sticky”. Many people who have one of these problems also have a second problem and sometimes even a third.

Addiction problems also tend to be very “lumpy”. This is because a small minority in the community consume disproportionately large amounts while most consumers account for only a small proportion of the total consumed.

We know with alcohol that the heaviest 10 per cent of drinkers account for 50 per cent of the alcohol consumed, while the heaviest 20 per cent of drinkers account for 70 per cent of the alcohol consumed. These heavy drinkers are at much greater risk of chronic problems. But without these heavy drinkers the drinks industry would struggle to be so profitable.

The distribution of consumption of gambling is roughly the same. So, to be enormously profitable, the drinks industry and the gambling industry both need people unable or unwilling to control their consumption. The same lumpiness of distribution of consumption probably occurs with illicit drugs, although currently we lack accurate data to assess this.

The drinks and gambling industries also have in common the severe risk of what Sydney-based Dr Alex Wodak terms “an addiction by revenue earners” to the incomes they derive from these industries. This makes it extremely hard for governments to do the right thing.

On the one hand, governments are well aware of the vast health, social and economic costs of alcohol and gambling addiction to the community. On the other hand, governments are reluctant to interfere with the goose that continues to lay the golden eggs of financial and political support.

What should be done in relation to problem gambling?

As with psychoactive drugs, policymakers responding to gambling addiction have three options: to reduce supply; to reduce demand; and to reduce harm. Combinations of these three work better than relying on only one or two strategies. But while harm reduction is often cost-effective and safe, it is usually overlooked because it’s a hard sell politically.

Like the use of alcohol and other drugs, gambling will always be with us. But, if they wish, governments can significantly reduce the nature of gambling consumption and thereby reduce the extent of its harm.

For decades, our governments largely ignored their responsibilities to restrain gambling.

This has resulted in the unfortunate fact that Australian gambling consumption is among the highest in the world. Governments earn substantial revenue from gambling turnover and, in my opinion, this has primarily explained their past reluctance to exercise their responsibilities.

However, in recent years, restraining gambling harm has become a political issue in Tasmania, Victoria and now in NSW. Three months before a state election, NSW Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet admirably is battling against reluctant members of his own party and the state’s Labor leader, Chris Minns.

As a direct result of Perrottet’s unambiguous commitment to immediately introduce cashless credit cards for all people gambling on poker machines in the state, the gambling industry is again using community organisations that benefit from its largesse to fight proxy battles on its behalf.

A prime example is that the RSL & Services Clubs Association in NSW is now backing the state Opposition Leader’s position to delay full implementation of cashless credit cards because of the alleged need for “more information”. This is particularly disappointing because most of the addicted gamblers in NSW live in Labor electorates. Unsurprisingly, the RSL clubs in NSW and the Australian Labor Party are both large benefici­aries of the gambling indus­try.

Recent official inquiries into gambling and casinos have demonstrated the obscene extent of regulatory capture by the gambling industry. Governments often claim to have zero tolerance for illicit drugs, while generally displaying wilful blindness to gross corruption and pervasive community harm from gambling.

When political parties depend on their income to run election campaigns from developers and from the drinks and gambling industries, it doesn’t take long for unseemly but often secret pract­ices to become deeply entrenched. Public funding of election campaigns by political parties would help overcome some of these thorny issues.

As Australians are beginning to develop a greater appetite for integrity in government, this is an effective reform that requires active consideration.

Gambling can usefully be described as, in effect, a tax on the most disadvantaged. These include Australians of low socio-economic status and of lower education, some of whom remain innumerate.

It’s high time governments began seriously considering pragmatic reforms to reduce the huge health, social and economic burden on our communities resulting from the gambling and drinks industries.

These industries in Australia hold most governments captive. But in NSW the current Premier deserves praise and the Opposition Leader condemnation for the positions they have adopted.

Ross Fitzgerald is emeritus professor of history and politics at Griffith University.