The paper will discuss current gambling policy in Australia. The attraction of the use of gambling as a method of 'painless taxation' is recognised, but its potentiality for damaging individuals. Gambling policy in Australia has traditionally been the responsibility of the States rather than the Commonwealth. State and territory governments regulate and provide gambling services and rely heavily on the ensuing revenue. However, recent developments have seen the Commonwealth take a more active role in this area.

According to the ACMA, more than 180 websites have been blocked in just a year. And 100 services have pulled out of the Australian market since the new illegal offshore gambling rules were put in. Responsible gambling has been a cornerstone of government gambling policy since at least the 1990s. The concept was a gambling industry invention, developed as gambling was legalised and expanded. The Maroondah Gambling Policy 2018 is a ‘whole of Council’ approach to preventing and minimising gambling-related harm in the community. It describes Council’s policy position on gambling in the municipality and describes three key priorities relating to service provision, advocacy and Council’s statutory, strategic and regulatory roles.

Have you noticed that gambling laws in Australia and most countries were much more well-defined before the age of the internet?

There was no ambiguity with land-based gaming and whether or not you could play pokies or walk up to a betting window with cash in hand.

Online gambling has changed the game, though. With casinos, online casinos, bookmakers, and sports betting sites, it can be challenging to keep up with what’s on the approved list or not.

• What’s the legal gambling age in Australia?
• Do you have to pay taxes on gambling winnings?
• Is in-play betting legal in online sportsbooks?

The questions can go on indefinitely. But we’ll address as many as possible in our overview of betting in the Land Down Under.

Gambling Policy Australia Jobs

We’re covering land-based and online Australia gambling laws, how they evolved, and where they’re heading.

To fully understand Australia’s stance on gambling, we have to start with the big picture.

Australia is a bit like the US when it comes to gambling legislation. There’s a touch of federal input, especially regarding consumer protection, but the states and territories govern individual gambling laws.

Problem Gambling Policy Australia

Unlike the US, though, there’s more of a consistent approach amongst the eight regions. You’ll find at least one casino in each area, pokies are in bars and clubs except in Western Australia, and sports betting is legal in-person and online.

Distinctions emerge when you look at the little details. For example, one state may impose a $5 betting maximum on pokies in bars and clubs, while it’s $10 in another. Or, the situation in Western Australia where a casino is the only destination for gambling machines.

We’ll look at the situation in the eight regions soon, but here’s a breakdown of Australia’s gambling regulation.

Unlike land-based gambling that varies from region to region, Australia’s online gambling laws are subject to the Interactive Gambling Bill of 2001.

The Interactive Gambling Bill is easy to understand as it mentions three prohibited activities.

It’s against Australian law to do any of the following.

• Provide a prohibited interactive gambling service to customers in Australia.
• Provide an unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service to customers in Australia.
• Provide an Australian-based interactive gambling service to customers in designated countries.

If you don’t read all of the language, the bill could be interpreted to include all gambling forms, but that’s not the case. This particular legislation pertains to casino gambling (table games, pokies, poker).

In a nutshell, online casinos are prohibited whether they originate from inside the country or through offshore providers.

Even though online casinos are technically off-limits for Aussies, there’s plenty of internet-based casino gambling happening in Oz.

Online betting is private. It’s not like authorities are physically looking over your shoulder while you’re on your desktop or smartphone. So, the laws apply to the providers instead of players.

The ACMA, or the Australian Communications and Media Authority, handles online gambling complaints. A few actions can be taken toward a cease and desist based on those reports, starting with a written warning and leading to some considerable fines.

Fines for breaking the Interactive Gambling Bill’s rules are as follows.

• $1.6 million for an individual
• $8.3 million for a corporate entity

Not too much is done to follow-up, though, even with the potential countermeasures.

The government encourages players to avoid offshore providers because they’re risking money with no available recourse of non-payment. But that’s about the extent of enforcing Australia’s online gambling laws.

Online sports betting laws in Australia are in a different category.

Not only are there thousands of traditional brick and mortar sportsbooks throughout Oz, but sports betting sites are also approved with two caveats.

• The sports betting site must be licensed and regulated within the country.
• In-play wagering is prohibited.

You may wonder why in-play betting is excluded. If you look at the 2001 Interactive Gambling Bill’s language, the word “interactive” is used repeatedly. It’s what sets casino gambling apart from sports betting.

Unlike pre-game action, in-play betting heads into that realm of interactive gambling. So, regardless of the ongoing protests by bookmakers, live sports betting is still off-limits.

Most online betting providers are licensed in the Northern Territory, and it’s a lengthy approval process.

There are plenty of hurdles to jump for potential providers, but it’s beneficial for players. They have more confidence in risking their money, knowing they’re using thoroughly vetted gambling sites in Australia.

The Northern Territory investigates the following when issuing licenses.

• Reputation
• Financial background
• Current financial resources
• Proposed management

Pari-mutuel wagering is in the category of sports betting. It’s not an interactive activity, so Aussies can bet horse racing online, as well as in person.

The same principle applies to the lottery. While players can buy advance sale tickets using their computer or mobile device, instant play is excluded.

The Land Down Under heads to the middle when it comes to its gambling legislation.

It doesn’t have 50 locations to contend with, like the US. But it’s also not as streamlined as a location like the United Kingdom, where everything falls under the jurisdiction of the UK Gambling Commission.

The Australian Capital Territory covers just under a half-million residents. Its gambling offerings include Casino Canberra, which opened in 1994.

There are nearly 5,000 pokies in the region, ok’d by the Gaming Machine Act of 2004. The machines are in hotels, clubs, and taverns with limits. Players can’t insert bills higher than $20 nor bet more than $10 per game.

The Race and Sports Bookmaking Act of 2001 grants authority of race and sportsbooks, both brick and mortars and online, to the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.

Charity gambling is allowed, while poker and table games are prohibited outside of Casino Canberra.

More legal gambling is happening in New South Wales than anywhere else in the country. Three casinos, The Star and Crown Casinos in Sydney and Wolf Betting Casino in Terrigal, house a small portion of the more than 100,000 pokies in the state.

New South Wales also has a $10 maximum per game unless you’re in one of the casinos, then the sky’s the limit. If you win more than $5,000, you’ll receive your payout in a check instead of cash.

The area dominates with clubs that carry machines, as well as TAB outlets. Half of all Aussie clubs and bars with pokies reside within New South Wales state lines. The area also has 1,133 brick and mortar sports betting locations in addition to the licensed online bookmakers.

While offshore casino website operators are warned but pretty much left alone, New South Wales is serious about a 2018 update to 1998’s Betting and Racing Act. The modification makes it illegal for a bookmaker to provide an inducement to players, like a new player welcome bonus.

NSW’s Office for Liquor, Gaming, and Racing is serious about the relatively new law and has already issued fines of a few thousand dollars to each policy violator.

While the Northern Territory has two land-based casinos, Lasseters in Alice Springs and Mindil Beach in Darwin, it’s known more for issuing online licenses for sports betting.

The Northern Territory Government has an entire department dedicated to online gaming.

Land-based betting is a bit more limited compared to some of its sister states and territories. You’ll find a handful of TAB outlets and approximately 2,200 pokies in bars and clubs.

Gambling machines are limited to $5 bets, and winnings over $500 are issued through checks.

Compared to the Northern Territory landscape, Queensland is hopping with 47,000 machines in hotels and clubs.

Queensland is number one for brick and mortar casinos, even edging out New South Wales.

• The Star Gold Coast – Broadbeach
• The Reef Hotel Casino – Cairns
• Treasure Casino – Brisbane
• The Ville Resort-Casino – Townsville

Gambling is under the jurisdiction of the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. While the office has a department specifically for interactive gambling licenses, they’re primarily issued to non-profit organizations.

Queensland also imposes a $5 maximum betting limit, as well as a $25,000 ceiling on winnings in clubs or hotels. While the pokies accept cash, forget about using a hundred, as $50 will do it.

Adelaide Casino, formerly Skycity Adelaide, is the only prominent gambling venue in South Australia. The Adelaide is home to 1,000 out of the 13,000 machines in the region.

While South Australia allows for $10 bets in clubs, it restricts payouts to $10,000 or less. Pokies are a bit different, though, as they only take coins. You can’t insert a bill into a machine in South Australia.

The South Australia government Consumer and Business department handles gambling licensing, as well as licenses for anyone who works for a bookmaking operation. To be certified, you have to undergo a criminal and financial background check.

The Wrest Point Hotel and Casino in Tasmania is the first in the country. It opened in 1973 in Hobart and is still going strong. Nine years later, Launceston’s Country Club Casino had its grand opening.

Like the Australian Capital Territory, there are only about a half-million residents in Tasmania. They’re well accommodated with more than 3,500 pokies. But the machines are the same as South Australia in that they don’t take bills. It’s coins only in hotels and clubs.

Pokies are limited to $5 maximum bets, and winnings over $1,000 are paid by check.

The Crown Melbourne Casino is the crown jewel of Victoria. The area accommodates 30,000 machines.

Victoria approved pokies in 1991, and they have similar restrictions as other areas. While you can insert a $20, $50 is the limit. Your per-game wager also has to be $5 or less, and winning over $1,000 is paid by check, similar to most of Victoria’s sister states.

Residents can take advantage of some specific gambling inclusions in Victoria, including the following.

• Betting on approved foot and bicycle races
• Games at amusement parks and carnivals
• Approved Calcutta sweepstakes
• Two-up at ANZAC day

The other seven states and territories have approved pokies in bars, clubs, and hotels. New South Wales gave the go-ahead starting in 1956, but Western Australia has taken a different stance.

While you can still play any of the 1,750 gambling machines in the area, they’re all located within the Crown Perth Casino, formerly the Burswood Casino.

It’s more a case of quality over quantity in Western Australia. Maximum bets can be as high as $225, and the minimum RTP is slightly higher than in other locations. The pokies need to have at least a 90% RTP, while other regions hover around the 85% mark.

FAQ About Gambling Laws in Australia

Australians visiting casinos, playing pokies, or placing sports bets need to be at least 18 years of age.

Pokies and sports betting are the top two gambling activities in the Land Down Under. Placing a sports bet is as easy as pulling out your smartphone and accessing one of the many state-regulated online bookmakers.

If you prefer to place your bet in person, you’ll find thousands of TAB outlets, primarily in hotels, clubs, and taverns.

No. Australia doesn’t impose a tax on player gambling winnings.

Yes. All bookmaking operations, casinos, and pokie providers are licensed and regulated by one of the eight agencies, depending on location.

Providers and their staff go through a thorough background check that includes reputation, finances, and viability.

Australia’s online gambling laws, specifically the Interactive Gambling Bill of 2001, prohibit casino gaming, or “interactive” gambling. While bookmakers can apply for an online license, casinos are strictly land-based operations.

The legislation is directed toward the offshore providers that accept Australians, but that hasn’t deterred providers or players.

Yes, and no.

Purchasing a draw ticket is permissible. But instant lottery tickets fall under the interactive category, which is off-limits in Oz.

Online bingo is legal for Aussies, but only through licensed providers.

A: Yes. Pari-mutuel wagering is legal in Australia. You can place your bets through both land-based and online racebooks in Australia.

Yes. Australian punters are obligated to make good on their gambling debts. However, the scenario should only apply to casino high rollers.

Since 2018, bookmakers are prohibited from extending credit to players.

If you’re using an Australia-licensed online sportsbook, you won’t find any welcome incentives anymore.

Just as player credit has been off the table since 2018, so have gambling site welcome awards.

Instead of dedicated DFS websites, Aussie punters can participate in Daily Fantasy Sports through Australia’s licensed online bookmakers.

ACMA, or the Australian Communications and Media Authority, provides oversight for federal gambling laws in Oz.

Gambling Policy Australia Coronavirus

It handles consumer complaints regarding prohibited online gambling activities, including casino gambling, instant lotteries, in-play betting, and player credit.

Yes. The Australian Government’s Department of Social Services offers gambling help for players and their families and friends. There are also financial counseling services.

• Gambling help online – www.gamblinghelponline.org.au
• National Gambling Helpline – 1800 858 858

While we can’t foresee what the future holds, Australia isn’t currently focusing on expanding its list of gambling and online gambling opportunities.

Instead of proposed changes to Australian online gambling laws, the government focuses on tightening current restrictions. There’ve been a few changes to the 2001 Interactive Gambling Bill, providing more player protection.

New South Wales passed new gambling legislation in 2018, eliminating new players’ incentives to use online bookmaking services.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported eight providers were already fined a total of $131,950 plus another $184,000 in court costs in less than a year.

In-play betting continues to be a hot topic in Australia.

Bookmakers fight against the restriction while gambling regulatory agencies are ramping up compliance efforts.

Since 2018, TV advertising from state-regulated bookmakers has been restricted to certain hours to avoid “family-time.”

Some regions, like Victoria, are striving to ban other advertising methods, like billboards and public transportation. Aussies can expect gambling advertising to be a highly debated topic moving forward.

As Australians lose an average of $24 billion through gambling pursuits, the federal government and the states and territories focus on player protection above gambling expansion.

There are some minor inconsistencies amongst Australia’s gambling regulatory agencies. However, overall, there’s an easy formula associated with gambling and online gambling laws in Australia.

Casino gaming is legal in any of the land-based gambling venues across the country, and there’s at least one casino in every state and territory. Online casinos aren’t licensed and regulated in the Land Down Under. Slots and table game betting fall under the interactive category, which is off-limits.

Sports betting, pari-mutuel wagering, and daily fantasy sports are approved. Daily fantasy sports are exclusively online, but sports and horse racing bets can be placed in person or through licensed online bookmakers. Australia also allows for online lottery sales, but only draw tickets, as instant play is interactive.

The legal gambling age in Australia is 18, and players aren’t taxed on winnings.

This article is available in: HTML

The paper will discuss current gambling policy in Australia. The attraction of the use of gambling as a method of “painless taxation” is recognised, but its potentiality for damaging individuals and society will be considered. Five policy options are identified. Much evidence will be drawn from the three-volume report Australia's Gambling Industries, and there will be an evaluation of the Australian Interactive Gambling Act, 2001. The assessment of the least damaging form of gambling policy, when all aspects of gambling are taken into account, is the ultimate aim of this paper.

Gambling is known to have existed in many ancient societies and would appear to be an endemic though culturally affected activity. It has been defined as

…a reallocation of wealth, on the basis of deliberate risk, involving gain to one party and loss to another, usually without the introduction of productive work on either side. The determining process always involves an element of chance, and may be only chance. (Fuller, 1977, p. 12)

Gambling can be gaming, as in a game of chance such as roulette; betting or wagering, where money is staked on a future event such as a horse race; or a lottery, where prizes are distributed by lot. Sometimes speculation on the future movement of prices is included in gambling and, although chance plays a role, work in the form of research and analysis is involved, and so therefore this should not be included as gambling. In Australia, as in many other countries, governments have realised that taxing the “reallocation of wealth” is painless in relation to other forms of revenue raising and is therefore highly attractive, but the consequences are causing unease.

Legal gambling accounts for one and a half per cent of Australia's Gross Domestic Product, which was a total net expenditure (that is, net loss) of AUS $14.37 billion in 2001/2002, or AUS $988 loss for every adult (Ellicott, 2002, p.3). In 1997–98, the total amount staked was AUS $95 billion, of which AUS $3.5 billion was taken as taxation. Expenditure on gambling is today double what it was 10 years ago, and treble that of 15 years ago; in other words, a major social transformation has taken place, mostly fuelled by the introduction of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) (Productivity Commission, 1999, pp. 8–9).

Eighty-two per cent of adult Australians engage in gambling, excluding raffles and sweeps, the highest extent of gambling in the world, where the annual loss is at least double that of North America or Europe (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 12).

Currently Australia has 185,000 electronic gaming machines, which, on a per capita basis, is five times more than the U.S.A. (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 11).

As a service industry, gambling gives enjoyment, provides an accessible, comfortable, and safe environment, provides employment, and generates taxation revenue. The industry directly employs 37,000 people and indirectly another 70,000, mostly in clubs and pubs. Tourism is a beneficiary of the gambling industry, and of the total loss on gambling of AUS $11.3 billion in 1997–98, AUS $0.5 billion was lost by overseas visitors (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 9). In addition, gambling now accounts for 12 per cent of state and territory taxation revenue.

The motivation for Australian gamblers has been found to be

These survey results confirm the artistic presentation of gambling as a glamorous and exciting activity where mundanity can be replaced in a way that can only be dreamed of. In the classic film of 1963 La Baie des Anges, a young bank clerk (Claude Mann) is drawn into gambling by a colleague and then teams up with a beautiful female companion (Jeanne Moreau). Together they embark upon a journey of wealth and excitement through the roulette wheels of the Côte d'Azur, a journey that can of course only end badly.

Gambling is for most people a rational choice, a decision to invest in the totally comprehensible desire of winning a big prize for a small investment, and the dream of the possibility of a transformed future, far removed from one's present surroundings. This activity may be aided by subsidised food, drink, and entertainment, and take place in a timeless encapsulated environment where clocks, windows, day, night, public holidays, the seasons, and other signifiers of time and other place, such as the presence of children or the impact of world events, have been excluded. Even in the darkest days of the Nazi occupation of France, the horse races at Longchamps continued without interruption, causing one to consider whether gambling can provide release in a collective sense in addition to that for individuals. Many casinos operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, though curiously not Monte Carlo.

This said, it is important to note that gamblers are not a homogenous group, particularly concerning any psychosocial aspects of gambling (like motivations which can be very diverse).

For a person who has difficulty in controlling his or her gambling behaviour, with resultant adverse personal, economic, and social impacts, the term “problem gambler” is generally used, as for example by the Australian Productivity Commission. At precisely what point a recreational gambler becomes a problem gambler is not clear. Some of the questions posed in the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) (Lesieur & Blume, 1987) about the gambler's behaviour concern whether they chase losses, feel guilt, and believe that they have a problem, with a score of 5 or more indicating acceptance as a problem gambler (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 20).

The American Psychiatric Association has created in the Fourth Edition of their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) a test for what they call Pathological Gambling, which they define as a Disorder of Impulse Control, one of the wider spectrum of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders. This test has greater emphasis on the psychological aspects of the gambler's behaviour, such as preoccupation with gambling, the need to gamble with increasing sums of money to achieve the desired level of excitement, failed attempts at control or cessation, gambling as a way of escaping dysphoria, “chasing” losses, lying about gambling, committing crime to finance gambling, and jeopardising or losing a relationship, job, or career (Koran, 1999, p. 228).

Three stages in the development of the condition of pathological gambling have been identified: the “winning phase,” the “losing phase,” and the “desperational phase.” Of these, the latter is the phase of acutest danger, as the gambler will have intense dysphoria, anxiety and alienation, and commonly suicidal ideation. Resort to crime is a possible outcome; types of crime involved commonly include drug pushing, forgery, fraud, and embezzlement for men, and prostitution for women, though violence against persons is rare (Koran, 1999, p. 229–30).

The pathological gambler will hold irrational and overvalued beliefs about gambling, and may believe that he or she can have some influence over winning outcomes, or that a run of bad luck must soon end, or that Lady Luck can be influenced (Koran, 1999, p. 231).

Pathological gamblers are often found to have co-morbidity: in one study by Blaszczynski and McConaghy, 76 per cent were found to have major depression, 36 per cent to have drug and alcohol dependence, and 12 per cent to have made potentially lethal attempts at suicide (Koran, 1999, p. 232–3).

In Australia, an estimated 1 per cent of the adult population (130,000 people) are believed to have severe gambling problems, with another 1.1 per cent (163,000) experiencing moderate problems (PC, 1999, p. 19). The problem gamblers contributed an estimated one-third of total gambling expenditure, that is, about AUS $3.6 billion annually, an average of AUS $12,200 per gambler, causing harm to an estimated 250,000 adults (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 21).

The National Gambling Survey identified a number of specific adverse impacts over a 12-month period. The most significant of these were

The estimated annual cost to Australia of gambling-related depression and suicide is estimated to be between AUS $502 million and AUS $1,230 million, with a total adverse impact (including bankruptcy, loss of productivity, separation and divorce, policing and justice) of between AUS $1.2 billion and AUS $4.3 billion (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 32). (This figure must be set against the net benefit of the gambling industry, estimated annually in Australia to be between AUS $4.4 billion and AUS $6.1 billion (Productivity Commission, 1999, p.32).

There has been some questioning over the distribution of the economic benefits of the gambling industry. In the United States, many Native American nations have allowed casinos at be built and operated on reservations. Although Native American gambling revenues have increased from US $100 million in 1988 to US $8.26 billion in 1998, an analysis of federal unemployment, poverty, and public assistance records indicates that the majority of Native Americans have benefited little. Among the 130 nations with casinos, a few near major population centres have thrived while the majority are just financially viable (Online Casinos, 2002).

Interesting though the attempts to quantify the implications of gambling are, the qualitative harm is very difficult to assess. Is gambling contributing to a breakdown of social fabric, also called “social capital,” that is, the layer of trust, support and engagement between the members of communities (Putnam, 1995)? It has already been noted that gambling has increased, and as availability increases, the total amount of gambling activity can be predicted to increase (Jacques, Ladouceur & Ferland, 2000).

In view of the harmful effects of gambling on the individual, his/her family, friends and workmates, and on society, why does anyone gamble? The answer can only be that much more research is needed. The explanation, which may never be fully satisfactory, would probably include that which has been called by Orford (to name just one of many insightful researchers), “multiple interacting determinants” including personality or character, but also social or ecological determinants such as opportunity and the influence of others (Orford, 1985, p. 319).

Governance is always predicated on assumptions: in the case of gambling they are about human behaviour and its social impact, and they could be stated specifically as (1) the individual needs/does not need protection/support and (2) society needs/does not need protection/support. Among the range of policy options available to those entrusted with the responsibility of governance, the assumption of need/support will be given different values, ranging from 100 per cent or complete protection/support, in other words the complete banning of gambling, to zero or no protection/support, in a situation of “survival of the fittest.” These assumptions are not merely philosophical positions that can be debated in the abstract as two conflicting and irreconcilable value positions of freedom versus protection that can be discussed at leisure. In reality, the decisions about policy options will impact on many of those about whom they are made and those around them. It is thus possible to consider the various policy options particularly in the light of the implications of mental health status, hopefully to the point where a policy recommendation can be made.

Complicating the issue is that fact that, in the gambling industry, governments have at their disposal an extremely powerful revenue-raising instrument, which operates painlessly. The problem has been very clearly stated by Lorrin M. Koran, professor of psychiatry at the Stanford University Medical Center, when he wrote

We live in a peculiar age, one in which governments encourage gambling. In the past quarter century, after decades of suppression, most state governments in the United States and many national governments abroad have legalized gambling in order to generate tax revenues…Between 1979 and 1995, the amount wagered in legal gambling in the United States has increased 28-fold, from US $17 billion to US $482 billion…. Easy availability has entrapped individuals in pathological gambling who would not otherwise have fallen victim… (Koran, 1999, p. 227)

As noted by Koran, governments in other countries have been quick to exploit the revenue-raising possibilities of gambling. In Australia the states and territories raise 12 per cent of all revenues from gambling (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 9). The total figure of around AUS $3.5 billion is made up of AUS $1.7 from gaming machines, AUS $850 million from lotteries, AUS $500 million from racing, and AUS $450 million from casinos (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 52).

The attraction of this method of taxation is that it appears to be “painless” or “voluntary taxation.” A Canadian study found that in response to the statement “gambling is a good way for governments to raise revenues because it is a form of voluntary taxation,” 62 per cent of respondents agreed (29 per cent strongly agreeing), twice as many as those who disagreed (32 per cent) (Azmier, 2000, p. 3).

The “painless taxation” view has been criticised on grounds that it is highly regressive and exploits the false hopes of the financially destitute (Reno, 1997, p. 1). To this one could add that many of the taxation contributors are, at the time of making their contribution to taxation, affected by drugs, alcohol, and possibly mental illness. In other words, for a compulsive gambler, the taxation contribution is not a voluntary one. In this connection, it can be noted that one clinic has had some success in helping its clients by encouraging them to visualise the poker machine as a “voluntary taxation machine” (North, 2002, p. 1). In addition, the revenue-raising capabilities of the gambling industry give political leaders a very strong reason to minimise the true extent of the damage being done to individuals and to society, a situation highly analogous to the early attempts to publicise the harmful effects of the tobacco industry.

In regard to gambling and taxation revenue, governments must therefore take a position. It is possible to identify five distinct policy options, each taking a relative place in a spectrum of protection/support for the individual and society, though at the same time noting that a blending of options often exists and that gambling policy is an evolutionary process, like other areas of public policy. This positioning will be a result of the ethical viewpoint of the leaders of the governments concerned and prevailing attitudes, values and media representation. Some representatives may feel that the financial gain from painless taxation justifies concealment or at least downplaying of the true cost of gambling.

The Taliban or fundamentalist Islamic religious scholars held power in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Under their regime, all gambling, betting, pigeon–keeping and flying, and dog racing was prohibited, as well as a range of other offences including adultery and homosexuality (as capital offences), and lesser crimes (Malik, 1999, p. 139). Although Afghanistan under the Taliban was the only modern example of a fundamentalist state, it is not inconceivable that other states with a 100-per-cent ban on all gambling could arise again. One commentator sees a distinct possibility of the combining of religion and politics in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism (Malik, 1999, p.136).

The Principality of Monaco is an independent principality of 150 hectares adjoining France, with a population of 31,500 inhabitants. Since 1863 it has been the home of the famous Monte Carlo Casino, which is a major revenue source for the principality, as well as related tourism, banking, insurance, and other service and light manufacturing industries. It has no income tax (except for certain categories of French nationals) and no capital gains tax. An interesting aspect of governance is that citizens of Monaco are not permitted to gamble at the Monegasque facilities (Virtualtourist, 2002). A similar ban on its own citizens is operated by Australia in relation to Internet gambling. These governments accept a need to protect and support their own citizens from gambling, thus acknowledging the potentially harmful effects on individual and society, but accept no such responsibility for foreigners, in what could be described as a two-level assumption of need to protect and support.

An interesting statement of another form of the two-level need to protect and support has been expressed by the South African Minister for Home Affairs, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, at the opening of the multimillion rand Sugar Mill Casino at Mount Edgecome, north of Durban.

The local, provincial and national governments view gambling as a form of voluntary taxation. In licensing casinos, the intention of the provincial and national governmental has been to redirect disposable income from the “haves” into socially and economically responsible projects that ultimately benefit the “have-nots,” Chief Buthelezi is reported to have stated. (SAPA, 2001, p. 1).

The Buthelezi option thus accepts no need to protect and support the haves, while the presumably unaffordable cost of gambling relieves governments of any need to protect the have nots, who can be supported by government using funds taken from the haves. In a country such as South Africa where income differentials are very high, and the minimal casino bet would possibly be prohibitive to many, the argument may have a degree of validity that it would not have in more affluent countries.

Gambling Policy Australia International

Accepting a need to protect and support Tasmania's gamblers, the Tasmanian Greens proposed a Gaming Control (Stop the Roll Out of Pokies) Amendment Bill in state parliament in 2001 which called for an end to the further roll out of poker machines, placement of a statement of odds on all machines, and a limiting of ATM and EFTPOS access in gambling areas. After the bill was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Parties, members of the Green Youth Network entered the Wrest Point Casino in Hobart and placed stickers on the poker machines warning gamblers that they had a “one in 9,765,625 chance of winning the jackpot “ (Martain, 2002, p. 9).

In New Zealand a similar perspective was taken in a collective statement prepared by participants at a workshop hosted by the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand and the Centre for Gambling Studies at the University of Auckland in 2002. Among the comprehensive and far-reaching objectives were the goal of “healthy gambling “ and an acceptance of the responsibility of government in its legislation to “promote the social and economic well-being of people and communities,” and among its many solutions a concern with availability and consumer information. The statement also took great care to recognise the special needs and sensitivities of people of different backgrounds (Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand & Centre for Gambling Studies, 2002).

These approaches, also adopted elsewhere, such as by the international organisation Gamblers Anonymous (2002), are focussed on a need to limit and control access and to educate people. Of the two methodologies, control of access would appear to be more effective in the short term. In the longer term, education as to the nature and effects of gambling would be appropriate. With regard to specific warnings or statements of odds, it is problematic as to what extent the pathological gambler at the stage of desperation would be able to heed, or even bother to read, a printed statement of the particular odds of her/his chosen form of gambling.

In this view, governments are assumed to have no sense of responsibility at all for the protection and support of individuals or societies, in other words, a situation of total deregulation.

There is probably no regime anywhere that would allow gambling to be legally available to children, although children and young people do gamble, probably for similar motives as adults. The Canadian Health Network has noted that approximately 70 per cent of Canadian youth engage in some form of gambling, and that 4.8 per cent of adolescent gamblers are categorised as pathological and 14.6 per cent are categorised as problem gamblers, and note that as well as money, gambling could be for shoes, CDs or Discmans: “…youth do not gamble for financial rewards alone, they also do it for a whole range of reasons, including the “rush” of it and the self-esteem of proving they can be “winners “” (Canadian Health Network, 2002).

The survival of the fittest approach is rarely described as such, more usually being described as “deregulation,” and is advocated by the gambling industry. In the U.K., the Budd Report has recommended the easing of membership delays, more lucrative slot machines in casinos, the serving of alcohol on gaming floors, and the purchase of gaming chips by credit card (Gillan, 2002). The assumption is of course that all gamblers are of sound mental health and therefore capable of rational decision-making while remaining fully in control of their impulses.

Proponents of deregulation deny the existence of problem gamblers. In the words of one leader of the gambling industry in Australia, “Do problem gamblers exist? I am yet to be convinced of this; however I fully acknowledge that there are people with problems who gamble” (Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 26).

The attitude that individuals and society need projection and support has critics who regard this as the “Nanny State,” which is claimed to be medicalising many aspects of behaviour and reducing self-reliance. Obviously there is always a need for individual responsibility, but its proponents go further in their support for rugged, protean individualism and are generally in favour of lower taxes, the abolition of gun control, and the cessation of anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns. They also accuse the nanny state of double standards:

The Nanny State is also notoriously “even-handed,” and can be seen covering both sides of a transaction: it prohibits gambling (in most states) while monopolizing lotteries, it subsidizes tobacco farmers while extorting billions of dollars from tobacco companies, and it bans advertising of alcoholic beverages while reaping billions in hidden excise taxes. The Nanny State does all this and more. It is the symbol of what happens when the desire “to do good” is given too much power to lawfully coerce peaceful citizens (The Lighthouse, 2000).

The cost of a policy of total deregulation of gambling would be difficult to estimate. One could conceive of a much larger number of less mentally fit gamblers failing to survive, either financially or personally, a much larger level of homelessness, greater crime, and generally a slide into alienation and anarchy. If combined with reduced gun control, casinos could become very dangerous locations to physically approach, and the gambling industry could lose the support of tourists. In general, the policy would appear to be unworkable.

This examination of five options of gambling policy reveals that complete prohibition (the Fundamentalist option), and complete deregulation (Survival of the Fittest), do not have long-term prospects for implementation because of the lack of political acceptability due to the extremely high costs of each: in compliance in the former and social destructiveness in the latter. The three middle-range options are feasible and do exist already. The Buthelezi model is only applicable in a country of very high income differentials, as it depends for its application on economic prohibition. However, the concept of recycling gambling taxes to valuable economic, social, and cultural projects is a valuable one, and is already in force in many countries besides South Africa. The Monaco two-tier system is effective in protecting and supporting citizens against the harmful effects of gambling, but may be unworkable in countries with populations greater than that of Monaco. The ethical basis of such a policy may also be unacceptable. The Tasmanian Green Youth/New Zealand Gambling Workshop option, with its emphasis on limiting access, and on the education of gamblers and of the general public, is the most effective policy option, and the easiest to implement.

In addition to the huge avalanche of gambling activity since legalisation in most countries and the widespread introduction of EGMs, there is now yet another aspect to the gambling and mental health issue.

In 2001, the American Psychiatric Association issued a health advisory on the risks of Internet gambling (APA, 2001). In 2000 there were more than 1,300 online gambling sites, with revenue estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Children and young adults find gambling sites through links to game sites and can be lured by free gifts and discounts, as anecdotal evidence would suggest. These players can use borrowed credit cards until they are “maxed” (used to their maximum limit), but most parents have more than one credit card. Moreover, the credit card numbers can be accessed by hackers, who can also manipulate the games.

The Internet poses a greater risk than other forms of gambling because of the isolation and anonymity of the players, who are playing in a timeless and uninterrupted environment. The APA is concerned about the damaging personal, family, and social consequences, and notes the call for a ban on Internet gambling by the United States National Gambling Impact Study Commission. It concludes that young people should be made aware of the hazards of this type of activity.

In July 2001, Australia's Interactive Gambling Act (IGA) came into force. Following the Monaco option, the IGA prohibits the access of Australian residents to certain interactive gambling sites, such as on-line casino services, while allowing interactive sports betting and wagering services. Under the IGA, residents of foreign countries may gamble at Australian online casinos unless their governments have opted out of an agreement to receive Australian Internet gambling services.

As it is not technically possible to prevent Australian residents from gambling on overseas online casinos, and it is legal for Australian companies to set up online casinos in overseas countries to service Australian online gamblers, the IGA has been subjected to much criticism. One proposal has been for Australian banks to be prevented from accepting cheques for winnings drawn on foreign banks, but this also presents practical difficulties (Handelsmann, 2001). Also, many credit card companies are losing court battles over unpaid Internet gambling debts (anonymous reviewer).

The paper has reviewed the explosion in legalised gambling in the last ten years in Australia and elsewhere motivated mainly by the attraction to governments of painless taxation. It has noted some of its beneficial effects of enjoyment, employment, and a safe gambling environment, but also its implication of a potentiality for damaging individuals and society. As a result, governments must take a position on the issue of how much or how little protection and support should be given to individuals and to society. Five policy options were evaluated, but two of them, total banning and total deregulation, were found to be unworkable. Of the three middle-range options, that of Young Green Tasmania and the New Zealand Problem Gambling Foundation and Centre for Gambling Studies, was found to be the most appropriate, though it is accepted that policy can blend several options and in any case is always evolving. This recommended controls on availability, and education of gamblers and the wider society. The deeper problem of alienation and lack of direction which lies at the basis of both gambling and mental health problems is likely to intensify. New gambling technology such as through the Internet presents new challenges, and the Australian Interactive Gambling Act, 2001, is evaluated. This new form of gambling also raises new questions about the appropriateness of the offer of gambling opportunities to players regardless of age. The issue of what is an acceptable level of gambling-industry-related damage to individuals and society is one that will be determined by the political and other leaders of society within the framework of their own conscience, belief system, and understanding of mental health.

*I would like to acknowledge some very valuable comments made anonymously in the review process.