Nearly three quarters of those surveyed in a new poll support gambling pre-commitment rules, a policy the Australian government plans to introduce by 2014 but which has attracted the ire of the clubs industry.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, whose vote Prime Minister Julia Gillard needs to retain power, has said he will withdraw his support if the government does not force poker machine players betting more than $1 per game to predetermine how much they are prepared to lose before starting gambling.
The clubs industry has launched a major advertising campaign fighting the proposal and has branded the idea ‘un-Australian’.
In a telephone survey of 1,213 people conducted by the Australian National University, 74% of respondents said they agreed with the statement, “People should be limited to spending an amount they nominate before they start gambling.”
However, 42% also said they agreed with the statement “The government has no right to restrict a person’s gambling.”
Of those who gambled four days or more per month, 67% agreed that people should be limited to spending an amount they nominate before they start gambling.
“We were somewhat surprised that even frequent gamblers were quite supportive of the concept of people being limited to an amount they nominate before they start gambling,” said Dr Tanya Davidson from the Centre for Gambling Research at ANU, which helped conduct the poll.
The report also found that:
- 28% of the adult population do not gamble at all
- 48% had gambled on an activity other than lotteries or scratchies, such as poker machines, horse or greyhound races or at a casino.
- Young men were the most likely to gamble on something other than lotteries or scratchies.
- 84% agreed with the statement “There are too many opportunities for gambling nowadays”
- 70% thought gambling in Australia should be more tightly controlled.
- 46% thought gambling activities are advertised responsibly
- 39% said they would not know where to get help if they or a family member had a gambling problem.
The survey, which has been conducted quarterly since 2008, also asked respondents more general questions about the direction Australia was heading in.
One-fifth of respondents nominated immigration as the most important problem facing Australia today, up 8% on an ANU poll conducted in December last year.
Asylum seekers at Villawood detention centre were protesting at the time the 2011 poll was conducted.
The economy was the second most-mentioned issue nominated as Australia’s most important problem and the environment third.
“A total of 63 per cent were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the direction the country is headed, with just 27 per cent dissatisfied. This is almost exactly the same as the proportion recorded in the December 2010,” the report said.
Join the conversation
Comments (12)
Judith Olney
Ms (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
The poll showing that 75% of those surveyed are in favour of pre-commitment, is very relevant, as problem gambling effects the whole community, not just those with the gambling problem. That being said, I think that pre-commitment should be voluntary, not mandatory.
We, as a nation, put limits on where people are able to smoke cigarettes, we put limits on where people can drink alcohol, and how much they can consume, while in a public space. Why is problem gambling any different to these addictions…
show full comment
Louise Crossley
I agree with Judith's general points, but she had missed the essence of my comment; which was that this poll does not specifically ask those who DO gamble on pokies for their opinion on pre-commitment. What ever 75% of the rest of us think - and according to the survey, very few of these 75% EVER gamble on pokies - any such inducement as pre-commitment, either voluntary or mandatory, to limit spending money pokies, will only work if embraced by 'problem gamblers' themselves. All I am suggesting that we should actually ask them, rather than opining from the sidelines.
Judith Olney
Ms (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
I get your point Louise, and from comments made in the media, by those that identify themselves as problem gamblers, there seems to be an overwhelming support for a pre-commitment system. One example of this was the view of a "problem gambler" recently on the ABC's Q and A program.
The problem is, that people who identify themselves as "problem gamblers" are not really the target of this proposed legislation, just the same as smokers who already want to quit, or alcoholics that accept they have…
show full comment
Byron Smith
(PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)
Judith, you say "particularly if the person engaging in that activity is harming no-one but themselves" and "Unless people are harming others", but you began your comment by noting that "problem gambling effects the whole community, not just those with the gambling problem". I a little confused as to whether you believe that problem gambling hurts only the individual or also others. Can you clarify?
Judith Olney
Ms (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
Hi Byron, Its not cut and dried, as with most social problems. Sometimes problem gamblers only harm themselves, and sometimes they effect others, such as family members, friends, and the wider community.
So in effect I believe both statements.
There is a problem with most government "anti" campaigns, in that they target everyone, but the people that actually want help. People that accept that they are problem gamblers, and want to do something about it, should get more support.
Rather than mandatory pre-commitment, those that are addicted to poker machines, would be better off staying away from poker machines altogether. Mandatory pre-commitment for those with a gambling addiction, is like saying to an alcoholic, "its ok to go to the pub and just have a few beers", then expect them to kick the habit, addiction doesn't work that way.
Jude
Byron Smith
(PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)
I a little frustrated that comments can't be edited to remove typos too.
Morris Bryant
(Self-employed Online Marketer)
It's a shame that the pool of respondents is just too small for these figures to be worthwhile.
Byron Smith
(PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)
What sample size would be needed to make them worthwhile?
Morris Bryant
(Self-employed Online Marketer)
"74% of respondents said they agreed with the statement, “People should be limited to spending an amount they nominate before they start gambling.”
However, 42% also said they agreed with the statement “The government has no right to restrict a person’s gambling.”"
Doesn't that say it all?
Andrew Chuter
Mr (logged in via email @gmail.com)
This sample size has a margin of error of +-2.5% which makes the conclusions still valid.
Further, the 42% in the 2nd statement you mention do not contradict the 74% in the first statement. It's not the government doing the restricting, it is the gambler restricting themselves beforehand.
Byron Smith
(PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)
That would be one valid way of interpreting the questions. Another would be to assume that some people hold contradictory beliefs.
Louise Crossley
The problem with this kind of survey is that it is almost irrelevant to the core issue - will pre-commitment by pokies players reduced problem gambling? The fact that 75% of those survey are in favour of pre-commitment is irrelevant - most of them don't gamble at all, and very few (it is not clear how many) gamble on the pokies. The poll sample are simply responding to the hype generated by Andrew Wilkie on the pre-commitment/pokies issue.
The only poll worth running on this issue is the attitudes…
show full comment