Nevertheless, governments may decide to impose
caps for other social or economic policy
reasons. For example, it is likely that caps would have an impact on the
level of expenditure on
EGMs, by limiting expenditure at peak periods. However, it would be
important for governments
to have a clear objective as to why they were seeking to reduce EGM
expenditure across the
board, as distinct from EGM expenditure by problem gamblers.
The Productivity Commission has proposed alternative policies designed to
target problem
gambling while minimising inconvenience to the 96 per cent of gamblers (98.5
per cent of the
whole population) who do not have any problems with their gambling.
times to gamble to avoid scrutiny. Therefore (State,
regional or venue) caps and congestion at
peak times may not be effective in curbing gambling by problem gamblers.
Those problem
gamblers who game at peak times may simply switch to accessing the machines
at less congested
times.
However, caps and congestion would adversely affect recreational gamblers,
who may decide to
seek alternative forms of recreation rather than over-crowded pokie venues.
Caps would lead to a
reduction in welfare of recreational gamblers, and may have an uncertain,
longer term effect in
reducing the incidence of problem gambling by reducing the number of people
participating in
gambling.
Back to gambling
news archive
|
