According to the AIHW it is some $1000 PA per head. This is supported by the QLD gov statistics.
[edit] If we want the sum lost PA per adult it would be more like $1250 as $1000 includes all ages.
The average of course doesn’t allow for the distribution. The plot of losses would have big fat tail on the left of zero for those who don’t gamble at all, followed by a shelf of those who buy ticket or pull the handle once or twice a year and lose a small amount. For those who play more seriously the loss must be in the thousands PA. And then there is a tail on the right for those who are out of control with numbers going way up.
On the point of spending on more productive outcomes $25 billion PA is significant. Sure some goes into taxes but is this really how we want to fill the coffers?
We are all open to only see what we want to see. For those closer to the broader community, it’s less myopic.
It’s a poor moral justification for the harm the industry causes, that the loss of financial capacity of your neighbour is justifiable on the possible benefit to another. Government can direct fund the facilities as can communities more directly without large multi nationals siphoning off Billions to their foreign bank accounts.
Consumers rarely have direct access to the paid for market research advertising agencies and their clients commission routinely or subscribe to. It’s on the word of the ABC panelist to qualify.
As close as we might get to an independent representative report referencing 2019/2920. A period distorted by Covid. https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/990/VRGF_DP_GenBet_AUG21_e_lIKLYhN.pdf
You will likely find that there is a very high incidence of myopia in the groups who might fit your definition of the broader community, such as those who:
Want gambling ads banned from TV mainly because they don’t identify with the product and find the ads loud, repetitive and annoying.
Despise gambling whilst partaking in and applauding other mindless ways to consume time and money.
Watch TV shows like Gruen and lap up every word and idea that is mentioned.
Default to group think.
Acknowledge that young people watch little or no free to air TV but say that the ads on that medium are the cause of young people gambling.
Because they know little about the social media frequented by young people, don’t see that as a problem in relation to youth gambling.
Think that money lost gambling simply disappears off the face of the earth and would magically improve the lives of everyone if it was spent in another way.
The reason for my statement was not an attempt to morally justify any activity. It was merely to point out the gross inaccuracy of your previous statement.
The report you have linked mentions a NSW study finding that 24.9% on 12 to 17 years olds had gambled in the previous 12 months.
There are around 5 million Australians aged under 16. The Gruen information suggests that 10% of that group, which includes babies born today, gamble online every day. If you assume that children below 9 aren’t involved, the Gruen statement would mean that 22% of 9 to 15 year olds gambled online every day. There would also be others who gambled, but less than seven days per week.
The two lots of figures suggest that a smaller proportion of 16 and 17 years olds gamble than 9 to 15 year olds. Fanciful at best.
There is clearly a problem for some of those with addictions costing a large chunk of their income. However, some people might lose ten or more times the average per year and still not be harmed if they have sufficient income or assets. Those people might even be considered amateurs in relation to frivolous spending when compared to others attracted to fashion, fine dining, flash cars, redecorating and overseas travel.
Even if gambling could be effectively banned, problem gamblers would more than likely just move to other methods of disrespecting their money and those around them.
In relation to children, the proliferation or gaming and social media greatly increases the chances of them gambling even if TV advertising was to be banned. The best antidotes and likely to be parental guidance, for those lucky enough to have that available, and early education in schools.
One broader community looks ready to support an advertising ban.
The other side of the coin - although possibly a less broad community. It can be said of anything that is not banned or restricted that it is legitimate. Political puffery.
Of historical relevance only the commercial stations and sporting organisations once marketers and sponsored by big tobacco survived the end of support.
Australian’s still purchase tobacco products and there are those to whom harm comes. The broad community made a choice to allow the industry to survive, but to remove the promotion and counter normalisation of smoking as an acceptable and necessary social activity. The future and promotion of sports gambling is heading along the same pathways.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, surely it would be easy enough to ban minors from financial interaction with (legitimate) licensed betting companies (online or not)? The bank knows the person’s date of birth i.e. whether the person is a minor or not. The bank knows the money is being transferred to a betting company (because the bank is legally obliged to “know its customer”). While most things online are possible to bypass, often fairly easily, I think it would be more difficult for the average minor to open a bank account in the real world without providing appropriate id.
I believe there is such a thing as an “addictive personality” i.e. if pushed off one addiction, will find another. Perhaps that is what @Glenn61 was alluding to.
There’s several topics in the community concerning customers transferring payments to sham enterprises or fraudulent transactions. The bank only knows its customer. How is it legally required to know the customer of the bank the funds are going to? For the bank receiving the funds, they are likely not coming from one of their customers.
It’s a different pathway to that of reducing the marketing avenues encouraging and normalising gambling. These promote gambling as socially acceptable, beneficial and necessary. It’s a noisy minority and the industry cash splash playing with minds as well as our wallets. The same tools used to sell the $2 toothpaste over the $1. The one difference being a tube of tooth paste lasts longer and is more useful than a $2 bet gone in seconds.
I would prefer to hear from professionals in the field of addiction treatment who comment on the idea that if gambling addicts are treated so that they stop gambling they will move on to some other form of addiction.
Should it be the professional consensus is that addiction substitution can happen in this situation does that mean we ought to wash our hands of the problem and do nothing?
The quoted report also states that more than 50% of those surveyed do not consider gambling ads to be a concern.
From readings and personal observations. Google is your friend if you would like to research this issue for yourself.
Gambling has been compared to putting some or all of the contents your pay packet in the toilet bowl and pressing the flush button. I am interested in hearing your theories on how this would not be disrespecting money and/or why spending money on an addiction can’t be a disrespect of that money.
More than likely nobody on this forum, support for this would be limited to the Greens and others who make statements without thinking about the full picture.
Yes they can, there are currently lots of support and treatment services available.
The are multiple methods that can be used to deposit funds into a betting account. For example, Sportsbet only offers Poli and PayID. Each of these methods require the bank and/or intermediary to know who the money is going to. Many banks have restrictions on using credit/debit cards for gambling. The use of credit/debit cards is in the process of being banned. Given the small number of betting companies, it would not be hard for banks to flag the accounts used for direct transfers.
Yes, maybe and no. Gambling and many other forms of recreational spending are considered socially acceptable by the majority of adults. Most sports betting advertising promotes the product as being fun (a benefit) without emphasising any potential financial benefit. It is possibly only advertising for lotteries that promote what you can buy with the financial winnings. I don’t know of any sports betting advertising that promotes the product as necessary.
There are many ways to frivolously spend your money. They include overpriced toothpaste, gambling, most things purchased at a shopping centre or online and the $100,000,000 plus spent in a few minutes this week by people buying tickets to see Taylor Swift. All are fine when done in moderation. You also seem to be overlooking the fact that a large percentage of money gambled goes back to the players.
True in a way but such sayings are amusing rather than explanatory.
My point is people keep pulling the handle (or whatever mechanism) because of the rush and the need, when they get to a certain stage they cannot stop. Losing huge amounts is not their objective that is a side effect but one they bear to get the rush. The fact that they waste money in one context does not mean they will waste money in other contexts unless it gives them the same rush.
Your idea that “problem gamblers would more than likely just move to other methods of disrespecting their money and those around them.” suggests that there is no hope for them, that they will just keep doing it no matter what. I don’t share that view. Addiction is a medical and social problem, it can be treated both ways and in some cases succeed.
Whether gambling is a recreation and how different forms of gambling are viewed is not the issue. The core issue remains whether “Sports Gambling” should be able to market to a broad cross-section of the community through popular media.
The nine-person bipartisan committee unanimously supported the 31 recommendations which, if adopted, would force the likes of Sportsbet, Tabcorp and Entain to pay a “harm reduction levy”, share de-identified customer data to track at-risk groups and block offshore operators.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton last month launched an assault on gambling advertising during sports broadcasting, saying “footy time is family time” and called for a ban on ads for an hour before and after matches. The call sparked anger from media executives, who were given little notice of the decision to back a ban.
But the move has strong public support. A reader poll by the Financial Review found 70 per cent of respondents supported the policy. Research from the Australian Gambling Research Centre also showed more than half of Australians support an outright ban on gambling advertising.
As up to date as it could be.
As reported by the Australian Financial Review - the support for change and restriction is not a minority view - with the public, Fin Review readers and the two larger parties in our governments.
You seem to have misinterpreted earlier posts. None of the references you have given relate to a ban on gambling, the context of some earlier comments. your references are associated with a suggested ban on certain types of advertising for certain types of gambling.
Indeed. It would require cooperation within the banking system, cooperation that would only happen if the government legislated it.
Proposed implementation: The sending bank, which knows that the payer is a minor (as at the date of the transaction), tags the transaction as “minor”. The receiving bank, which knows the payee is a gambling company, can reject the transaction.
This exact same mechanism would then also be able to restrict the consumption of other products and services that are “banned” for minors e.g. online purchase of alcohol.
A variation of this mechanism could then also restrict adult “addicts” from e.g. gambling or purchasing alcohol - although how much stomach a society might have for such intervention is up for debate.
Of course it would be possible to defeat this using outright illegality - but on the payee side the companies involved in placing zillions of dollars worth of advertising each year, the starting point of this topic, are high-profile companies that would not so easily be able to fly under the radar.
Well if you are a major sporting code or a major TV network, all this advertising is beneficial.
I’m trying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Although to a different extent they externally advertise tab and pokies to get the punters in and ‘benefit the treasury and thus their community’ as best they can
