Q You've seen the draft Report of the Productivity Commission. What do you think this might achieve?

Daley: As a general observation I think that the inquiry by the Commission will achieve very little.

Q Don't you think it's attracted the serious attention of Australian governments?

Daley: It's certainly attracted attention, not only with Australian governments. Gaming regulatory authorities around the world, suppliers and certainly problem gambling organisations have taken note of the Productivity Commission's draft findings. But I don't think that's an achievement, it's merely an event. There's been a bit of a feeding frenzy from tabloid television, for example, over the Report's assertion that Australia has 21per cent of the world's gaming machines. That got everybody's attention for a while. It has also stated that there are up to 330,000 problem gamblers and that not enough is being done to address this and other negative social impacts caused by the gambling industry.

Q You mentioned that the Commission will achieve very little - why?

Daley: Very simply, because it's not breaking new ground. Most of the Commission's recommendations in its draft report have already been taken up by the various Australian governments. Take New South Wales as an example. Since its 1995 election, the government has committed to many of the issues dealt with in regard to harm minimisation, consumer protection measures, research development and so forth. All of these checks and controls add up to the view to developing both regulatory and self-regulatory processes. Certainly it has taken a number of years for something to come out of the end of the pipe. However, we are now seeing the introduction of legislation and regulations into Parliament that is the fruit of that early vision from Richard Face, the NSW Gaming and Racing Minister.
The Commission hasn't really achieved an enlightening new vision on these things. Some of its recommendations are simply following others, and in this regard, the Commission is in the ‘me too' category.

Q. Surely, though, the Commission is recommending a National approach, not individual state initiatives.

Daley: Yes, that's partly true. But it won't happen except in some specialised areas. There are two important aspects to the gambling industry that state governments already know well. Firstly, it is supported and used by the vast majority of people. Something,
incidently, that the opponents of the industry, find particularly aggravating. Secondly, the economic strength of the industry is a strategic asset to the states in their financial relationship with the Commonwealth. The inquiry in an important respect is the unwanted bastard of such relations. Neither ‘parent' will own up to that, of course, but you can expect to see much political posturing and maneuvering in the near term.

Q. I'm not sure the Commission would like to read such a description.

Daley: I wasn't describing the Commission, only the inquiry.

Q There's a recommendation that gaming machines should disclose the odds of winning so that players have some knowledge of what they are getting into.

Daley: Yes. That's also contained in the New South Wales regulations that have recently gone to Parliament. The New South Wales approach is much more sensible than some of the loopy proposals put forward by the Commission.
They suggest, for example that machines should display, in some dynamic fashion, how much more time a player has left before he runs out of money. They even put forward a neat little formula that should be used to calculate this. It's just plain dopey and shows an abysmal grasp of the way people play the machines, it's statistically problematical, and above all else, it contradicts one of their other recommendations.

Q Does this have to do with disclosing to players the odds of winning ?

Daley: I haven't heard any designer of gaming machines or any machine operator argue against disclosing the odds of winning various prizes. There are no malevolent secrets here. It's merely a question of how best to go about it more than anything else. I must say, I found the IPART Inquiry's treatment of this breathtakingly hypocritical. It suggested that it would be a bad idea to force the lottery products to advertise the player return per cent because they have the lowest rates of return and could lose business thereby make less for the government. I have nothing good to say about that.

Q Don't you think that a small country like Australia having 21per cent of the world's gaming machines is a shocking comment on our social values and priorities?

Daley: Firstly, the Commission was wrong with its 21 per cent figure. Australia operates less than 3 per cent of the world's gaming machines, not 21 per cent. How much less than 3 per cent depends on the number of unregulated machines that proliferate in places like China, South
America and Europe. The Commission has been informed of its error but has given signs at this stage that it will use the old 13thcentury tactic of distinguishing and redefining in an effort to extricate itself.

Q Well, whatever about the correct figure, isn't the Commission making the point that we are overdoing things?

Daley: Yes, that is the Commission's point on which I emphatically disagree. I find it very difficult to get past the fact that most people support the gambling industry by participating in it, by consuming the product. There are no laws, no requirements that our citizens must gamble. The industry would not exist if this voluntary support did not exist. There would, of course, be no downsides either.. But, given that this support does exist, and given that the industry responds to that, I don't see why we have to intervene to ‘protect people from themselves'.

Q It was suggested during the hearings that the gambling industry is ‘in denial' about its negative impacts, particularly the problem gambling aspect.

Daley: That was one theme, certainly. There are those who are not shy about accusing the industry of being driven by the ‘greed is good' philosophy. Others painted the industry participants as purveyors of anti social, anti family poisons. Still others talked of the inherent wickedness of the industry in its supposed drive to take from the poor for personal gain. The list goes on.

Dealing with problem gambling

The Productivity Commission has reported some serious concerns about problem gambling and the manner in which it is being managed. The following comments are from Keiran Daley, the Executive Officer of AGMMA:

The first thing to acknowledge is that the industry is not ‘in denial', and never has been, about the fact that problem gambling is a serious issue. It may be convenient for some interest groups to feed the media that line, but it's a lie. It would be as big a lie to assert that social welfare groups refuse to deal with problem gamblers.
The greatest failure in the problem gambling arena has come out of the ‘research industry'. There was a Royal Commission on gambling in Britain in the early 1970s - two things came out of it on this subject.
Firstly, it recognised problem gambling as a serious issue. Secondly it said that more money was needed for research. Now, that's over twenty years ago. In 1983, in Victoria, there was an inquiry into poker machines, and the same two things came out - it's a serious issue, and send more money. Now we have this inquiry issuing the same two calls.
In the meantime the research industry can't even agree on what constitutes problem gambling, they can't agree on how to measure it, they can't agree on many other things BUT they have no problem agreeing that they should get more money for this continuing failure. I have no time or sympathy for that sort of behaviour.
The academics should get out of the way. They should receive no financial support. They've accumulated and published a mountain of data, developed all sorts of theories and advanced our wisdom not one bit. Industry financial support should be directed to the front-line counselling.

Who is AGMMA?

The Australian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association was formed in the early 1990's to represent manufacturers of gaming machines and related equipment and to give them a common voice when dealing with other associations, with governments, regulators and other specific groups.
Collectively, the members supply 100% of gaming machines to licensed venues in Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, they supply the majority of gaming machine related equipment and systems throughout the Australian jurisdictions.