smh.com.au
Mandatory Carded Play for Poker Machines: Industry Divided on Harm Reduction
Crown Melbourne's CEO advocates for mandatory carded play on poker machines to reduce gambling harm, despite industry opposition due to potential job losses and revenue impacts; a NSW government report supports this, citing a reduction in harm at Crown.
- What are the immediate economic and social consequences of mandatory carded play on poker machines?
- Crown Melbourne CEO Mike Volkert advocates for mandatory carded play on poker machines, citing a significant reduction in gambling harm since its implementation. This follows a NSW government recommendation, but industry groups oppose it due to potential revenue and job losses. Crown's experience involved a $20 million investment and 1000 job cuts.
- How do the differing responses of Crown and industry groups reflect the conflicting priorities in gambling reform?
- Following Crown's implementation of mandatory carded play, gambling revenue at Star Entertainment dropped 15.5% initially. Industry groups, like ClubsNSW, warn of tens of thousands of job losses if the model is widely adopted. The differing financial impacts highlight the tension between harm reduction and economic consequences.
- What are the long-term implications of this debate for the gambling industry's social responsibility and its economic sustainability?
- The debate exposes a conflict between industry profits and social responsibility. The long-term impact will depend on whether governments prioritize public health over economic concerns, mirroring past public health campaigns like the anti-smoking movement. The success of mandatory carded play will hinge on its industry-wide adoption to prevent displacement of gamblers.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the economic concerns raised by the gambling industry and its opposition to mandatory carded play. The headline and initial paragraphs focus on the industry's perspective, presenting their arguments prominently. While the government's recommendation is mentioned, the focus quickly shifts to the industry's concerns and potential negative economic consequences, thus potentially downplaying the importance of harm reduction.
Language Bias
The article uses fairly neutral language but employs loaded terms such as "plunged" when discussing revenue decreases and "freak out" when describing public reaction to smoking. These words introduce an emotional element that skews the objectivity of the reporting. The industry's concerns are presented with direct quotes, amplifying their concerns.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the economic consequences of mandatory carded play, particularly job losses, and the perspectives of industry groups opposing the reform. It mentions a reduction in gambling harm at Crown but doesn't delve into the extent of this reduction or provide data comparing it to the job losses. The views of individuals directly impacted by gambling harm are largely absent. While acknowledging public sentiment shift, the article does not offer diverse perspectives on the social impact beyond the industry's and government's viewpoints.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either mandatory carded play leading to job losses or maintaining the status quo. It overlooks alternative solutions or policy adjustments that might mitigate job losses while still addressing gambling harm.