For 10 years Crown Casino has been a part of Melbourne, and for most of that time it has never been far from controversy. It's difficult to think of anything else in Victoria that has been so controversial for so long. The city is now a different place from that which existed before the casino opened. Partly this has to do with the casino and partly it has to do with changes in things like shop trading hours and the times that we are allowed to eat and drink at restaurants.
Melbourne without Crown seems as old-fashioned as late-night Friday shopping. Many of those nostalgic for a world without poker machines and the casino are actually seeking a return to a 1970s way of life.
However, it's undeniable that the casino and the almost unremitting spread of poker machines through our neighbourhoods have caused problems. In many cases, those problems have been personal and family tragedies.
The State Government's budget is now so reliant on gaming taxes that it has a financial incentive to encourage people to gamble. In fact, the Victorian Government cannot afford not to have people gamble. What's more, the way that gaming taxes are collected means that they are highly regressive, so that the poor bear a relatively higher tax burden than the wealthy.
With hindsight Joan Kirner and Jeff Kennett would have done things differently. In the early 1990s, it was bizarre to have Kirner as Victorian premier relying on shopping and gambling to provide the impetus for economic recovery. It was a testament to the state's dire financial situation.
Kirner, as the premier who liberalised Victoria's gambling laws, should have appreciated the problem that exists when government regulates gambling while at same time seeking to raise as much money as possible from it. Regulating tobacco and alcohol has the same sort of conflict. If taxes on gambling, tobacco, and alcohol were abolished, we'd have better regulation.
For his part, Kennett should have ensured that the bidding process for the casino licence was transparent. It is, however, interesting how times have changed; these days few people seem to care that Labor has been just as reluctant as the Coalition to make public its arrangements with the casino operators. For years after the casino opened, government ministers were unsure whether it was their job to regulate the casino or to promote it. In 1997 it was quite understandable that Kennett was proud of the new casino and its role in the rejuvenation of Melbourne south of the Yarra, but many Victorians interpreted his enthusiasm as inappropriate spruiking for Crown.
Despite all of the mistakes over the past decade, whether Melbourne should have poker machines and a casino ultimately comes down to two simple questions: Should individuals be free to choose how they spend their money and how they spend their time? And is it appropriate that everyone is prevented from enjoying poker machines and casinos because a small percentage of the community will engage in these activities and do themselves harm?
No one is forced to gamble. People visit poker machine venues and the casino for a variety of reasons. Some people go because they've convinced themselves they can win, others go because they have nowhere else to go and some go because they are addicted.
For the vast majority, playing poker machines and gambling at the casino are enjoyable leisure activities. When we allow people to make their own choices we allow them to make their own mistakes.
By all means we should assist those with gambling problems, but that assistance should not extend to affecting the choices of those who do not have a gambling problem.
Some argue that poker machines are so "evil" and the consequences of gambling addiction so awful that poker machines should simply be banned -- as Peter Craven did on these pages on Monday. The problem with such a position is that prohibitions of this sort seldom achieve their purpose. Also, there are many other pursuits that are not forbidden and which cause far more personal and social damage than gambling. And then there is the broader issue of whether in a free society such bans can ever be legitimate. Melbourne pays a price for its casino and its poker machines, but the price would be far higher if they were banned.
Telling someone what they can and cannot do "for their own good" is a dangerous business. And just because governments are now more willing than ever to tell us how to live our lives doesn't mean this is a trend that should be encouraged.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment