ACT Responsible Gambling Campaign
Posted on May 12, 2009 by by valerirojas
The ACT government has launched a new television advertising campaign as part of Responsible Gambling Awareness Week 2009.
The campaign will raise community awareness about the importance of responsible gambling at a personal, venue and community level. It targets those people who do gamble and emphasises that gambling activities should be undertaken in a responsible manner.
“This year the ACT Government, through the Gambling and Racing Commission, has developed three new television advertisements which convey messages about remaining in control of your gambling,” Ms Gallagher said.
The Minister said the new campaign complemented existing brochures and information developed by the Government last year which provide practical tips and techniques for controlling gambling.
Tweet
13 Comments to “ACT Responsible Gambling Campaign”
"Leave a Comment"
Typeboard uses automatic spam filters, sometimes comments are sent to moderation
Please read our Code of Conduct
There is a serious conflict of interest here for the Labor party. The ALP benefits significantly through the “pokies” in all of their clubs.
(Report comment)
And they wouldn’t benefit through live music? Perhaps not to the same extent in revenue dollars, but the societal cost is lower too …
L
(Report comment)
how much with the ads cost? and when will they run? will it be in prime time, or after most normal people are in bed?
(Report comment)
More to the point, what’s the target market? The elderly? The unemployed? Stay at home parents? Pub/club owners?
L
(Report comment)
JR, while the ALP has a conflict of interest, as outlined above, all governments have a conflict of interest when it comes to gambling revenue.
But who does gambling hurt? Noone’s forced to walk into a casino, or a pokie room, and hand over their money. The sooner we stop carrying on like gambling is some kind of disease and the victims are innocent, the better.
(Report comment)
Gamblers are no more innocent than smokers, or drinkers. Where the problem lies is in the societal cost. However, it’s a fine line to tread in terms of “we know what’s good for you, and will legislate accordingly”. Yes, gamblers make their own decisions, and if they get addicted it’s their problem, but society pays in terms of less able workers, greater drain on the health care system, greater drain on child welfare (if children are being neglected, or deprived of necessities due to gambling). I don’t agree with legislating against pokies, but I do think there could be reasonable limits placed. If a lower overall number of pokies were available, then hopefully it would encourage some people to go and do something else for a while. Nothing is to stop them bellying up to the bar while they wait for a free machine, though
L
(Report comment)
Whoops, when I said “less able workers” above, I meant “fewer able workers”.
L
(Report comment)
All governments have a conflict of interest when it comes to revenue sources generated from otherwise legal activities that are potentially detrimental to an individual or the society as a whole (gambling, smoking and alcohol most prominently come to mind).
The ACT Labor party are highly hypocritical:
* On one hand with their Labor Government cap on they encourage only “responsible” gambling to the media and public.
* Yet on the other hand with the Labor Club cap on they do everything they can to encourage individuals to pump more money through the pokies in their clubs.
If the ACT ALP weren’t on direct take themselves (the party) from gambling revenue then their stance on a “responsible gambling” campaign and their approach to the issue could be plausible and excusable. I’m sure the ALP apologists will now crawl out from the woodwork to defend their party’s actions.
(Report comment)
Jonathan, that’s like saying that because the government benefits from tax on cigarettes, they don’t really want people to stop smoking. The thing that you keep on ignoring is that, while pokies generate revenue for the government, it also costs them money in other areas.
Besides, who cares about whether or not the government is sincere in their ‘responsible gaming’ campaign? The point is the message that is going out. Do you question whether or not the Smith’s board of directors actually think that life is pretty straight without Twisties? Does it matter if they don’t?
L
(Report comment)
No Loquacity, you’ve missed the point completely – we already established that ANY government has a potential conflict in so far as these activities have the potential for harm, yet the activities still raise revenues that go into public purse for general use elsewhere. Remember that hypothetication of revenue that governments generally shy away from.
In this particular instance the ALP (representing themselves through the party entity, the clubs they operate and their elected parliamentary representatives as government) have a direct vested interest in continuing to generate a “gambling” revenue stream (for their own political gain and purposes). This is despite the public charade they running that they supposedly care, whereas in reality they care more about their “cash cow” continuing to generate money unabated.
(Report comment)
Should read: Remember that hypothetication of revenue is something that governments generally shy away from
(Report comment)
Gambling? is that like playing monopoly but for real?
(Report comment)
Jonathan, I have no understanding of what your first paragraph meant.
As for the second paragraph, that’s what I thought you said. See my second paragraph:
Besides, who cares about whether or not the government is sincere in their ‘responsible gaming’ campaign? The point is the message that is going out. Do you question whether or not the Smith’s board of directors actually think that life is pretty straight without Twisties? Does it matter if they don’t?
(Report comment)