Inside Asian Gaming

IAG JAPAN NOV 2020 120 or, if it has been provisionally granted, can be unilaterally withdrawn. Under the path it has chosen, Vietnam will get its IRs, but that does not mean these IRs will deliver the best possible outcomes for their communities. A better way forward was seen in Australia when Victoria issued its first and only casino licence in the early 1990s. Victoria required bidders for the Melbourne casino licence to propose projects incorporating gaming and non-gaming offers to whatever standard they wished. Cost was irrelevant other than the capacity of the bidders to pay for what they proposed. The assessment criteria were based on the expected outcome of the proposal (range of gaming and non-gaming offers, quality of build, design, suitability for its location, fulfilling local needs and more). This approach was enhanced by the decision not to constrain bidders by imposing requirements to deliver specific activities, such as MICE facilities or a particular standard or volume of accommodation. The mix of activities in the IR was entirely at the discretion of the bidders with market competition driving the outcome. The winning bidder was subsequently required to enter into agreements with the State Government obligating the bidder to deliver on its commitments. During construction, an independent representative appointed by the state (an architect in this case, but it could have been a builder with major commercial development experience) protected the state’s interest by monitoring progress. The purpose was to ensure that the standards, timelines and milestones promised in the agreements were met. In this way, Victoria achieved the outcome it desired from the outset – a world class, international standard IR with multiple non-gaming offers such as conference and banquet facilities, hotel accommodation pitched at three different markets, nightclubs, cinemas, and food and beverage outlets ranging from fine dining to food courts. The success of Victoria’s IR development was Does a US$10 billion outlay indicate anything about the impacts on visitation, the quality of the construction, the utility or suitability of any of the proposed non-gaming offers or the number of jobs to be created by the development? 100億米ドルの支出は、来場者数、建設の質、提 案された非ゲーミングサービスのいずれかの有 用性または持続可能性、もしくは開発によって生 み出される雇用の数への影響についてなにか示 しているのか？ ビクトリア州のIR開発の成功は、何か特定のインプットまたは アウトプットよりも、そのアウトカムによって定義づけられた。確実 に、この落札事業者はIR施設建設に巨額の資金を費やしたが、そ れはビクトリアの期待に沿ったアウトカムを届けると約束すること で、IR施設を建設するという彼らの選択だった。 日本のアセスメント 今まさに独自のIR実施プロセスに乗り出している日本のよう な、まだ今後のより良い方法を熟慮している法域にとって、ここに 教訓がある。入札候補事業者の一部は、日本でのIR開発に100億 米ドル以上を費やすと公に宣言している。同様に、一部の都道府県 は、おそらく表面上は一般の人または政治的支援を自分の方に動 かすために、このレベルの投資の約束への支持を示唆している。 しかしながらそのような約束は、いずれかの長期的、実用的ま たは持続可能なアセスメントにとってその有用性は限定的である インプット基準として見られるべきである。100億米ドルの支出は、 来場者数、建設の質、提案された非ゲーミングサービスのいずれ かの有用性または持続可能性、もしくは開発によって生み出され る雇用の数への影響についてなにか示しているのか？答えはノー だ！ COLUMNISTS