Government runs the risk of “making trouble for itself” in the upcoming gambling referendum, according to the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (BEST).

BEST head Stuart Hayward said the group would prefer “a more neutral wording for the referendum question” — suggesting Government was offering the public a loaded question.

A date for the national vote on allowing casinos into the Island is due to be set for early next year.

Mr Hayward said the proposed wording for the question to go before the public made “a simple yes-or-no answer problematic”.

The question, contained in the Referendum Act 2013, reads: “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming for the purposes of creating new jobs for Bermudians and encouraging hotel development?”

Mr Hayward responded: “What if a person wishes to answer ‘yes’ to one part of the question and ‘no’ on another?”

He added: “How secure in its position is the government if it has to load up the question in favour of a yes answer?”

The environmental group also charged that the referendum didn’t delve into specifics, such as how many casinos would be allowed, and which hotels would be allowed to get a casino.

According to Tourism Minister Shawn Crockwell, a Gaming Commission would be put in place to monitor and oversee casinos.

Mr Hayward also asked if the gaming issue would be “dead” if the referendum resulted in a no vote for the proposal.

He said: “From our reading on referenda being conducted elsewhere, perhaps the most neutral wording would be something like: ‘Should gambling be legalised in Bermuda?’”

Mr Crockwell responded that the question posed by the Act showed what the Government believed would be “the primary benefits to a well regulated gaming industry in Bermuda”.

“The decision for the electorate is about jobs and economic stimulus which is gravely needed in Bermuda, and that is what is reflected in the question.”