Pokie Reforms

[midfielder]

NRL & AFL joining forces WOW ... + the carbon tax .... interesting times ahead... from smh today..

http://www.smh.com.au/national/codes-set-aside-rivalries-to-fight-pokie-reforms-20110925-1krf4.html
Codes set aside rivalries to fight pokie reforms
Lisa Martin
September 25, 2011 - 4:20PM


A cashed-up alliance of rival footy codes has joined Clubs Australia's fight against the federal government's poker machine reforms in a move anti-gambling campaigners are labelling a disgrace.

During grand final week the AFL and NRL are planning to run television advertisements against mandatory pre-commitment technology for high-intensity pokies.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and individual club presidents are scheduled to meet on Monday to map out campaign strategies.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie says he's disappointed with the AFL and the NRL and has revealed he faces potential legal action from Clubs Australia and Clubs NSW over comments he made on the pokies reform issue.

"I would have thought the AFL would have taken a leadership role," Mr Wilkie told reporters in Hobart today.

Mr Wilkie slammed Collingwood president Eddie McGuire's claim the pokies reforms were a "footy tax".

"That's patently ridiculous," he said.

"He shouldn't use such inflammatory terms."

Under Mr Wilkie's plan, poker machines will be reprogrammed to cap losses at $120 an hour rather than $1200 an hour, while "lower intensity" machines will not require any form of pre-commitment.

Mr Wilkie said Clubs Australia and its NSW branch have threatened him with defamation action over comments he made in September regarding the Salvation Army and the pokie reforms.

The letter informed Mr Wilkie that if he doesn't withdraw his comments and apologise then legal action will be launched.

Mr Wilkie has assembled a team of defamation lawyers to deal with the matter, led by fellow anti-gambling campaigner, independent senator Nick Xenophon.

"If they think I'm the kind of character who will be bullied into silence they completely misread me," he said.

Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin told reporters in Melbourne today that footy codes, like the government, had a "duty of care" to help vulnerable problem gamblers.

She cited the West Australian Football League as an example of sporting groups being successful without needing to rely on the proceeds of problem gambling.

Western Australia does not have poker machines in pubs and clubs.

Senator Xenophon said the AFL's stance was irresponsible.

"The AFL clubs declaring war on these reforms are in effect declaring war on problem gamblers," he told reporters in Adelaide.

"Anybody who doubts Andrew Wilkie's resolve on this issue is being a mug."

Anti-gambling campaigner Tim Costello said the AFL and NRL were "shamelessly" misleading their fans.

"They will not go broke because of a pre-commitment card," Reverend Costello said, adding that the AFL had just scored a $1.2 billion TV rights deal.

"This is powerful vested interests against the public's welfare ... it's out of control.

"When 40 per cent of profits come from addicted people, how is that responsible?"

Rev Costello said it was hypocritical for the AFL to campaign against the reforms given the number of players, such as former Carlton star Brendan Fevola, suffering gambling addictions.

Liberal frontbencher Kevin Andrews defended the NRL and AFL involvement in the campaign.

He said the government was allowing itself to be dictated to by Mr Wilkie because it was desperate to cling to power.

Clubs Australia says the pokies reforms are "directly attacking the ability of clubs across the country to support AFL and rugby league teams".

AAP

 

[kevrenor]

Amazing how many morons there are in Australia.

Nothing of course surprises me about the NRL and AFL.

If a licensed club asked me to sign their petition I'll be asking them why are they wasting my dues and profiting from misery.

 

[marinermick]

Amazing how many morons there are in Australia.

Nothing of course surprises me about the NRL and AFL.

If a licensed club asked me to sign their petition I'll be asking them why are they wasting my dues and profiting from misery.

I already have. With calm and measured argument they couldn't answer my questions properly.

What they fail to let you know is that the "licence to punt" is only for people who want to gamble more than a dollar a bet and the licence will not affect the majority of pokie players. It will be targeted to those who gamble big money and help those many who still have problems despite the rhetoric of what the clubs are currently doing to "help" them.

 

[midfielder]

Seems strange that the two sports that benefit the most out of Pokies are screaming the most ... using their media connections and support base .... to help their cause...

To highlight how big this is I was reading about three years ago the relative incomes of the AFL & NRL from Pokies and the AFL get a fair bit more than the NRL from Pokies demonstrating how big this is ...

 

[midfielder]

Another article today... the scare campaign begins

AFL puts the boot into pokie plans
September 26, 2011

Politicians have never shied away from associating with sport, but sport usually has tried to stay out of politics. Until now.

There were ominous signs for the beleaguered government during Friday night's Channel Nine broadcast of the NRL final between Manly and Brisbane when, just before the second half began, Ray Warren began effusing about the munificence of Clubs NSW, and fellow commentator Phil Gould ranted against the government and its plans to slap pre-commitment technology on poker machines.

Running Clubs NSW ads during league broadcasts is no big deal but having network commentators campaign against the government during a game is a whole new development.

Advertisement: Story continues below
League, the supposed working man's game, has turned against Labor.

The ferocity is worst in NSW where MPs have been beaten up for months thanks to a campaign run and funded by the clubs and hotels lobbies.

Weeks ago, the reception given to three western Sydney MPs by a rally of 3000 at the Bankstown Sports Club was so hostile that Daryl Melham, the MP for Banks, was escorted from the venue where Paul Keating delivered his True Believers victory speech two decades before.

Little wonder that about two dozen Labor MPs from NSW and Queensland already say they will vote against the reforms in caucus next year. Their numbers wouldn't stop the policy but they can plead with their constituents that they argued against it.

Peter Garrett is being beaten up by constituents but is holding firm, telling the NRL boss, David Gallop, that he does not believe the code is dependent on the rent cheques and food money of gambling addicts.

But Garrett is a rarity and now - thanks to the AFL joining the fray - the pressure will intensify and spread throughout other states where pokies are less entrenched.

With its billion-dollar TV rights and huge coffers flush from other sources, the nation's most profitable code will join forces with Clubs Australia and the NRL in crying ruin should the pokie reforms go ahead and fewer old ladies blow their pension cheques on Black Rhino.

The AFL has an effective frontman in Eddie McGuire, media man and president of the Collingwood empire. His description of the reforms as a ''footy tax'' is disingenuous but deadly effective. Clubs that receive the most gaming revenue outside NSW and Queensland are Carlton, an AFL power, and the Western Bulldogs, where Julia Gillard is the number one ticket holder.

The government is reluctantly trying to limit poker machines to keep as an ally the Hobart independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who has pledged to bring the government down if the necessary legislation is not passed by Parliament by May 31, even though the legislation is doomed because fellow independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are not mad.

The beneficiary of Wilkie's threat made good would be Tony Abbott, who implacably opposes mandatory pre-commitment, whereby punters would set limits on their pokie losses at the outset.

They could gamble the value of their home, should they choose, but once the limit on betting losses is reached, they would be stopped from further gambling for a given time.

The Productivity Commission's Gary Banks likened mandatory pre-commitment to Ulysses tying himself to the mast to enjoy the siren's song without dashing his ship on the rocks, whereas voluntary pre-commitment supported by clubs and frightened Labor MPs was ''akin to tying Ulysses to the mast but leaving him with a knife to cut his bonds''.

Government reluctance to embrace ''mandatory'' is illustrated in a letter the minister Jenny Macklin sent to an MP battling local resistance. The Macklin response does not mention ''mandatory''.

''Industry leaders, including Clubs Australia, also support upgrading all poker machines so that pre-commitment technology is available for players in every venue across the country,'' Macklin wrote.

The clubs argue that mandatory pre-commitment will not work yet say their revenue will be wiped out and community organisations will suffer.

Banks said mandatory pre-commitment ''would have a significant impact on industry revenue given the high share coming from problem and at-risk gamblers''. But only a small proportion of gambling revenue went to community beneficiaries, and this cost was lessened by tax concessions. Government could give the money directly, Banks suggested. Plausible but unlikely.

This internal discontent is fertile ground for a revival by Kevin Rudd, who could send Wilkie and his reforms packing and call a snap election.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/afl-puts-the-boot-into-pokie-plans-20110925-1krkh.html#ixzz1Z2xEZ39N

 

[dibo]

There is not going to be a snap election unless the indies bail from Labor. Labor won't call one - pokies aside the Parliament (if not politics more generally) is working just fine so they'll be perfectly happy to go full term. What's more, if they do go, it'll be a house only election and we will either need a half-senate or another general election around early 2014. It'd be madness.

The Libs would - they'd be confident of winning big, but on that as with every other issue, they ain't the Government so they aint the ones who choose.

 

[midfielder]

The push is on the third major article in three days ... interesting the AFL want to work behind closed doors...

The AFL have heaps of political influence ... so does Eddie at Ch 9...

Labor in spin over backlash on pokies

September 27, 2011

THE Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, has joined the growing ranks of Labor MPs anxious about poker machine reforms, saying clubs are justified in demanding more information to show the changes will work and that there should first be a trial.

Mr McClelland, who is being targeted by a well-funded campaign in his electorate of Barton, in the southern suburbs of Sydney, joins dozens of mainly NSW and Queensland MPs fighting internally against the deal the government struck with the Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie.

Mr McClelland's statements, to a local paper in his electorate, came to light yesterday as a split emerged in the ''no'' camp with the AFL boss, Andrew Demetriou, labelling the boss of Clubs Australia, Andrew Ball, a ''hillbilly'' and demanding he ''shut up''.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Clubs Australia and the NRL have formed a $20 million campaign to fight the reforms.

Mr Demetriou and the president of Collingwood Football Club, Eddie McGuire claim AFL clubs would be hurt by reduced revenue. Mr Demetriou phoned Mr Wilkie yesterday seeking a compromise.

The Herald understands the Western Bulldogs, of which the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is the No. 1 ticket holder, stands to suffer significant losses if its poker machines are devalued as a result of the reforms.

After a meeting yesterday of officials and club presidents, Mr Demetriou said the AFL opposed mandatory pre-commitment because there was no evidence it would work. The AFL would not join any Clubs Australia campaign but continue to lobby the government behind closed doors.

''I don't even know his name,'' he said of Mr Ball. ''Please stop talking on our behalf, please just shut up.''

As part of the deal to support Labor in minority government, Mr Wilkie demanded that by 2014, machines must have pre-commitment technology to require gamblers to nominate how much they are prepared to lose in a set period. There would be no limit. All $1 machines would be exempt and clubs with 15 or fewer machines would be exempt until 2018.

If the initial legislation is not passed by May 31, Mr Wilkie will withdraw his support for the government, potentially bringing it down.

Labor MPs, especially in marginal seats, are suffering a severe backlash and about two dozen will fight the deal in caucus. They want voluntary commitment.

Mr McClelland, a St George Dragons fan, told the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader he would abide by the cabinet's decision. ''But my personal view is clubs are justified in seeking additional information that the mandatory pre-commitment scheme will be effective and I am seeking a longer transitional period.''

He said there should be a trial first and Mr Wilkie needed to be realistic or risk failure.

Yesterday Mr McClelland was standing by the comments but said the scourge of problem gambling needed to be tackled.

''Clubs are a big employer and play an important role in the St George area as they do in many communities,'' he said. ''I am a big supporter of clubs and I also support action to deal with problem gambling.''

The Community Services Minister, Jenny Macklin, said the government was resolved to introducing mandatory pre-commitment in 2014. It wanted a trial first but only to help shape the final scheme, rather than ascertain whether it would work.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said he would not give in to Mr Wilkie's demands should the independent switch sides. ''Mandatory pre-commitment is going to be very expensive, quite ineffective and that's why it's not Liberal Party policy,'' he said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-in-spin-over-backlash-on-pokies-20110926-1ktny.html#ixzz1Z4Tsa9uK

 

[dibo]

For anyone interested in hard facts on pokie reforms, the Productivity Commission did a study in 2009 on the impact of gambling in the community, including a whole chapter on pre-commitment:

Key points
Many gamblers find it hard to control the money spent on gambling. Yet, features of gaming machines mean that genuinely informed choice are often not present.

Measures that allow gamblers to determine limits on their playing — known as ‘pre-commitment’ — provide a key mechanism for improving informed consent.

Self-exclusion allows gamblers to prevent themselves playing at specified venues, but existing arrangements have deficiencies. These could be reduced by:
– implementing jurisdiction-wide programs, supported by a database of self-excluded gamblers and by a requirement to check the identity of patrons against such a database when winning large prizes
– making it is easier to self-exclude at venues and other places
– setting non-revocation periods that ensure there is a balance between flexibility and allowing agreements to bind.

More flexible pre-commitment systems that give gamblers the capacity to control their gambling, rather than cease it, are relevant to gamblers generally.

A ‘partial’ system of pre-commitment with non-binding limits would produce some benefits, and provide lessons for a later, more comprehensive, system
– but the capacity for gamblers to circumvent the limits they set represents a major deficiency.

A ‘full’ pre-commitment system would allow players to set binding limits. This requires:
– identification of all players (except for occasional gamblers making small bets), but with strict privacy arrangements
– a system that applies to all machines and venues.

To make the system work well, there would need to be ‘safe’ default settings with players able to choose to override these with other (including no) limits.

Phased implementation would involve the development of standards and the earlier adoption of partial pre-commitment as the precursor to rolling out full pre-commitment in all jurisdictions by 2016.

Some other regulatory measures for gaming machines may ultimately be modified or removed if pre-commitment proved sufficiently effective.

The whole report is available here.

 

[dibo]

</h3>Tim Costello gives Abbott (and pokies) a whack:

<h3>Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers

342 Comments

Tim Costello

John Howard admitted in 1999 that he was ashamed of pokies. This week Tony Abbott ignored his mentor's view and more than a decade of research into the reforms needed to address problem gambling.

Mr Abbott announced that "everyone wants to do a better deal to help problem gamblers". Unfortunately Mr Abbott has fallen for the temptation of the pokies industry's political game, and played with the lives of thousands of problem gamblers.

I'm astonished that anyone could think that in facing up to our national gambling problem we would be tearing at our social fabric. It's problem gambling, not reform, that is wreaking havoc on Australian communities, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

I'm surprised that the same politicians who preach fiscal prudence and living within our means at a national level can be so reckless and thoughtless when it comes to the wellbeing of Australian families. We have to tackle this some time. It just can't be ignored.

Let's be clear - everyone understands having a punt on Melbourne Cup Day. And we know that a game of two-up on Anzac day is an old tradition. What I can't accept is that thousands of Australian families go hungry every day because of problem gambling.

The current debate around pokies reform is not about the choice to have a punt. It's about protecting families from the pain that comes with the addiction to poker machines.

After a decade of research and a comprehensive report by the Productivity Commission, we know the answers to address why 40 per cent of all profits come from problem gambling. We don't need another political debate. We just need to put those most vulnerable in our society first, and deliver poker machine reform because it affects all of us. After illicit drugs, pokies are the second greatest contributor to crime.

Some 86 per cent of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies. Why? Because Australia has the highest loss machines in the world - it is possible to lose over $1,200 an hour on modern machines.

The concerns being voiced by the companies and clubs that make money from problem gamblers need to be weighed against the devastating impact of these losses on the individual, their family and even the economy.

The 2008 Productivity Commission into gambling estimated that problem gamblers lose an average of $21,000 a year gambling - and that the social cost of problem gambling is at least $4.7 billion per year.

Deliver pokies reform and we will see people spending more time at their children's sporting events, rather than sporting clubs playing pokies, and everyone wins.

Supporters of pokies reform are not interested in stopping people enjoying recreational gambling. The reforms currently proposed will barely impact on the majority of players. While you may have missed it in the clubs' misinformation campaign, the Wilkie scheme does not require pre-commitment for lower loss machines, which have maximum bets of $1 per spin and have an average hourly loss of $120 and consequently do less damage.

Mandatory pre-commitment will only apply to those high-loss machines that are causing the most damage. It will allow problem gamblers to set limits on their gambling. It helps problem gamblers to help themselves.

Mandatory pre-commitment does not promise to solve every problem but it does mean the industry could say it has put in place an important measure to protect consumers from harm. Until clubs can say they are doing this, their industry is unsustainable on ethical and business grounds.

In Western Australia, the absence of pokies has not resulted in an increase in online gambling. In fact, WA has mainland Australia's highest recreation and sports participation rates. NSW in contrast has the lowest. And only 2.7 per cent of pokie profits go to supporting community and sporting groups. The pokies lobby gets millions of dollars in tax breaks, making them a costly 'middle man' to deliver community benefits. WA does not depend on exploiting weak and vulnerable people to achieve community activity.

Mr Abbott's solution to this problem of "more counselling" is not supported by the evidence. The Productivity Commission found that only 15 per cent of problem gamblers seek help. More counselling is not enough. We need a reform that reaches out to the other 85 per cent of individuals wrestling with addiction.

The recent polling of public support for pokies reform is encouraging. The more than 60 per cent public support, despite a $20 million misinformation campaign by Clubs Australia, shows that Australians know vested interest when they see it.

We know the NRL, some AFL clubs, Channel Nine and even our state governments are playing Goliath in a battle versus the David of vulnerable addicts, and I believe this is wrong.

I'm prepared to bet that we can get agreement on this reform. We just need to put politics aside for problem gamblers.

Tim Costello is CEO of World Vision Australia and the chair of the National Churches Gambling Task Force.

 

[dibo]

another good read from a few months back by a blogger I really like, Grogs Gamut:

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Don’t bet on the joys of the pokies
When I was working in the Cairns Casino I’d often arrive on the floor to replace a guy who had been in the industry as long as casinos had been in Australia. He had started back at Wrest Point in a time when people would dress up to go to the casino, and the penalty rates for dealers were so outrageous that some used to work casual for half the year, then take the other half off skiing around Europe. He would often greet me by saying, “Welcome once again, young man to this international playground of the idle rich.” It was a standard joke the two of us had as we then looked around and saw no playground, and certainly no idle rich.

The line was a sort of gallows humour – an attempt to divert us from the grim task we were there to do – namely, take money from people, and make them feel good while doing it. One of the other jokes we had was to refer to the pokies in the casino as “wages” – they took people’s to pay ours.

This joke was unfortunately much nearer the truth.

Working in a casino provides an interesting insight into people’s psyche – on both sides of the gaming tables. One of the first things a new dealer has to get used to quickly is to not give a damn about whether the punters won or lost – because they mostly lost. Often the reaction of the staff was then to become indifferent – all that mattered was that things were run well, that everyone was happy, that turnover was good, that no mistakes were made. Punters would often accuse us of wanting them to lose – mostly that was not the case (unless they were particularly loathsome), we didn't need to want them to lose, mathematics took care of that for us. On the games I dealt and supervised the House advantages were as follows:

Blackjack – 0.80%
Baccarat (banker) – 1.17%
Baccarat (player) – 1.63%
Roulette (single zero) – 2.7%
Caribbean Stud Poker – 5.26%
Big Wheel – 11.1% to 24%
Sic-Bo – 2.78-18.98%

We didn’t need to wish or try and rig the game, the mathematics had rigged it for us already. All we had to do was keep the turnover going and keep you happy – happy enough so that if you did happen to win, you would come back. Because the the golden rule of the casino world is that the house always wins in the end.

Usually I worked nights, but for 6 months I worked on the day shift and it was without any doubt the most depressing time of my life (the only time that came close was the period that I worked night shift). At night there is always a chance you’ll be dealing to tourists and people out for a night; but during the day for the most part you are dealing to addicts.

The casino doors would open at 10am, and within a week I could predict 6-7 of the first 10 through the door. Many were pensioners. Those I did know played roulette; the many more I didn’t know played the pokies.

In life you often look around for someone or something to compare yourself favourably with. For the games dealers and supervisors in a casino whose souls are troubled can look to the poker machines and say, well at least we provide entertainment (we’re in the hospitality industry, don’t you know!). But in reality, that was just bullshit we told ourselves. The machines blinked and made music while they took the money; we smiled and chatted aimlessly while we took it.

We liked to think that the pokies were the ones that did the damage but the fact is all casino games do damage, just more slowly, and with a smile. If you were a regular we quickly signed you up to the Casino Club. This meant that when you bet you gave us the card and we recorded how much you bet, for how how long and how much you won or lost. It was like a frequent flyer card – the more you bet the more points you were awarded that got you free drinks, meals, rooms in the hotel etc.

Of course that was all just a guise. It was there to ensure we knew where our money was (it is the casino’s money – if you are a regular and you won, we’d refer to it a “short term loan” – and we sure as hell knew it would come back with interest).

The worst moment for me as a dealer was during that 6 month day-shift stint, when on a quiet day in came a couple on their honeymoon. They were full of joy and love and life was grand and beautiful. And then they came to my Blackjack table. The husband, took out $50 from an envelope – it was obviously their holiday spending money – and the careful way they treated the envelope gave a pretty good indication that it was all they had to spend.

They bet $10 a hand and I took it all off them in 5 hands. This was unlucky, but not remarkable. It was a bugger because they were actually very nice and I would have liked to be able to chat to them on this very boring shift; and given it was their honeymoon it would have been nice to see them win.

They moved to leave, but then they looked at each other with a “well we’re only here once” and put down another $50. This time it took me a bit longer to win it, but win it I did.

Now the faces were losing that flush of joy and happiness and life and grandness and beauty. For the first time in ages I was truly sad and wished I could somehow help them to win (but alas, mathematics had them beat). I apologised and wished them well – almost telling them to leave – but instead of going the husband said let’s try it one more time and pulled out not $50 but $100, which I then took in less than 20 hands. Blackjack can be fast, but when you are the only player on the table, it is lightning.

And so they put the envelope back in her bag, and it dawned on them that the $200 which could have been spent on a trip out to the reef, or on a couple dinners, or presents to each other, or perhaps just a crap load of souvenirs was now in the money box on my blackjack table, and it wasn’t coming back. No beauty, grandness, life, love, joy or happiness went with them.

Such examples caused me to go very close to the edge after two years of full time work, and so I went back to university, worked casual at the casino for another four years until the bile inside me from working there reached a point that I walked out after one shift and never rang up to ask for another shift.

This of course – in a very long and windy way – brings me to the Wilkie-Xenophon anti-pokies proposal.

One of the other jokes we had was about the poker machines in the casino was that no casino ever took out poker machines to put in more blackjack tables. It was another gallows humour joke, because we always knew our job could be replaced by a machine. The reason of course is because each poker machine doesn’t need a dealer, they have a lot higher turnover and better winning percentage.

The truth of this can be seen in the Productivity Commission’s 2010 Report into gambling. Pokies are to gambling like Crack Cocaine is to drugs. We on the gaming tables were dealing out the gambling equivalent of marijuana and Ecstasy (not good, but good enough that in a moral free zone you could convince yourself you weren’t too bad), but the pokies? Wow.



It’s all about speed. The best thing about my abilities as a dealer was that I was fast; I may have been the least hospitable dealers in the history of the industry, but management loved that I churned out the cards and kept the ball spinning. Turnover is the key. I was fast, but unless you were the lone player on the table, there was no way I could match the pokies.

And the horses? There may be race meetings all over the country and throughout Asia, but you’re still going to have to wait to bet – and geez they take ages to run around the track and then there’s the whole correct weight thing.

You want to spend money, and you want to spend it quick (and let me tell you that is what the owners of casinos and clubs want you to do)? Then sit yourself down and start feeding in the notes – no need to worry about some human changing the money for casino chips and then dealing out cards – just press that button as fast as you can.

And how fast is that? The Productivity Commission tells us that as well:



In NSW there are no regulated spin rates – so you can be sure it’s short – all the quicker to allow you to press the button again, and given Victoria can allow 28 spins a minute (up to $10 a pop) that is zipping by too fast to even register the losses. But losses there can be – $1,200 an hour.

Now I certainly saw people lose $1,200 in an hour – but not at the seemingly low value $10 a hand. In fact $10 black jack tables are about the cheapest you can get nowadays – the casino makes up for the lack of speed by increasing the minimum bet. To lose $1,200 in an hour on blackjack would have meant you doing some serious punting – probably $25 a hand at minimum.

The Productivity Commission also nicely shows the adage that the House always gets you in the end is true. As you can see in the upper left graph below, 30 per cent of players can win if they just play the pokies one session of one hour. That sounds about right – a group of 10 friends playing the pokies – three winning, the rest losing seems about right. Come back four times though and that winning percentage is down to 21 per cent. Sixteen times – and only 7 per cent. Sixty four times – and yes, we may well be talking problem gamblers here – and the winning percentage is 1 per cent.



The problem is that people addicted to gambling focus on the 30 per cent and ignore the 1 per cent. How many people do you know who gamble who tell you about the wins, but from whom you never hear the losses? It’s not just because they don’t talk of losses, it often is because they have forgotten them – until the time comes that they are so big that they can’t be ignored, and so they keep playing thinking this session they’ll be one of the 30 per cent, not realising they’re already in the 99 per cent losers category. (And remember we;re not talking the horses where you can study the form guide and make an educated bet – this is you against mathematics – the machines are programmed to win)

Reading the submissions from clubs into the Parliamentary Inquiry into pre-commitments scheme is like going back in time and hearing the protestations from tobacco companies when they were being banned from sponsoring sports. All the talk is of the valuable input into the community and into sport that the revenue from the clubs provides. For example the submission from Clubs WA which is the only state not to have poker machines in clubs complains about that fact:


"Western Australian clubs are smaller and have much lower revenue and smaller capital expenditure, employ fewer people, are able to donate less to charity and sport groups, provide more limited services, and have a smaller economic presence and contribution. A stronger club industry in Western Australia would bring benefits to all. It would increase club viability and expand the benefits they could provide to their communities."

I love how there is all this talk of more revenue but with bugger all acknowledgement of what that means – it means people are losing money. The Commission also found that the people contributing to this lovely revenue are not all just having a “flutter”:

About 4 per cent of adults play gaming machines weekly or more often. Around 15 per cent of this group would be classified as problem gamblers, with around an additional 15 per cent experiencing moderate risks. And their share of total spending on machines is estimated to range around 40 per cent.​

So how good is it to know that 40 per cent of any so called “benefits” of sporting equipment etc comes from people addicted to gambling?

The Productivity Commission also looked at these societal benefit claims as well, and found they were all a bit rubbery. Take sport. The PC found there was no correlation between number of poker machines and kids playing sport:



WA had more kids as a percentage playing sport than either NSW or QLD – the two states with the longest and deepest pokies and clubs cultures. The commission also found that the bigger the club was in terms of poker machines, the less money as a share of revenue was spent on sporting facilities – ie more pokies did not lead to better facilities:



The Productivity Commission also found that the talk of employment was pretty iffy as well – because the assertion by the clubs implied that the people employed there would not be able to find other work. It found

Many people are employed in the gambling industry. However, most are highly employable and would be in demand in other parts of the service sector were the gambling industry to contract. In that sense, the gambling industries do not create net employment benefits, because they divert employment from one part of the economy to another.​

But the Productivity Commission then did the figures and found this surprising statistic:

While it is not possible to be definitive about the costs and benefits of gambling, the Commission estimates that in 2008-09:

• the benefits from tax revenue and enjoyment of gambling for recreational gamblers ranged between $12.1 and $15.8 billion
• the costs to problem gamblers ranged between $4.7 and $8.4 billion
• the overall net benefits ranged between $3.7 and $11.1 billion.

So it seems all is good then – there are costs to gambling, but the benefits outweigh it? No need to do anything? Well yes, except straight afterward the Commission includes this very telling point:

The net benefits could be much larger if governments reduced the costs through effective prevention and harm minimisation policies.​

And what do they consider to be the best harm minimisation policy? Well there are many – but the key one for poker machines was this:

Each state and territory government should implement a jurisdictionally-based full pre-commitment system for gaming machines by 2016, subject to initial development (recommendation 19.1), trialling (recommendation 19.2) and compatible monitoring systems (recommendation 10.6). This system should:

• provide a means by which players could voluntarily set personally-defined precommitments and, at a minimum, a spending limit, without subsequently being
  able to revoke these in the set period
• allow players to see their transaction history
• encourage gamblers to play within safe spending and time limits, by specifying default limits
• include the option for gamblers to set no limit on their spending as one of the system options, but with periodic checking that this remains their preference
• allow occasional gamblers to stake small amounts outside the system
• include measures to avoid identity fraud
• ensure players’ privacy
• be simple for gamblers to understand and use
• present few obstacles to future innovation in the presentation and design of the system
• apply to all gaming machines in all venues in a jurisdiction, with an exemption until 2018 for venues with less than ten machines that also face significant implementation costs relative to revenue.

This is what Wilkie wants – note a few key things – “allow occasional gamblers to stake small amounts outside the system”. So no, it is not a licence to gamble. Is this an infringement on liberty? Pfft. No more than my having to show ID when I buy the pseudoephedrine cold and flu tablets at the chemist. Does it stop me buying them? Nope.

Let’s cut the crap about “nanny state”. You like betting on the horses? Nothing will change. You like playing blackjack? Nothing will change. You like betting on the AFL? Nothing will change. You like playing the pokies. Well you would need to get a card and set a limit on how much you will lose. The big thing – you choose. Here’s what Xenophon says:

Mandatory pre-commitment allows gamblers playing these high intensity machines to choose what they are willing to lose before they start using the machines. It will be a national system to protect all Australians who may become addicted to poker machines.​

So people choosing for themselves how much they are prepared to lose is a restriction on people's rights?
Please. Imagine if say you had a credit card where you were able to set how much you could borrow against it, would you consider that an infringement on your rights? Of course not, because we all have that right now. My wife and I constantly get letters from our bank telling us we can increase our limit, but we don’t because we are happy with what we have – it protects us – it forces us if we want to use more credit to transfer real money into our credit card account.

The Clubs Association in response to the Wilkie-Xenophon reforms have gone absolutely ape-shit. And started an advert campaign including this absolutely stupid ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AsiVAiKfU

First off, who the hell do the Clubs think are their members? If this advert is anything to go by they think they are all Neanderthal dopes whose parents are supremely glad they learned to walk upright.

Need a licence to bet $10? Nope. Government tracking you? Nope. (But don’t worry, the clubs will but think of it a frequent flyer points, remember). And as for the Government telling you how many beers you can have? Well they do already – unless you haven’t noticed all the signs in pubs saying they can’t serve people who are intoxicated. In SA for eg:

It is an offence to serve liquor to a person whose speech, balance, coordination or behaviour is noticeably impaired and it is reasonable to believe that the impairment is the result of the consumption of liquor.​

So yep the law already says how many beers you can be served. And then there’s the sporting grounds who don’t allow you to bring beers into the ground etc etc, so let’s not carry on like the world is a total beer free-for-all.

Sure my views on gambling are biased from my time being part of the problem, but the Productivity Commission is not generally known as a cuddly, basket weaving won’t somebody think of the children type organisation. I would be against the Government setting limits on losses – but we’re not there – as Xenophon above points out.

Gambling is already restricted to those over 18 – you think that might give away the fact it has some negative impacts – so let’s not pretend that we can come out of the womb and start playing the pokies.

These new laws aren’t about stopping your fun, they’re about helping those for whom it is no longer fun, and they no longer can stop. And what the clubs want you to forget is that 40 per cent of their revenue is from these people. I don’t think Governments need to always tell us what to do (but I have no problems with say seat belt laws or road speeds) but Governments should help the helpless.

Problem gamblers need help, if that means you have to get a card before you go blow $200 on the pokies? Big deal.

 

[true believer]

hard reading that.

 

[dibo]

In what way?

 

[Nathan Byrn]

In what way?

I think it is very hard to read about the amount of money wasted on gambling also.
It is paying for Pluim Park!

 

[true believer]

In what way?

dear mr dibo . it's hard reading because .it is!
asking questions reminds me of "fundementalist management" .
that are schooled to keep asking questions
rather than ever giving an answer.

i'll settle back into my little creatures ale, now .
please don't disturb my happy place again atleast
till after we flog scumcastle saturday.

 

[dibo]

I was more thinking that I give my 'answers' to almost everything all the time. I want to know what you think.