Costello is a one armed bandit of misinformation

Sherlock says:

06:01am | 09/11/11

lmao at ‘destroying the fabric of our communities’. Quite dramatic.

Bazza says:

06:36am | 09/11/11

Yep, they are destroying the fabric of our communities and the harm they do to our society far outweighs the harm that porn can do to our kids that they can access on the internet without Govt intervention. I don’t give a rats for pokies but clean up the real shit that is harming the fabric of our society before you get all holier than thou about pokies. Utopia aint coming to Australia any time soon.

Cameron says:

07:26am | 09/11/11

Exactly, ban it entirely.
Well said.

Tim says:

07:53am | 09/11/11

Great argument based on solid facts there Denizen.
Oh wait…..

Nilbog says:

07:54am | 09/11/11

@ Denizen - sounds like someone’s on his rags today

mick says:

09:25am | 09/11/11

Peter Newell.  Clearly somebody involved in the industry and protecting its rights to destroy entire families, not too dissimilar to the Pubs and Clubs which are happy to have patrons kill each other outside of their establishments.

You have no credibility Peter and you are defending the indefendability.  Like the cigarette industry and the asbestos industry before you it is the hight of bad taste that you champion such a destructive and family destroying business.  Whilst there are some non problem gamblers we all understand that your group is happy to ruin the lives of addicts and their families.

Ryan says:

10:06am | 09/11/11

I work hard for my money, if I want to put it in a poker machine than I should have every right to. What is next, the Government will want to tell us we are not aloud to gamble at home or drink alcohol - soon they will be banning certain foods and snacks because they cost too much. Its an absolute Joke.

jf says:

11:35am | 09/11/11

Denizen says:06:09am | 09/11/11

“The only thing you have succeeded in convincing me with your dodgy figures is that Pokies should be banned entirely”

The fact that you happily admit to being convinced of anything by dodgy figures renders your opinion pretty, well, dodgy.

I’m open minded on this issue. The author’s article was well written and contained facts that, in the absence of factual information to the contrary, leads me to the conclusion that the proposed legislation on pokies will not work. Particularly the information in relation to Norway where this policy has been trained and appears to have failed.

glenm says:

11:58am | 09/11/11

Denizen If you want to “destroy the fabric of our communitiy” then by all means support Gillard anfd Wlikie in removing yet another personal freedom.

Stockinbingal roo says:

01:51pm | 09/11/11

Peter, I hope you’re not a fat cat looking to keep his income and ego large, of course not, you have the nation’s interest’s at heart.

Phil says:

10:30am | 09/11/11

acotrel, I find myself in foreign territory, I agree with you. I agree that poker machines are a blight on society, often taking from the poor and resulting in families going without because one parent/person has a problem with them.

Many will say its harmless fun and I sort of agree but when a major gambling pub in say Western Sydney can net well over $ 100K per week from 30 machines, that is a lot of coin being put through at the expense of a better lifestyle for the families of the gamblers. Given that the machines are set to return between 87 and 92 % that is a lot of betting to net such a sum. And you look at the suburbs where they are at, not Double Bay, but working class suburbs in areas that the average weekly income would not be anywhere near $ 1000 a week take home.

I dont think a mandatory pre committment will work either. Simply ban the pokies by having each site get rid of 10% of its machines every year and drop the maximum bet to $ 5 this year and reduce by $ 1 per year till its $ 1 maximum bet.

As for the loss of employment, its a bit like the drug dealer saying you took my stash, now I cant buy that new Lamborghini. Tough luck. Bob Carr’s government bought them into the pubs when elected and the circumstances surrounding this and the subsequent publicans donations should be thoroughly investigated.

Each site should be compensated by whatever they paid for the licenses.

David says:

11:38am | 09/11/11

The Mansfield Golf Club has pokies and a beautiful clubhouse and course. The club also serves excellent meals. Perhaps the club is being run by a pack of unscrupulous opportunists but, if so, they are doing a pretty good job for the town.

jf says:

11:37am | 09/11/11

Oh well, just as long as it doesn’t affect you then. Bugger everyone else hey.

CM says:

01:51pm | 09/11/11

But it will affect you if you ever have a drink or meal in a pub club or restaurant. When the clubs close or are forced to up their prices the pubs will follow and in turn will be followed by the restaurants.

Then there is also the fact that if you have kids who play sport there is a very high probability that their insurance and uniform costs will go through the roof without the support of clubs. That is if there is a field/court for them to play on because in a lot of cases the local clubs upkeep and/or own the fields and courts. Do you really think the council or state government will put the money in??

But as long as it doesn’t affect you then that’s OK.

Tedd says:

07:20am | 09/11/11

“The 20 NSW clubs with an annual gaming revenue of $1 million employ 450 people. “
How many of those 450 people are employed as a result of pokeys,
and how many by non-pokey activities & revenue?

LOL says:

07:41am | 09/11/11

LOL

Maybe, you could actually provide some facts instead?

This is call a waste of time post, it raises nothing and is a complete waste of tim

jf says:

11:38am | 09/11/11

Got anything to show that is facts or incorrect?

Observer says:

06:53am | 09/11/11

You have to wonder about people who voluntarily allow themselves to be ‘ripped off’.

Tedd says:

07:17am | 09/11/11

“How can they say it is them giving the donation ..”

Good point, d.  Money-Laundering (or, money-Soiling)

Dan says:

07:27am | 09/11/11

This simply cannot be true, unless idle time is factored in i.e the time that no one is playing the machine. 

There is no way that the average loss on a poker machine is $11 per hour of use.  No way in hell.

dovif says:

07:46am | 09/11/11

d

most machine is idle for much of the day, and only picks up at night, so it is not taking money, when it is not being operated.

As for the donation. You can say the same about almost any other entertainment

Horse Racing gives the Melbourne Cup winner $3.6 million, guess where that money comes from? Every day, price money are given out to horse races around Austtralia. Guess where the money comes from

Casino employs hundreds of people everyday, including all the bright lights etc. Guess where the money comes from

Pokies, like Poker, like Casino, like Horse Racing, like movies, like shows, like shopping is a form of entertainment

If you want to ban pokies, you should also look to ban a lot of other things

Joey Joe Joe says:

07:58am | 09/11/11

Umm… you do now that you can bet as little as 1c per spin (on a 1c machine, 5c on a 5c machine etc?

Most “olds” I see on the pokes bet 10c a spin (1c on 10 lines, so for an average, $11 an hour is not too far fetched given the occasional win, free spins etc

Think before you whinge people.

glenm says:

12:07pm | 09/11/11

Dotif you make a good point
“If you want to ban pokies, you should also look to ban a lot of other things”
This is the only issue which should concern us all. When this “reform ” is introduced and problem gamblers move to online betting, horse racing, sports gambling, lotto etc what will be next in Wilkies sights. If your happy to abdicate your personal freedoms thats fine but I quite like mine and would like to keep them.

TS says:

08:29am | 09/11/11

This is an amazing post. Peter’s original article is full of cognitive dissonance at best, and genuine intellectual dishonesty (If you’re going to claim $11/hr then atleast give us the background maths) at worst. Though unfortunately both sides of this argument suffer a bit from that.

Given all the blowhard efforts of ClubsNSW to try and stop this legislation, it makes me wonder what it is they’re really trying to protect.

Tim says:

09:11am | 09/11/11

Mahhrat,
you’ve just done exactly what you’ve claimed the author has.
1.Can you point me to the part where the author said pokies are good. He presented figures for jobs created. Your figures?
2.Your figures and evidence are compelling. Oh wait, you didn’t provide any.
3.The authors statement was to refute the argument made in the original thread that sports clubs in Perth survive and thrive without gambling money. He has done that.
4. He’s talking aobut recreational players not playing fruit machines. You didn’t address his point at all.
5.Once again, do you have any evidence? No, didn’t think so.
6. Arguing that we should support public opinion on one issue and rejecting it on another is hypocrisy.
7.Wow, your maths has clearly destroyed that strawman that you’ve created. Do you know what average means? It was a direct refution of the $1200/hr loss claim.
8. I would prefer that in a lot of areas that the government not try to protect people from themselves. It only leads to a more restrictive and less free society. Provide help for people who want it, but don’t try to nanny adults.

As I’ve said below, the clubs should be forced to provide more directed help to problem gamblers and to give back more money to the community, but restrictive measures like this pre-committment is completely the wrong way to go.

Huey says:

09:44am | 09/11/11

Impressive! Well done.

Mahhrat says:

10:38am | 09/11/11

@Tim:  You’re right.  The difference is, I don’t get paid a lot of money to do it.

So yes indeed, Tim, I’ve done what he’s done without access to figures, without research, without a direct link to the industry, and without any desire to do anything except help addicts beat their addictions.

Guilty as charged.

Doesn’t say much for the bloke making the same style of arguments WITH all those resources, now is it?

To answer your comments more directly:

1) - I summarised his stance given his raised points while trying vainly to be brief.  Don’t be naff.

2) - What, you want me to take a camera photo of the Wrest Point gaming machines?  Wrest Point are already tracking player expenditure - reward points are dependant on bet throughput.  If it’s prohibitively expensive to track that data back to a central database, then why are they already doing it as part of a profit-losing reward system?  I’m arguing the logic, not the numbers.

3) - Yup, what percentage of return is LotteryWest’s reinvestment?  Pokies reinvest 1.6%;  what is LotteryWest’s contribution of turnover?  Note I’m not refuting the point; but “all gambling” is not a problem to me; poker machines are, because of how quickly they strip money and how badly they support problem gamblers.

4) - Then we’re even, because he didn’t rebut Tim’s at all.  “You mean” comments are usually ways to skew an argument; I simply brought it back on topic.  My point stands.

5) - What evidence would you like?  The author submitted that the cost of reprogramming $5 to $1 max bet is prohibitive.  If that’s true, the system is crap and I’m calling him on it. 

6) - People supported climate change.  They did not support Julia’s lying to get one through.  Difference.

7) - I see what you did there, but it was a strawman because $11/hour is a strawman.  It’s even disproved on the author’s own site.  In spite of whatever the actual figure is though, the idea is to limit the amount of damage problem gamblers are doing to themselves and theirs.  Reducing the high end of losses is the aim.

8) - I actually agree with this, and I’m much the same.  That is because I’m mostly a functioning adult willing to be personally responsible.  I’m sure you are much the same, if not more so.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are very sick and just can’t do that.  Also, their actions impact on those around them.  There are kids caught up in the cycle of gambling addiction, because their parents are addicts.

Either way, if you accept that then the government has to help those that can’t help themselves.  Preventive support is an awful lot cheaper than direct intervention after the fact - treating symptoms and not healing ills, and all that.

Thanks for taking the time to post though - good argument.

Tim says:

11:01am | 09/11/11

Mahhrat,
basically I think that we can both agree that excessive use of pokies can be detrimental to some people’s lives and something needs to be done to help these people.
The club industry and others pushes their point because there is a lot of money involved from pokies going to their pockets and a lot of community groups who get money form them.
The anti pokie proponents push their points because of social harm it does to some people. I also think that a lot of anti pokie people are actually anti-gambling but that’s another issue.

I think the government should be looking at ways of reducing problem gambling without enacting proposals that will affect clubs incomes from recreational gamblers and reduce the freedoms of how adults spend their money.
There can be no doubt that the pre-committment legislation will lower the amount of money spent not just by problem gamblers but also by recreational gamblers.

Economist says:

11:38am | 09/11/11

Tim and Mahrat, now for my two cents worth. The problem is that we don’t have a direct measure of problem gambling and Chapter 5 of the PC report outlines these problems. But Peter has manipulated the debate big time.

1. As others have highlighted Peter is no comparing like with like. Also the three clubs quoted 2 provide services other than a bar, restaurant and pokie barn. Tim you and I know that pokies themselves don’t employ a lot of people it’s mostly automated, its the cross subsidisation from these revenues to fund other functions, but many of these functions can operate independently, i.e. bar restaurant, bowls club etc.

2. I don’t accept that transition costs could be as high as $3 billion. Why.  Because this I believe is based on transferring existing stock over. What Peter hasn’t highlighted is the current turnover of machines. Why is this relevant because the proposed reforms don’t start until 2014. Scheduled turnover of machines would minimise this cost. Also How many machines, as a percentage of all, are more than 5 years old?. At my local club they’ve just decommissioned a heap of machines and replaced them with Phantom, Sex in the City in fact I’d argue that over 50% of the machines have been turned over in the last 2 years.

4. This is a bogus argument because the vast majority of machines already offer a $1 spin rate as well as $5 or $10 or $2. Machines that don’t are generally linked to jackpots and you pay a higher bet to increase your chances of free spins i.e. $1.25 etc. Peter also admits that users want jackpots of higher than $500.00, so much for recreational use. The aim is to entice individuals with large unattainable jackpots. Machines are linked for larger jackpots which in turn affects the average rate of return, lowering it. The chances of winning these jackpots are equivalent to winning Lotto and in some cases Powerball, yet the payouts are no where near comparable. The machines linked to jackpots are also set up so that max bets generally provide a greater chance of winning enticing people to spend more.

6. Lets reverse this argument, so Peter if the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax and you agree it should be thrown out then you support poker machine reform?

7. Debunked by PC as shown by Cathy below.

8. Not comparing apples with apples. Victoria is estimated to have a rate of 2.1%, state like Vic, Tas and SA lower the average across the country and as already highlighted they are estimates see chapter 5 PC.

Mahhrat says:

12:00pm | 09/11/11

@Tim:  I particularly like the anti-pokie are also anti-gambling point, and I think you’re right.  That’s a shame, because the two can be separated quite easily.

The problem I have with pokies is the same problem I have with Facebook games.  They are designed to hit the psychological weaknesses in those with such weaknesses into behaving in predictable, addictive ways. 

To bring that back to topic, all gambling can be addictive, sure.  Pokies, though, are designed only for their addictive qualities, and no other reason.  To me, they are right on the cusp of what is legally allowed in terms of transferring wealth from one person to another person.

For that reason, I give them special attention.  I think pokies should exist in casinos, the same as every other form of pure chance gambling, and nowhere else.  (Yup, that includes Keno and Bingo for ca$h.  Run better parties if you want to raise funds).

jf says:

12:04pm | 09/11/11

Mahhrat says:11:38am | 09/11/11

“@Tim:  You’re right.  The difference is, I don’t get paid a lot of money to do it.”

“So yes indeed, Tim, I’ve done what he’s done without access to figures, without research, without a direct link to the industry, and without any desire to do anything except help addicts beat their addictions.”

Geez I’m trying really hard to see the substance in the proposed policy to impose a pre-committment level but there is very little fact or substance to go by.

I don’t like pokies. I don’t play them and I don’t like what the do to the ambience of the places that I like to go to. I also don’t like that they, like many addictions, cause enormous harm to individuals and families.

Whilst banning them altogether goes against everything I believe about freedom and personal responsibility I do believe that, even in a democratic, free market economy, the government has a responsibility to intervene at times. Protecting and informing people is one of those areas. 

I am far from convinved that mandatory pre-committments are the way to go.

AdamC says:

12:44pm | 09/11/11

Mahhrat, aside from the $11/hr figure (which seems dodgy on the face of it) you haven’t actually disputed the author’s points. You have just claimed, often merely dogmatically, that they are irrelevant.

There is way too much of that in this debate. Self-rightousness is not a substitute for facts.

Paul says:

07:03pm | 09/11/11

Stick to facts!  Peter has done that . Read the productivity commissions report.  What’s the argument about pokies are addictive and lotteries aren’t ?  Where’s your proof ? Less than .5 % of the pop have a problem. That’s 99.9% of players that play responsibly ! I bet you don’t like that stat!  What it’s about , is that some people can’t understand why people play pokies and some people think they are better than others.

Stats says:

07:49am | 09/11/11

75% of poker machine stats are made up on the spot and the other 50% are just wrong…

Peter says:

12:04pm | 09/11/11

Geez, Chris, what a cop out.  This has nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.  Pokie machines are designed to create addiction.  As such, many people in society fall victim to them and destroy their lives, as well as their family’s lives, because they lose control.  Why is this so hard to understand?  Why would you not want to take steps to help eliminate the problem so that we don’t all have to pick up the pieces afterwards?  It’s not that hard to understand.  Try.

Chris_D says:

02:52pm | 09/11/11

Geez Peter, sorry for having some intestinal fortitude and knowing how to say “no”.  Many people fall “victim” to many things that create addiction, but I don’t believe we should take steps to eliminate all these things. Again, at some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions.

Peter says:

04:32pm | 09/11/11

““Many people fall “victim” to many things that create addiction, but I don’t believe we should take steps to eliminate all these things.”

This is where I believe you may be mistaken.  Nobody is trying to “eliminate” pokies.  You can still gamble using pokies.  In fact, you can still gamble using high stakes pokies.  All that is being required is an additional safeguard in the form of pre-commitment technology designed to help prevent problem gamblers from losing the plot.  You can still gamble whatever and whenever you want.

Now do you see how simple it is?  It seems to me you are honest in your belief, but that you haven’t got the right information to decide.  Keep thinking about it, my friend.  You will eventually come around, I’m sure of it.

Chris_D says:

05:39pm | 09/11/11

@Peter, like I said in my original comment, I don’t really know what is true and what is smoke and mirrors on this whole topic anymore, but it sounds like something that won’t stop the problem gamblers, which is what this whole debate seems to be about.

If someone has an addiction, any addiction, they should seek professional help if it is becoming a problem for them or those around them.  Limiting an outlet only forces them to look elsewhere to feed that addiction.  That’s how I see it. 

Personally I don’t really care if all pokies were thrown into the sea, but doing it because some people become addicted seems to be the wrong response to me.  Same as if people choose to smoke.  I don’t see the point, but whatever floats your boat.  I see very strong parallels between smoking and other addictions as I do with gambling, but no one is asking or expecting people to pre-commit to how much nicotine they will consume in a day, stubbies they will drink etc.

Chris_D says:

05:43pm | 09/11/11

I guess my simple question is, “Do you think problem gamblers, who are addicted, will be the ones who will sign up for pre-commitment?”.

My answer is “no”.

James says:

09:18am | 09/11/11

Mislead us? Thats all they do! It is one of the biggest cons in the history of Australia.
Instead of running a real business, they just fill the floor with pokie machines, and watch the cash pour in.

The pissy amount returned to the community is a token effort to keep the lions off their back.

PTom says:

09:19am | 09/11/11

It is a spin Peter does not much apples to apples as Peter is talking about income.

For every $1 Million spent on Hospitality = 20 Jobs
For every $1+ Million earnt on Revenue*20 = 450 jobs

acotrel says:

09:44am | 09/11/11

@James
I agree, we couldn’t really claim that they generated wealth when they are nothing more than a scam.  The biggest joke was a few years ago when a venue was setting up in Melbourne, and the installers stuffed up the machines.  They paid out a few hundred thousand dollars in a week, and the franchiser got sued.  We were all supposed to believe that the payouts are random.  What a lot of bullshit ! It appears that venue operators can adjust the rate, and manipulate.

PTom says:

10:07am | 09/11/11

So if the Clubs knew there was a problem long before, why the hell have you and Club Australian not done something “long before Mr Wilkie even had a face on the political landscape.”  Is it because you are to lazy with the “It ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

As facilities and social activities how much of the bar or club rooms have been taken over by pokies, how much cheap beer and food do offer because of pokies. Just maybe you need to charge you member higher fees instead of leaving to some ruining their families just so you can have a golf courses.

Caleb Rose says:

10:31am | 09/11/11

PTom perhaps you are not familiar with the demographics of regional NSW but the average household income here is well below the national average. Also much of this community is made up of retirees. If we stop subsidising sport in our town, it will simply become unaffordable.
You may also be unaware that the rate of problem gambling in Australia has halved in 10 years, thanks to the efforts of people like Mr Newell and the members of Clubs Australia.  We have not been idle in this regard and we are not ignoring the problem, we just want a solution that will work and won’t devastate our industry.
1 in 6 people in this community are golfing members, the golf course is not there so we can have a golf course, it is there because the community built it long ago and wants it to stay.
Our pokies take up a small area away from the lounge area, dining room and function spaces.  They are a very small but essential part of the success of this club.

James says:

10:34am | 09/11/11

A business model that is based on profits from problem gambling is not a valid defense.

Caleb Rose says:

10:50am | 09/11/11

Given that 0.4% of the adult population are problem gamblers, based on our population size we should have between 3 and 4 problem gamblers in our entire community.  I know all our members well enough to believe that we most likely have none.
That is not a business model based on profits from problem gambling.

James says:

11:16am | 09/11/11

So Caleb, please explain how the changes are going to kill gambling revenue in your club if you only have 3 or 4 problem gamblers?

Caleb Rose says:

11:57am | 09/11/11

James the answer is that problem gamblers are not the ones who will walk away, in fact they will be the first ones to sign up.  Almost every person who gambles recreationally, responsibly and within their means will tell you that if they are required to sign up for a licence and disclose their details onto a national data base they simply won’t do it. 
It is clear that all the revenue we will lose will be lost from people without a gambling problem.  That is the fundamental flaw in this proposed policy and in the arguements from Mr Wilkie et al.

dale says:

12:39pm | 09/11/11

“We are a club that makes about $1m from pokies each year, we spend $1.2m on wages and close to $1m on the facilites I have just listed above. “

Ok so you make just a tad over $2.2 million currently, $1m from pokies and pay $1M on the locak area facilities.

If you take out the maximum amount of 60% less revenue that clubs australia say will be lost that still leaves $1.6 million minus the $1.2 million in wages $400,000 and a bit profit.

Yes there would be less donations made but i dont see how this would cost jobs or close your club down? $400,000 is a lot of money is it not?

And the predicted effect is around the 20%-30% mark.

How much do you get paid i wonder…..

On a side note, if you are the largest employer in the area then where does all the money come into your club from? Dole bludgers and pensioners?

Caleb Rose says:

01:14pm | 09/11/11

Dale you may have missed the part where I said that we made a profit last year of $3,500.  If you take another $400,000 from us that leaves us with a loss of $396,500.  Not sustainable for any length of time.  Add to that the fact that to reach the point where we are only losing $400,000 per year, we need to first come up with close to $1m to update our machines.  “CM” points out below the obvious fact that no bank will lend us that amount of capital, knowing that the governemnt is proposing legislation that will close our club.
What I get paid is really none of your business but it is not a huge salary and is well below 6 figures.  How much do you get paid?
I expect that our members would be most offended to be referred to as “dole bludgers and pensioners”...

Tim says:

01:20pm | 09/11/11

ah Dale,
did you miss the $1million dollars spent on the recreational facilities?
He said they currently take in $1mill from pokies and I’m assuming $1.2 mill from other incomes.

To keep the place running they would be $600k down.

CM says:

02:05pm | 09/11/11

Not too good on your numbers are you Dale?

Just like the anti-pokie brigade you don’t let the facts get in the way of your position.

Just because they are the largest employer in the area does not mean that there are not a lot of other employers, it’s just that they employ the most people in one business. Is that clear enough for you?

And if the club closes down in that town it’s not just the Club employees that will lose work, there is also a flow-on effect to the plumbers, electricians, refrigeration mechanics, butchers, fruit and veg suppliers and every other business in town. When the Club employees can’t get enough work elsewhere in town they will leave the area to look for work. And the snowball grows. Unfortunately the inner-city types who have only ever seen a huge city Club can’t fathom the costs, social and financial, to region areas caused by this legislation.

dale says:

02:08pm | 09/11/11

“We are a club that makes about $1m from pokies each year, we spend $1.2m on wages and close to $1m on the facilites I have just listed above.  We posted an annual profit last year of $3,500”

ok so you only make $1 million a year from pokies, staf wages are $1.2 million so you are down $200,000 already then your facilities cost a further $1 million. so where do you make up the other $1.2 million?

So you currently make a profit of $3,500 and i guess that is what gets split between junior AFL, surf lifesaving, cancer care support networks and a raft of other community facilities and social activities.

WOAH! $3,500 split between all these orginisations from the $1 million the pokies draw in!

Nice

or it is as i said above and the $1 million on facilities gets split between golf course, bowling greens, tennis courts, social meeting places, an RSL sub branch, junior AFL, surf lifesaving, cancer care support networks and a raft of other community facilities and social activities

So instead of $1 million to all these you cut it back to $400,000? no?

Do you have 333 pokies because at $3,000 each to refit it thats how many you would have to have for it to be a cost of $1,000,000

Do you love your community?

Tim says:

02:44pm | 09/11/11

Dale,
do you eat for free at your local club?
drink beer for free at your local club?
play golf for free?
etc

Hmmm, where do you think they could possibly make that extra money?

Caleb Rose says:

02:50pm | 09/11/11

Dale I am afraid I don’t have much more time to devote to this debate.  A couple of final points:
- Clubs are multi faceted businesses and our revenue comes from many other sources too (such as food and beverage)
- Similarly we have many expenses, not just wages and facilities maintenance (including considerable community support and spending)
- Our total gross revenue is close to $4m, from which all expenses (including wages, facilities costs, sponsorships, donations etc) are paid
- our net profit after all this was $3,500 (in 2010/2011).  That’s not a lot of fat on the lamb… if we were a private business instead of a not for profit community organisation we would not be viable
- We have 52 poker machines not 333.  They each earn about $20k per year, not $60k each as Mr Wilkie would have you believe
- Mr Newell is quite clear in his explanation of the cost to upgrade poker machines.  Most of ours would need to be replaced at a cost of $25,000 each (don’t make the mistake of believing everything Mr Wilkie has told you, the SA government didn’t…)
- Of course I love my community.  That is why I will keep fighting to protect its assets.  This community (and most like it) does not want this legislation, they just want their community club to continue to provide a range of services, community support and lifestyle options to locals, the same way it has done for over 50 years

CM says:

02:58pm | 09/11/11

Once again Dale, you don’t seem to get it.

The cost to become compliant with the proposed legislation will mean that clubs will have to replace a lot of their machines for newer ones that are capable of the two-way protocol that will be required for mandatory pre-commitment.

Regional clubs in particular have a majority of machines that are older than 5 years old. These will cost $25,000 each to replace.

For our little club with only 39 machines we would be looking at around $700,000 before installing the required card reader into all machines. And we don’t make anywhere near $1M a year.

For a club with more machines it will be a lot more.

PTom says:

03:24pm | 09/11/11

Caleb Rose,
“This community (and most like it) does not want this legislation, they just want their community club to continue to provide a range of services, community support and lifestyle options to locals, the same way it has done for over 50 years ”

I would say that is not true, over those 50 years you have put EGM and expanded services?

Just like halving the rate of problem gamblers is a myth that Club Australia created based off a Vic 2006 report.

The 0.4% of Adult Population are problem gamblers may be but that is not all Gambling just on EGM per week.

Paul says:

07:31pm | 09/11/11

Well said Caleb Rose. You’re talking facts and some people can’t stand them. They need to get over themselves . 99.9. % of the pop gamble responsibly .  The NSW Club Industry has been working on the issue for a decade. The incidence or obesity and alcoholism have far higher % of the pop . Where’s the hoo ha over that? I wonder how many of you anti gambling people might have beer or eat a bit more than you need ? Or God forbid, have punt on the horses!

Scott says:

11:03am | 09/11/11

This is possibly the most sensible post on this topic that I have ever read. I would suggest that all clubs should pay a rate of their pokie revenue to provide a counselling service that is available to members of any club though, rather than just clubs with an arbitrary pokie revenue having counsellors.

CM says:

01:42pm | 09/11/11

Actually, most Clubs in NSW already do something similar. We pay for ClubSafe which is a system that helps problem gamblers by helping them to self-exclude from gaming venues and connects them with local counselling to ensure that they get the help they need.

Wilke’s proposal would have us continuing to allow problem gamblers to continue to gamble whilst setting their own limits. That just does not make sense. It’s like telling an alcoholic to set his own drinking limit. It just won’t work.

Tim says:

11:29am | 09/11/11

Tim Costello made the point in the original article that the government should support mandatory pre-committment because public opinion was in favour of it.
Tim Costello suggests that the government should support a carbon tax despite the fact that public opinion is not in favour of it.
ie. Tim Costello thinks that public opinion only matters when it’s an issue he’s supportive of, or to put it bluntly a hypocrite.

GWS says:

10:55am | 09/11/11

No answer is simple, mate. If it were simple it would be done already. Poker machines are a money trap, if you remove the money trap does that mean the money disappears? Do people only have money to spend on pokies and when they go that money some how becomes worthless or disappears? People still have their money, they can spend it how they like. But to imply that only poker machines have the power to aggregate the funding needed to prop up other community services is fraudulent. Clubs and governments love pokies because they are a cheap and easy revenue collector. For the government they provide extra tax money. Think about that. You already pay your tax, then you go and spend your disposable income on a poker machine and the government gets a giant fistful there too! All for what? A few beers and supporting a few local sports clubs? Here’s a thought, instead of playing pokies why don’t you donate your money directly to those institutions that need them. Whatever happened to the local meat raffle? Poker machines have destroyed community responsibility and cohesion. If ever you find yourself doubting, ask yourself the question: what happens to the money if all the poker machines disappear tomorrow? Does the money disappear to? Or do you just have to find more productive ways of earning patronage for your various clubs?

Stockinbingal roo says:

11:13am | 09/11/11

Maybe the changes can be capped based on a club’s turnover. Small clubs may have genuine concerns about their viability and the impact on their communities but all I see from Clubs Australia is greed. My local has a turnover of $26M, has no music as they say it upsets the pokie players. Ugly pure greed.

KatieL says:

04:04pm | 09/11/11

@ mostconcerned has pointed out something really important.  Society in the Eastern States rely far too much on pokies.  Why are these community organisations and services funded by what a sane person would identitfy as an ugly habit?  What does it say when a community relies on funds from a ‘club’ that supplies alcohol and convenient ‘bling’ ‘bling’ gambling to fund community facilites?

Look to Western Australia,there are no pokies there.  A community is funded by local government, fund raising, membership and entrance fees.  Local business also fork out sponsorship of many of the sporting and entertainment that are non-profit.

jf says:

12:49pm | 09/11/11

“I can’t stand poker machines. Ugly, noisy antisocial things that are programmed to make the players lose their money. I avoid areas of pubs and clubs where there are pokies. I would be happy if they were all dropped in the sea to make an artificial reef for the fish.”

Me to.

I also hate caps with flat peaks. I would never advocate banning other people from wearing them though.

SM says:

12:12pm | 09/11/11

“Why don’t we accept that we do not live in a perfect world, some people are pre-disposed to developing an addiction to their favourite form of gambling, and no amount of wasted money will change this fact”

Which club do you work for Gary?

Why should we accept that Gary - just because you think it?

This whole situation has been brought on because the clubs have done NOTHING to help the problem gamblers who frequent them.

Now that they’re being forced to do something, it’s all hands on deck screaming “This won’t work!!!!!!!!!”  “It’s Un- Australian” blah blah freakin blah

Where were you/they before?

CM says:

12:48pm | 09/11/11

@SM
“This whole situation has been brought on because the clubs have done NOTHING to help the problem gamblers who frequent them.”

That is a load of bull SM. Clubs (at least in NSW) have been at the forefront of harm minimisation and they are the major reason the level of problem gambling has fallen.

Whilst it is still up to the person to put their hand up and admit they have a problem, when they do NSW Clubs have the most comprehensive systems in the world for helping them.

We don’t want problem gamblers in our clubs because they are not long term customers. They will sooner or later disappear. I much prefer someone who bets within their means and enjoys a regular small flutter as they will be a customer for many years to come, will also usually eat and drink in the club and will usually introduce friends and family to the club. The problem gambler will usually only gamble, will not socialise with others and will eventually disappear when their money does. They are not conducive to long term business.

PTom says:

12:49pm | 09/11/11

Gary,
Actual I will dispute that because there is no clear evidence either way.

But Club Australia claims to have cut problem gambling in halve in the last ten years, how I don’t know when more is spent and there are more EGM.

But I did see a 2006 Vic government report on EGM showed problem gambles had been cut. This is roughly how they did it a 3% growth on $1 billion spend in ten years drops to 1.1% on $10 billion means the number of problem gamblers has decreased. Based on that report a Casino was allowed to increase the number of EGM.

But the PC report suggest that 0.6% of the 15,000,000 adult population have a problem with EGM per week. Which is roughly halve to third of all problem gamblers based on other reports.

SM says:

02:44pm | 09/11/11

@CM
“The problem gambler will usually only gamble, will not socialise with others and will eventually disappear when their money does.”

If that is your definition of a problem gambler (which I don’t disagree with) then from my experience, the vast majority of poker machine players are problem gamblers.

You club people need to realise that whether it’s the quiet old lady gradually whittling away the super or someone more visible, these people have a problem.

And for you to say “whilst it is still up to the person to put their hand up and admit they have a problem, when they do NSW Clubs have the most comprehensive systems in the world for helping them” is laughable

CM says:

03:14pm | 09/11/11

SM,

I did not say that it is the definition of a problem gambler. The way you put it is that nearly every pokie player is a problem gambler.

Most of ‘the quiet old ladies”  like to have a flutter, at around 10c a press after their game of bowls or tennis etc. They will also attend trivia nights and other free events put on by the club. The vast majority of pokie players don’t have a problem. Just because you see them sitting at a poker machine doesn’t mean that they are there all day and have a problem.

Or is it the case, as i get the feeling from your writing, that you have had a problem with pokies and believe that then everyone should be restricted because you couldn’t control yourself?

How else would you know that people are sitting there all day “gradually whittling away the super” or spending the rent money. How do you know how much they are gambling and whether or nat they can actually afford it?
Or are you, like Costello, Wilke, Xenophon and co, just making it up as you go along?

CM says:

03:14pm | 09/11/11

SM,

I did not say that it is the definition of a problem gambler. The way you put it is that nearly every pokie player is a problem gambler.

Most of ‘the quiet old ladies”  like to have a flutter, at around 10c a press after their game of bowls or tennis etc. They will also attend trivia nights and other free events put on by the club. The vast majority of pokie players don’t have a problem. Just because you see them sitting at a poker machine doesn’t mean that they are there all day and have a problem.

Or is it the case, as i get the feeling from your writing, that you have had a problem with pokies and believe that then everyone should be restricted because you couldn’t control yourself?

How else would you know that people are sitting there all day “gradually whittling away the super” or spending the rent money. How do you know how much they are gambling and whether or nat they can actually afford it?
Or are you, like Costello, Wilke, Xenophon and co, just making it up as you go along?

Cathy says:

05:10pm | 09/11/11

@ CM
“We don’t want problem gamblers in our clubs because they are not long term customers. They will sooner or later disappear. I much prefer someone who bets within their means and enjoys a regular small flutter…”

What a curious thing to say. Regardless of what the detractor’s state about full pre commitment is not draconian and it will help. What it will do is enhance the possibilities of many more people to bet within their means. Therefore, it will help prevent problem gambling occurring in relation to these machines. Do you see a problem with that? There are numerous reasons why those who are experiencing problems may not put up their hand but this does not mean a substantial number do not wish to extract themselves from the situation they are in. If for instance embarrassment is the problem, then without feeling intimidated they can exclude themselves by just setting their limit to zero for a period of time and they are bounded by this decision. There are a number of ways people can help themselves with full pre commitment. It is actually less intrusive and will be cost effective in the long run. There are too many misconceptions, particularly about those who play land based poker machines.

Oliver says:

01:00pm | 09/11/11

Reminds me of how the Tasmanian state government became addicted to GST revenue from the mainland. As soon as it was throttled, thx to the GFC, the waste and profligacy it had facilitated was exposed.

James says:

02:08pm | 09/11/11

How old are you machines? How often do you turn them over?

CM says:

02:36pm | 09/11/11

James,

Most of our 39 machines are well over 5 years old. We got 4 new ones three years ago. We spend a lot more than we earn on pokies simply through the upkeep of the sporting facilities and the building. We are only just keeping the roof over our heads….. literally.

james says:

03:24pm | 09/11/11

CM, maybe you need to diversify your income stream to improve the health of your business.

CM says:

03:46pm | 09/11/11

Already happening james.

Bar and Catering are up since i took over here under a year ago. The problem though is that sporting facilities etc don’t pay for themselves.

Look at the local pub. Some of them are struggling to make a decent living and they have higher prices and don’t have half the costs of a Club.

The fact though is that the costs of becoming compliant will be enough to kill this club off. Even if we get rid of all but 15 machines, which will only give us a reprieve until 2018, the drop in gaming revenue will probably mean that we cannot afford the upkeep of the facilities, or possibly even the R&M of the aging building.

Unfortunately i have to leave this forum as i’ve got too much work to do now that i’ve spent some time trying to convince some of you that this is bad policy. Chances are those that believe it is good, for whatever reason, will not be swayed but i’ll finish with this.

The system won’t save those with a problem, it will only chase away those without a problem and in doing so kill off many great community clubs and facilities. It will put many thousands of people out of work and affect them and their families for a long time.

Possibly more families will be negatively affected by this policy than families of those with pokie gambling problems. The difference is that the problem gambler has only themselves to blame. Now, those same problem gamblers will be negatively affecting other peoples families, mine included.

We should not be letting government take more and more control over our lives as it is a very slippery slope. Everyone needs to take responsibility for our own actions.

TS says:

01:24pm | 09/11/11

C’mon CM, you have overstated the opponents argument to your own detriment (and you really needn’t; there are enough genuine flaws with the proposal as it stands anyway). And your closing analogy is dreadful, but that is far from exclusive to you. Analogies are pretty much always unhelpful and useless in these types of discussions.

I find it a real shame this argument has turned into ‘us vs them’, when clubs by and large are not the bad guys, though perhaps by association have been thrown in that corner by some.

As for this, “... only being put forward because Gillard was held to ransom in order to hold onto power”, would this rhetoric still be bandied about if Abbott had acquiesced to the same demand in order to get power? It’s by the by in any event I guess, the answer doesn’t matter.

“We are not heartless vultures profiting from problem gamblers.”, I agree, and feel sorry for the many club board members who do have their heart in the right place and who do do right by their communities. However a cursory glance at people’s local club finance reports quickly shows that pokies makes up a huge percentage of their revenue, and not much of it goes back to the community. My local bowlo took from pokies $1,536,297 in FY2010, and donated to the community $52,146 that same year (though they claim $200k on their about us page, a number I couldn’t verify from the reports), that rubs people the wrong way no matter how many casual and problem gamblers they have. It says to me the business model is broken and skewed to rely on the pokies too far. The balance must be addressed.

“The average person will not sign up for a card just to have a flutter.” the average pokie player won’t need to have a card. If I want to throw 5x $1 coins through the pokies on my way out of the pub after dinner, I will still be able to.

“switch to another form of gambling.” the productivity report makes it clear that this won’t be the case (finding 4.2 in the recommendations). There is a vast chasm of difference between pokie gambling and gambling on a horse at the TAB (or KENO to be closer to home) for difference. Online gambling on the other hand is a worry, with no easy solution in sight.

CM says:

02:19pm | 09/11/11

TS said “If I want to throw 5x $1 coins through the pokies on my way out of the pub after dinner, I will still be able to”

Ahh, no you won’t TS. Mandatory pre-commitment means that to play a poker machine you will have to sign up for a card to enable the machine. No card means no playing.

Some people have been mentioning these “low intensity” machines that you can play. Unfortunately they do not exist in Australia. For a pub or club to obtain these devices will require the manufacturers to make them first, get them approved by the regulators and then we have to buy them or the game conversion. Still big bucks.

Also, what is wrong with the analogy i put forward. It is effectively the same thing. Wilke want’s you to provide details for a data-base to obtain a card and then pre-commit to only one form of gambling. There is nothing to stop you from putting your whole house on one race at the trots after you have reach your set limit..

Similarly if you were made to pre-commit to a set amount of smoking, but only one form (Winfield) there is nothing to stop you puffing away to your hearts content (or detriment) when you reach your set limit.

CM says:

02:46pm | 09/11/11

TS,

You are correct though that online gambling is the biggest concern. They allow you to use credit to gamble and use inducements of free bets to get you started or to get you back if you’ve not bet for a while.

What is also concerning is that it appears that younger people are much more adept at online gambling via their phones. This will be more of a problem than pokies in the near future.

At least you have to make a concious decision to leave your home and go to the pub or club and use your own money to gamble on a pokie. Online, you can be doing something completely disconnected with gambling and have a pro-gaming pop-up try and induce you to have a punt.

PTom says:

03:01pm | 09/11/11

“Mandatory pre-commitment means that to play a poker machine you will have to sign up for a card to enable the machine. No card means no playing. “

No CM that is not true as you should know what has been suggested is
1) High intensity EGM be given a card as in $2,$5 or $10
2) Low intensity EGM to have the gambling rates per hour lowered.

The greens have suggest no card with all EGM set to low intensity.
NO party has made any statement that all EGM have a card.

SM says:

03:49pm | 09/11/11

@CM
“What is also concerning is that it appears that younger people are much more adept at online gambling via their phones. This will be more of a problem than pokies in the near future.”

What nonsense.  For a club manager you have very little idea. It’s about time something was done to get rid of you dinosaurs.

Your time is done

CM says:

03:52pm | 09/11/11

PThom

Read the post fully.

Low intensity machines do not currently exist in Australia.

Greg says:

04:27pm | 09/11/11

Yes they do CM. There are plenty of 1c machines in all the pubs I go to? What are you talking about?

Chris_D says:

06:01pm | 09/11/11

@Greg, you can still bet $5 a push on a 1c machine.

Oliver says:

02:11pm | 09/11/11

It’s naive not to acknowledge the psychological manipulation developed into the machines and their environments that encourage the abdication of personal responsibility. The suspension of reality and the promotion of fantasy (winning) is key to their success.

Tchom says:

02:20pm | 09/11/11

What ever helps you sleep at night

skye says:

08:52am | 10/11/11

No worries Tchom keep your eyes closed it seems to be working just fine
....

PTom says:

03:48pm | 09/11/11

Clubs are not the villain, but they are part of the problem. However it is ClubAustralia that is whinging the most about what their members will lose not pubs or casino.

The idea of the Mandatory pre-commitment card is that it can be used at pubs, clubs and casinos anywhere in Australia.

It is design to reduce the impact on High intensity Gambler before they lose everything while most thing in place now are design to occur after when the person realize they have problem.

PTom says:

07:25pm | 09/11/11

You whinge about BS Politics, then go strait into BS Politics.

Can you back your BS “Mandatory Pre-commitment has not worked anywhere in the world”

If you are going to use Norway check the facts first.

Nuts says:

07:18am | 10/11/11

My Grandfather went to fight in WW2 so that Australian families could choose how they lived their lives, and not be dictated to by “so-called people in power”, they died to give us the choice, so we could live our lives free.

How dare you degrade our diggers, and what they went to war for.

Shame on you Pat.

Pat says:

08:35pm | 10/11/11

Nuts: in reply to your comments:  Yes I had relatives that fought for Australia in WW2 too . So now do not claim - that I am subverting what they fought for. I thought the diggers fought to protect us from FOREIGN forces. Furthermore WW2 diggers in the historical sense would have had no concept of Australia turning into the biggest users of Casinos and Pokie dens, per head of capita - by becoming the Las Vegas of the Antipodes. I suspect you have buggered up your counter made argument. in the process. It smacks more of a emotive ‘publicity hand-out’  from the Pokie clubs. When has anyone tried to stop Australians from being free to have a gambling flutter?..  So what does this ‘“so we could live our lives free” (I quote you) statement - in regard to gambling, supposed to mean, Nuts- ?
What people object to, is people being manipulated and unfairly exploited by those that set up these enterprises ‘where the odds are totally against the punter’. Also Nuts , you are forgetting that your “dictated to, by so called people in power” (quote)  are the very same promoters you wish to defend -who apply pressure, sling dough and benefits or dubious donations, for influence - wherever they can get exactly what they want. Gaining their own personal unfettered selfish freedom’ ,  to do what they bloody well like.  By general comparison, the old local SP bookies that did ‘a couple of bob each way’  horse-race betting business down some suburban neighborhood 50’s back lane,  were saints . Compared to the present ‘gaming industry’ :  they were not in any position to be grand facilitators for laundering massive amounts of crime money on a Federal and International level , which has other far reaching insidious consequences.
Yet the fervent big supporters of the present situation :just want the general public to believe, it is a attack on their personal freedoms at some little local venue. Time,  the rose colored glasses were ripped off.