With the Queen having sprinkled her magic on our nation, and the sniff of the sport of kings in the air, a battle royal is fast brewing over pokies. On one side are Australia’s bunyip aristocracy and elite. Rich, powerful and masterfully connected, they are used to getting their way.

Keep the clubs but look after the people playing the pokies all day. Photo: Noel Kessel

On the other side, the very plebeian will of the majority - the common sense of the common people. This royal battle which would normally be settled behind closed doors is now public and transparent and will be a watershed test for our nation.

With James Packer and his thousands of Crown pokies emerging to join Channel Nine, the NRL, some AFL clubs and state governments - not to mention the $20 million advertising spend from hotels and clubs - the line up is complete. All the vested financial interests are singing from the same song sheet. Their chorus line is ‘this will not work and it is totally up to individual responsibility with some extra counselling thrown in’. Little wonder Tony Abbott chose to align himself with them.

On one thing they agree. We must stop reform of a dangerous yet highly profitable product or we will lose some of our easy money. That is a product where the average losses can be up to $1200 per hour, a product banned in many places in the world and limited in others like the UK to low loss machines where average losses are $30-$40 per hour.

This is a seriously dangerous product as evidenced by the Productivity Commission findings that 40 per cent of profits come from addicted people (making up $5 billion of the $12 billion lost to pokies annually).

And what is the pokies lobby answer to this dire situation? Just more gambling counsellors. They know perfectly well that counsellors usually only come in after the damage is done. A shinier ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is not enough - we need a fence at the top.

Against them is the consistent public opinion as represented in over seven opinion polls over six months that support pokies reform.

Money, political power and owning the media can buy a lot of misinformation. Have a look at the lies so far.

You will need a licence to punt. No - nine out of 10 players will need no card because they prefer to play the $1 maximum bet machine or low loss machines where the most damage you can do is $120 per hour. Only those who want to play the high loss machines will need a card where they must set their own limit before play.

Community groups and junior sports will be ruined. I would invite Tony Abbott to have a look around Perth. There are no pokies outside the Burswood Casino, yet there are plenty of clubs and sport. WA has the highest rates of sport and community participation, while NSW - which is dominated by pokies - has the lowest on the mainland.

It will destroy jobs, say the pokies lobby and James Packer. Again not true. For every $1 million spent on hospitality it creates 20 jobs, spent on retail 10 jobs and spent on pokies 2.1 jobs. Pokies are the job destroyer.

It is too costly and unfair to the industry to have to change the machines. Last year the Victorian Government insisted on bringing the maximum bet down from $10 to $5 on all machines with no fanfare or cost. It just required a change in the algorithm used by the system.

A similar change could be made to bring maximum betting down to $1. Furthermore, the cost of fitting a pre-commitment card to a high loss machine is in the region of $1000 to $2000 per machine, according to the SA Regulatory Gaming Authority - not billions as claimed by the lobby.

At one level James Packer is right to say ‘action against problem gambling must be the right solution’. The right reform would be to have no high loss machines anywhere so that no pre-commitment card would be needed at all. This was Andrew Wilkie’s initial proposal.

The Gillard Government understandably considered industry concerns in designing the reform and made a generous concession by leaving the industry with dangerous machines ($1200 losses per hour obviously results in big profits for the industry) but with a pre- commitment card to help problem gamblers.

And look how respectfully they have treated a generous concession and a reform that helps vulnerable people – they called it un-Australian.

But the industry seems hell-bent on treating any proposal that would make a real difference with fury and disdain. Surely the time has now come for the industry, and the politicians that have been suckered by their campaign of deception, to have a re-think. 

It’s time for them to come back to the table and face up to the responsibility they owe all Australians.

173 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave-o says:

      06:03am | 02/11/11

      Makes sense, unless of course you have the stunning intellect of Phil Gould.

    • Nilbog says:

      08:01am | 02/11/11

      Yet he is richer and more successful than you… funny world we live in, aint it?

    • Peter says:

      10:44am | 02/11/11

      Its funny, because most of the people commenting on this website would be aghast at drug legalization ( reducing a form of government intervention) but somehow find it within them to oppose pokie reform (increasing government intervention). They are both addictions that harm people and their families.

      I think the real addiction on this website is an addiction at attacking anything the Gillard government supports, regardless of whether their own argument makes any sense. If a liberal government had proposed identical pokie reform, then the outcry would be far more limited.

      For example, people keep stating “everyone is going to be forced to pre-commit”, when that clearly isn’t the case. Another argument is that “pokie addiction isn’t a real addiction”, when all the evidence points otherwise.

      People need to engage in rational discussion on this topic, with claims based on fact instead of hysteria, because the meaningless dribble in the comments below really undermines this website’s potential as an important forum for debate.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:53am | 02/11/11

      Its a crazy fucked-up world full of well adjusted people.

    • palone says:

      03:17pm | 02/11/11

      Nilbog. So was Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, (shall I go on?), What an intelligent comment you make.  You must be blind, which comes from staring at Abbott’s pin-up on your wall, and ‘doin’ what comes naturally’.

    • palone says:

      03:17pm | 02/11/11

      Nilbog. So was Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, (shall I go on?), What an intelligent comment you make.  You must be blind, which comes from staring at Abbott’s pin-up on your wall, and ‘doin’ what comes naturally’.

    • Dave-o says:

      05:50pm | 02/11/11

      1) Good to see you know the finical status of commenter’s

      2) I’ve never sold my influence or been coerced by implied threat to spew someone else’s political views. So I guess it all comes down to how you measure wealth then doesn’t it.

    • Nilbog says:

      08:17pm | 02/11/11

      Of course I am blind… with hairy palms smile

      But the fact old Dave-o got his panties in a twist suggest I’m bang on the money.

    • chungo mung says:

      10:39am | 03/11/11

      @peter - no one will respond to you mate because you are pretty much on the money. great point about nanny state on drugs and nanny state on anything that fits the conservative prerogative.

      Only I would say that the addiction here is to conservative thinking, which is about fear of change, aversion to progress ( other than the economic sort that is privy to the few) and a securing love of the status quo. Rationality is only used when it suits the purpose.

    • pointyup says:

      11:11am | 09/12/11

      If we believe what we read the only jobs created by pokies are the pokies,  so it would be better to get rid of them completely.  One less sin to worry about. 
      We live in a life where wealth is top of the tree.  Wealth is not how much I have but how much more than you I have.  In this case pokies are useful because I get richer than you with out working.
        Pokies should have no limit and they should be government owned.

    • Tina says:

      06:41am | 02/11/11

      Hmmm I always wondered how you can become addicted to something. And are the pokies the problem or if it wasnt pokies the addiction (which maybe is only the visible result of an emotional imbalance) would be something else? And if it then is lollies, we ban lollies?

      I dont think pokies are the problem. Cigarettes I understand, because of the addictive substances in them. But a pokie doesnt have that. If you are addicted to pokies, you have some issues you need to sort out. So you need to come up with a safety system that ensures you stay away from them (not have a credit card, ask your family to not let you go, whatever)

      So do we design our world to suit the weakest member of society to live safely and cared for in it?

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:35am | 02/11/11

      @Tina:  One of my family members fears an addiction to gambling.  He says he gets a stronge urge whenever near a pokie or a table to “go nuts”.

      Generally, we don’t go where pokies are when we go out.  Problem solved.

      There are others who simply can’t control that impulse.

      “So do we design our world to suit the weakest member of society to live safely and cared for in it?”

      It’s called compassionsion, Tina.

    • acotrel says:

      07:40am | 02/11/11

      Tina
      It’s about psychological imprinting - the thing that advertising agencies specialise in.  The pokies are a cynical misuse of science to use people against themselves. They are designed to be psychologically addictive by using the reward system of training in an unethical way.

    • d says:

      07:44am | 02/11/11

      Tina do you realise they are designed to be addictive? It is not just chance that people become addicted to it.

    • Tina says:

      07:59am | 02/11/11

      Mahhrat

      It was a question, no accusation.

      So do we design our world to suit the weakest member of society to live safely and cared for in it?

    • Tim says:

      08:06am | 02/11/11

      No Mahhrat,
      its called the Nanny State.

    • Budz says:

      08:07am | 02/11/11

      Haven’t they found that people addicted to gambling have a shot of dopamine and serotonin when they gamble?

    • VVS says:

      08:19am | 02/11/11

      I agree with Mahhrat. We need to show compassion.

      There are some people in society who are a lot weaker than the rest of us, and we have a moral obligation to protect them from themselves (or at least not exploit their weakness).

      It is not about the majority of us being able to gamble responsibly.

    • Hailey says:

      08:47am | 02/11/11

      Tina, just because you don’t understand how a person could be addicted to something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
      Have you seriously never been compelled to do something you shouldn’t?

      Besides, pokies ARE designed to be addictive, just as cigarettes are, there are other methods besides drugs that can push people into addiction.

      In answer to your question, I believe yes, we should care the weakest members of our society.

      On another note, I really fail to understand how people could simultaneously believe this won’t work AND it will destroy the hospitality industry. If it won’t work, they should have nothing to worry about.

    • Peter says:

      08:57am | 02/11/11

      @Tina, try posing a question, learning the answer and then forming an opinion, rather than the other way around.

    • Zaf says:

      09:12am | 02/11/11

      [do we design our world to suit the weakest member of society ]

      Tina - to some extent we already significantly design our world to limit the choices available to people..

      Some examples: speed limits, seat belt laws, requiring helmets for motor bike riders, banning recreational drugs like ecstacy, speed, cocaine, marijuana and heroin, banning incestuous marriages, banning underage marriages…

      And really, this doesn’t really SUIT the weakest members of society who might be more likely to get into trouble with any of these things.  What it does is protect them AND protect the rest of society from having to deal with the consequences of these people’s actions.

      These consequences range from the cost of crime (breaking and entering, assault, theft, embezzlement) to the cost of caring for dependents when the bread winner goes AWOL.  You think nobody ends up paying when a gambler loses the house and the car and the job?  You’re kidding yourself.  The family pays, and then the rest of society pays as well.

      Enlightened self interest dictates that we deal with this realistically.  Banning gambling would probably work as well as banning prostitution or banning cigarettes and alcohol (or other drugs).  I think harm minimisation is the most sustainable way to go - reducing the amount that can be gambled in each game is a good start.  Getting rid fo the lights and noises is the next step.

    • dovif says:

      10:11am | 02/11/11

      Hailey

      “It is designed to be addictive”

      So is horse racing, black jack, movies, shopping, poker, tv shows, That is why we spend out entertainment $$$ on them

      Lets apply it to designer handbags

      They set the latest trend, changes colour yearly, to force you to have the latest one. They give free ones to Hollywood stars and celebrities, so you want one just like them. they set you back thousands of $$$. But they are flashy and addictive and some people get a rush when they buy one.

      As for how it will not work and destroy an industry at the same time. The problem gamblers will get around the legislation and have higher limits, this won’t stop them. However the casual gambler might decide not to get a card, or cannot play their favourite machine with their $20 a month. so they stop gambling, and the clubs are paying $2,000 more for a machine. Which is money lost to society with little benefits

    • Lucas says:

      10:20am | 02/11/11

      Go and watch ‘The Fever’. An old Twilight Zone episode.

    • patsy says:

      11:20am | 02/11/11

      Knowing someone with a gambling addiction, I feel that they get an adrenalin rush when they win, hence the addiction, and when they inevitably lose they feel foolish and think that by putting even more money in they will win it back and no one will find out. Never happens. So this persons’  family took the deeds for the house off her. She then became quite skilled at pulling $50 notes from her adult son’s money tin that now he has to hide that, too. And you can’t make people go and seek help. This is her only vice by the way.

    • max says:

      03:42pm | 02/11/11

      Tina the pokie machine companies employ psychologists to design the machines for maximum attraction/addiction for their target market. So they may not be chemically addictive but they certainly are psychologically addictive.

    • Mikeymike says:

      04:42pm | 02/11/11

      @ Tina.

      Go and google “Skinner box.” Then take a look at “variable ratio rewards.”  And then you will wonder no more.

    • Fiddler says:

      07:00am | 02/11/11

      Just ban the fucking things. Or limit them to two a club. Who knows people might actually socialise when they go out instead

    • Labor is Toxic says:

      07:03am | 02/11/11

      There are five things that could be easily implemented to re

      1)  Silent poker machines ..... the high pitched tinkle background music that is an audible attraction to addicts
      2) No flashing lights ..... a visible attraction to addicts
      3) Lower payouts
      4) Maximum betting limits
      5) Longer ‘spin’ times
      Clubs are addicted to revenue ..... state governments are addicted to revenue .... they are the true addicts

    • acotrel says:

      07:42am | 02/11/11

      You’ve left out the most important:
      No ATMs in pokies venues , so you have to take what you are prepared to lose with you !

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      09:34am | 02/11/11

      @Labor is Toxic, I would add something else there, 6) coin feed only.  Being able to shove 50 dollar notes in can’t be helping, but constantly queing up for a bucket of coins might allow breathing (and thinking) space.  And @actorel, absolutely ban the ATM’s.

    • Robert says:

      10:00am | 02/11/11

      I’d also add limiting the ability to play down medium and large jackpots. These would not go back into the credits but would be recorded separately and need to be paid out by cheque or as a direct credit to a nominated account with minimum 48 hour processing time. Say anything over $100 in a single win.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      10:23am | 02/11/11

      So basically, has anyone noticed how all this can be done without the need for expensive technology or imposing on people’s perceived rights to gamble?  By the way, I am not a wowser, but what annoys me is the damn things are under your nose.  A few drinks, a few laughs with friends and I might chuck a few dollars in to see how I go.  The worst thing is to actually have a little win.  Would be so nice if they were up the back somewhere.  so if people want to play, go for it, but keep them out of the average persons sight.  Or mabe I am being a fun police!  *shudder*  The club I have after work drinks at in York St city has this setup.  Very nice indeed.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:55am | 02/11/11

      Black and white screens with no sound effects would do the job.

    • Rick Allen says:

      12:33pm | 02/11/11

      Plain packaged poker machines. Love it. It’s brilliant. And it will save the manufacturers a fortune by not having to waste money on flashy paint, bright lights and sound devices, as well as being more environmentally friendly.

      It’s win-win! In a socially responsible manner of course.

    • Nafe says:

      07:04am | 02/11/11

      Oh Personal Responsibility, Where have you gone?

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:36am | 02/11/11

      Exactly.  When are the businesses going to be personally responsible for the addicts they create, eh?

    • Tina says:

      08:01am | 02/11/11

      I dont agree Mahhrat. If you are at risk of becoming an addict that is your problem and down to your personal weakness. Dont make others responsible for it. I feel for them and hope they have support in their families and communities, but its noone elses fault or doing.

    • VVS says:

      08:05am | 02/11/11

      Businesses aren’t people, hence can’t be “personally” responsible for anything.

      Sorry for being the pedant.

    • Tina says:

      08:40am | 02/11/11

      VVS

      Sorry but the level of personal liability of a business depends on the form of that business.

      Sorry for being the pedant.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:00am | 02/11/11

      @Tina,

      Companies spend billions of dollars a year finding our psychological weaknesses, and exploit those to make themselves money.  It’s called “advertising”.

      It is pervavise, all-consuming and never ending. 

      These companies are absolutely and directly contributing to the social costs of pokies, of fast food, of alcohol, of pimps and hos, of shoes, socks and sportwear.

      They all yell, all the time. Red and yellow coloured banners. Our TV ads are louder.  Ads are all over this very page. The ‘net knows what I’m searching for, and customises those ads to me! I mentioned a sandwich in my Facebook update last week, and suddenly I had three ads for Subway in there.

      An individual cannot fight it all.  To expect an individual to resist every pressure in every market?!  Really??  Tina, I’ve got no doubt you have a psychological blind spot that is just as ruthlessly exploited - mine is bad food. 

      The only difference is, your weakness (probably) isn’t affecting the lives of the people around you as dramatically as those whose kids don’t eat because mum spent the pay check on the slots last week.

      Yes that is an emotive line, but it is an emotive subject. 

      Corporations are privatising profit and socialising cost under the guise of “individual responsibility”.  It is high time they were reminded that their business is also legally an ‘individual’.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:03am | 02/11/11

      @VVS, oh yes they can. Businesses are considered “individuals” under law, and are treated as an entity of one for that purpose.

      It is considered legally separate to protect the employees of the business from an action taken by that business that is detrimental to it’s continued functioning (such as going bankrupt).

      It means creditors can’t sue the receptionist because the mechanic went broke.

      Let’s face it. Pokies exist because they make money; there is a “market” for them.  That presupposes that the “market” simply springs up from nowhere, however.  It isn’t.  The market is “created” (thanks Gruen) by the same advertising used to lure it in.

      If markets simply sprang into being, this would be a different argument, but it’s not.  Advertising has gone far beyond simply “Here we are, come buy our stuff if you need it” and is now, “You need this, you must buy it.”

    • Rose says:

      09:36am | 02/11/11

      Tina, all you illustrated today is that you have absolutely no concept of addiction. You really don’t understand how it works and in the case of pokies, how it is fed by venues.

    • Steve says:

      10:15am | 02/11/11

      ‘Businesses aren’t people, hence can’t be “personally” responsible for anything.

      Sorry for being the pedant’

      Well if we’re being pedantic, section 124(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) says that they are.

    • acotrel says:

      10:40am | 02/11/11

      @Tina
      To not be at risk of becoming addicted to pokies, you would have to be incapable of being trained by the reward system, or never play them.

    • Tina says:

      10:42am | 02/11/11

      @ Rose

      I really do struggle to understand how people can become addicted to something. I have never been subject to addiction and have no cases in my family or circle of friends. Not even smoking or excessive drinking.

      I dont want to sound cold. I am sure it is terrible to be addicted to anything, especially when it has such an effect on you and can ruin your life. And I think they need support. I am just asking the question if we should limit everyone for the benefit of a few. I am not saying we should or shouldnt. But it is not easy to say where to draw the line. When are we being overcontrolled and when is too much freedom harmful? That is all down to the individual and there is no common approach possible.

    • Tina says:

      11:13am | 02/11/11

      acotrel

      I never use them. It just doesnt tempt me. I have been to casinos a handful of times and only done black jack and stuff.

    • L. says:

      12:28pm | 02/11/11

      “To not be at risk of becoming addicted to pokies, you would have to be incapable of being trained by the reward system, or never play them.”

      Or… You are capable of doing basic risk assessment.

    • undertow says:

      02:27pm | 02/11/11

      @Tina “If you are at risk of becoming an addict that is your problem and down to your personal weakness. Dont make others responsible for it.”

      Should we stop prosecuting drug dealers for making the drugs available and just go after users? After all, it isn’t the drug dealers that are at fault for providing, it is the addicts for being weak.

    • Darren says:

      02:47pm | 02/11/11

      I used to not understand how someone could become addicted to something (other than a physical addiction), but a few years ago I was in a place where alcohol (my drug of choice) wasn’t fun for me anymore and I seriously contemplated moving on to something a bit more, shall we say, dubious. I didn’t in the end, only because fear of becoming an addict stopped me. I’d always thought myself stronger than that and the thought process I went through then scared the hell out of me.

      That feeling has never left me, and have been careful not to imbibe in anything that might lead me to an addiction, but I have more of an understanding about how people do. It’s all about chasing a particular feeling. People that feel depressed are more likely to seek out something that makes them feel good, whether it be altered states that drugs bring on or the feeling of winning at gambling. In chasing that high addicts will do anything to feel it, whether it be flushing cash down the drain or pumping themselves full of death.

      I fully support any measures to reduce the amount people spend on gambling, but I don’t think this legislation goes far enough. I’m quite disgusted with how much betting advertising there is going on in sports. I’d like to see a move towards the restrictive advertising that cigarettes went through. Maybe not that severe, but definitely a reduction from what we have at the moment.

    • Ando says:

      03:39pm | 02/11/11

      Mahhrat ,
      And mandatory pre commitments solves all that does it? I hate pokies and wish no one would use them but this is not the most effective way of dealing with the issue. If you trust addicts , when at home away from machines,  to set a reasonable limit, then they would also have the awareness to opt in to a voluntary pre commitment. Why not spend money on advertising the benifts of the voluntary system for those who have been caught up in the rush of chasing a win and lost big.

    • Reg says:

      08:27pm | 02/11/11

      “Well if we’re being pedantic, section 124(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) says that they are.”

      Actually, that section only instills the company with the same capacity and powers of an individual (as well as a body corporate… they are still companies, not people. It does not mean what you think it means.

      Being considered the same as an individual in relation to capacity does not make you an individual. Ever heard of limited liability?

      Any argument based on the Corporations Act 2001 in that respect is ultimately flawed.

      Now if the business was operated by a sole trader, then the argument may be slightly different.

      Leave the law to the lawyers, people.

    • Stupid law says:

      07:16am | 02/11/11

      What a load of rubbish

      It only cost $2000 to update all machine, where will the money come from? ie less employment in the industry, less cheap food for the poor, less sponsorship for the weekend football? How many clubs have the spare $1 million to upgrade just 500 machine

      It just require a change in algorithm to change the machine? At what cost?

      As for how this will solve problem gaming? Someone can name $100 million as their maximum loss amount, that will limit losses? It also give a safety blanket for gamblers who thing their set amount can be lost everytime, Oh good, I can lose $200 a day and it won’t be a problem, the government said so?

      How about the overseas studies that shows it does not work and could actually cause more losses for big gamblers?

      How about the fact that gamblers can just lose more betting on horses, at the casino, playing poker?

      There are so many way to lose money, why not limit everything Blackjack to $1, Horse betting to $1, outlaw poker? when will it stop?

      It seems just like the Internet sensor debacle, this government is hell bent on preventing people’s freedom

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:39am | 02/11/11

      Average return on profit from the machines is about 1.6% nationally, @Stupid.  1.6 c in each dollar made is passed back.

      *hands you a towel*

    • d says:

      07:50am | 02/11/11

      So you are all with the nutter today spruking that if you are over 18 it should be your choice to wear a bike helmet?

      How will it effect you if all machienes are limited to a max $1 per spin?

      “For every $1 million spent on hospitality it creates 20 jobs, spent on retail 10 jobs and spent on pokies 2.1 jobs.”

      So they take money out of the economy but where does it go? not to the community but to making the clubs bigger.

      $2000 to change each one when they can be earning $1500 an hour at the moment sounds like chicken feed to me, oh the poor NRL clubs might have to pay there superstars 10% less, thats still more then an average person will earn in 10 years

    • MarkS says:

      08:05am | 02/11/11

      Just 500 machines! Sounds like an awful lot to me. Are you on the Crown payroll, they have thousands of them; maybe that is why you consider 500 to be a small number. Given the money each machine makes, $2,000 per machine is spare change.

      If it will not work then why spend millions fighting it. Don’t try the lie about how much it would cost to alter the machines, the vested interests have already spend more than that in fighting it.

      I would just ban them outright, good riddance to bad rubbish.

    • Steve says:

      08:08am | 02/11/11

      I call bullshit. If you have 500 machines, you’re club is not poor!

      And when people are sober, who is going to say “gee I wish I can lose up to $100m dollars”. You’re an idiot, these pokie addicts don’t think they’ll lose, they might spend 10k, but they think that they are onto a winner next spin! If you asked them, “are you prepared to lose $10k on the pokies?”, they will say “NO!”. So then you say “what are you prepared to actually lose”. They will most likely say “i’m prepared to lose at most $200”. That means that when they get to their $200 loss, they can’t, in the heat of the moment, keep irrationally throwing pineapples in the machine because “a feature is just around the corner”.

      Please outline overseas studies that says this does not work. The one in Norway has been discredited due to it being commissioned by the gaming industry.

      And there is a clear difference between gambling on the horses/black jack vs. pokies. If you can’t see that you’re the clown.

      Pokies are a cancer, I used to have a slap, never more than $20 in the machine. I reckon I’m up over my life, but it’s pretty sad to see some people throwing 50’s down the machine like they’re rolling in it (which they aren’t).
      You might say “personal responsbility”, but I live in a society and community, where I give a crap about others in my community. These people have families who suffer (through no fault of their own) and they can turn to crime, which does affect you and everyone else!

    • dovif says:

      09:56am | 02/11/11

      Steve

      I cannot see any difference between Black Jack, Pokies, Horses, poker etc

      The house always win, there is a thrill when you occassionally win,  and most people pour their winnings back into them. The entertainment is similar too, Casino even have scantily clad female hostess, and free drinks to keep you at the table

      I also do not see the difference between the pokies addict, and the shopping addict, ie those who loses $200 a week at the pokies, or loses $200 a week on a new handbag.

      And if you are using an example of losing $200 a day under this legislation is fine, legislation that allow a person to lose $1,400 a week probably isn’t working

    • Economist says:

      11:38am | 02/11/11

      Just some points to address your concerns.

      The reforms won’t take place until 2014 I believe. Plenty of time to implement the reforms cost effectively. Currently clubs turn over machines quite regularly; machines are constantly amended from 1c to 2c, a software change; machines are linked to jackpots, changing the software and fit out and finally machines have linked jackpots across clubs. All of this means that the costs the industry are quoting are personally exaggerated.

      Also please provide the links to the evidence that MPC doesn’t work. Norway and Canada would suggest otherwise.

    • Mork says:

      03:36pm | 02/11/11

      Stupid law, you’re parroting more monkey maths and lies that Clubs Australia have been caught out spruiking…my brother works at an RSL and has seen the stats on what these machines bring in, the high-end machines all make over 1 million a year EACH.  Still wondering where that $2000 will come from?

    • Tim says:

      07:35am | 02/11/11

      I can’t stop eating Big Macs and Quarter Pounders.

      I’m really struggling with it but I can’t stop. Sometimes I eat salad for a few days but then I just find myself back eating those fattening burgers.

      I demand the government make everyone pre-commit to how many burgers they eat per week. It’s the only way I’ll be able to cut down on my intake.

      C’mon, it’s for a good cause and could save a few lives. Who’s in?

    • Suz says:

      08:14am | 02/11/11

      Yes - shame on the govt for allowing ppl to develop diabetes and obesity without putting all junk food and soft drinks in brown paper bags or having a special card to allow us to purchase them.
      Both of these diseases are doing more damage &  are more costly than gambling

    • mahhrat says:

      08:20am | 02/11/11

      @Tim:  It’s not everyone that has to pre-commit, it’s the people who eat too many big macs.

      As of this morning I’m 137kg.  I’d be quite happy to have a ban list for Maccas where, even if I rock up, they tell me to nick off.

      (Saying that, I’ve lost 12kg in the last 3 months.  Go me!)

    • Addicted says:

      08:23am | 02/11/11

      I cant stop reading posts from idiots.

      Can the government make everyone limit their idiot comments to one per week so I dont have to read them?

    • Jono says:

      08:32am | 02/11/11

      Fuck off strawman.

    • Damocles says:

      08:43am | 02/11/11

      I’m with you Tim! Say isn’t it proven that there is a condition known as an addictive personality? I’m betting (oops) that the poker machine addicts, if there were no poker machines, would be addicted to, oh I don’t know, maybe bingo, or horse racing, or Gold Lotto. Addiction, addiction, everywhere, so little time. Wilkie, the great crusader, addicted to stopping poker machine addicts. Maybe when he’s returned victorious from this great crusade he could start on the greatest addiction of all, the addiction to being in the limelight.

    • Tim says:

      08:46am | 02/11/11

      Mahhrat,
      who decides who’s eating too much?

      A 120kg bodybuilder will be able to eat a lot more than a 50kg girl.

      Similarly, a millionaire can comfortably gamble thousands of dollars with little effect to his life whilst a pensioner cannot.

      Plus if you think these anti-gambling campaigners will stop at this first level of pre-committment then I have a bridge for sale. Interested?

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:14am | 02/11/11

      @Tim, strawman number 2.

      And yes, I’d be very happy to see all poker machines gone (except maybe from casinos).

      After all, I voted for Wilkie.  And I’ll do it again.  The crap on Q&A last night about “new things he’s saying” is shit - the guy’s had the same message for over a decade.

    • Tim says:

      09:16am | 02/11/11

      Jono,
      please explain how it’s a strawman?
      Or did you have no argument beyond swearing?

    • Economist says:

      11:42am | 02/11/11

      Tim it’s a strawman argument, because it’s not comparable. I’ve noticed you’ve dropped the alcohol restriction argument and sticking with the fatties argument, is that because in our last discussion you were satisfied with the intoxication example?

    • Tim says:

      11:59am | 02/11/11

      Economist,
      they are directly comparable.
      In fact anything that could possibly cause social problems are directly comparable.
      Alcohol is exactly the same. Different people are able to drink different amounts without it causing a problem.
      The intoxication restriction you talk about only comes about when people become a danger to themselves and was enacted to stop people directly harming themselves when drunk.
      There are no defined limits on how much you can drink and you don’t need a card to do it.

    • dovif` says:

      03:36pm | 02/11/11

      I agree with Tim

      They are all social problems, if you want to limit the argument to monetary losses, you can choose the following

      People who goes clubbing too often
      People who drink too much alcohol
      People who smoke too much cigarette
      People who buys too many shoes
      People who goes to too many musicals (at $100 a day, the yearly cost is astronomical)
      People who buys too many handbags (you can buy 3 or 4 a day and spend millions every year)
      People who bet on horses (you know people can lose $1 million a horse race, so they can actually loses $1 billion an hour)
      People who bet at blackjack (you know people can lose $500 a hand and can play 7 hands at a time, you can easily lose $1 billion an hour)

      Really Pokies gaming is the ultimate strawman argument to begin with

    • Dom says:

      07:46am | 02/11/11

      Tim I respect your charity work but wake up mate.

      The pokies are not the problems. The weak-willed individuals are.

      What’s next - ban beer because alcoholics can not stop themselves walking into a pub or bottleshop, ban shopping as some girls are addicted to shoes and handbags, ban Maccas as some obese people can’t make healthy decisions, ban swimming at beaches because people choose to swim outside the flags, ban smoking because addicts can’t make the right choice, ban driving because some peanuts drive like maniacs, ban films because some lunatics copy the violence from them….the list goes on and on!!

      Problem gamblers are the problem and not pokies or other gambling outlets. Until these people take responsibility for their own actions and are not continually given an olive branch from organisations like yours than they will never learn.

      Most people can gamble and make all other decisions in their life in moderation so don’t base policy or decisions on the weak-willed minority. However, with a minority government what do we expect!!

      I do not support the communist approach that Tim Costello and Gillard want to see in this country. Wake up to yourself Tim and concentrate on World Vision stuff and not items that everyday Aussies can manage perfectly well.

    • Maree says:

      08:58am | 02/11/11

      Dom: Generally agree with your comment. I do not play poker machines, therefore do not care what happens to them. However, I do not believe “gillard’ would be supporting pokie reforms if it were not for Andrew Wilkie playing power broker. I believe most people really do not give a toss about pokie reforms, but are put off by being told what they can and can not do, and particularly by a government who is pandering to small time player like Andrew Wilkie to stay in government.

    • Dave C says:

      09:11am | 02/11/11

      What’s wrong with reducing the damage that someone can do to themselves and to others??

      We banned automatic handguns, and after some bleating and moaning, everyone realised semi-automatics were perfectly sufficient to do the job. Similarly, we maintan bans on the “most” destructive and addictive drugs, knowing that most of the public will accommodate their “habit” with less destructive forms.

      Damned right it’s a nanny-state - who clean’s up the mess when addicts and their families come to a crashing end?

      What’s a bigger cost to the taxpayer - less revenue swilling around the pokie owners’ tills, or trying to look after the wreckage of children, women and men from busted families?

      Treat the behaviour, reduce the bets, and try to reduce the damage to addicts and their families.

    • Mikeymike says:

      06:10pm | 02/11/11

      Actually Dom….

      20 years ago there was no such thing as Responsible Service of Alcohol.  Governments stepped in and regulated against people getting drunk in licenced establishments.

      Up until recently, fast food outlets had no compulsion to display the kilojoule count on their burgers.  Once again, a regulatory change.

      Swimming has been banned on some Perth beaches over this summer due to shark sightings.

      The point is, governments step in all the time.  We have film regulators that refuse classification thereby banning certain films, we have had smoking banned in restaurants, workplaces and public buildings.  It is one of their primary functions, to regulate to minimise harm.

      Would you make your same arguments against environmental protection agencies or ASIC?

      Pokies are indeed the problem.  I would suggest you have a look at the research on skinner boxes or variable ratio rewards.  The machines are intentionally designed to be addictive.

    • mick says:

      07:47am | 02/11/11

      A well written and socially responsible post.  The public needs honest print rather than the compliant articles written to pacify the well heeled bosses of the news media.  This is what genuine freedom of the press is.

      “Money, political power and owning the media can buy a lot of misinformation”.  Never was there a truer statement made.  Be it for the pokies legislation, the mining tax, closing pubs early so that patrons stop killing each other on the streets or getting Tony Abbott up at the next election.  It is clear that ‘the money’ does normally get its way and that mums and dads can be easily conned.  All of the above issues bear testament to that fact.

      Thanks Tim for having the fortitude and the conviction to print the facts.  We need more of it.

    • Bob says:

      08:18am | 02/11/11

      Actually, not one of the “above” ... bears any testament to your way of thinking. Not a single one.

    • PW says:

      07:48am | 02/11/11

      @Stupid Law

      This is how it will (to some degree) solve problem gambling. Spouse of problem gambler says “sign this or I leave”. Or problem gambler him/herself realises they have a problem in continually chasing losses until the money runs out, and signs up voluntarily.

      Problem gamblers don’t as a rule plan to blow every cent they have. They just cannot stop once they’ve started.

    • Bob says:

      07:50am | 02/11/11

      Wow, I couldn’t even get past the “plebeian will of the majority ...” apart from skimming the odd statistic on the way to the comment box.

      Grow up Tim. There is nothing to support the figures you use, nothing at all. The methodology that has been use, whether by you or the Productivity Commission comes with - apart from yours because you have an agenda – a caveat: that it, it is flawed and the sample size is not true of the populous, amongst a host of other problems.

      So, yep there are some who gamble, and gamble more than they should. So what? Some drive too fast, and some die because of it. I don’t see reforms to remove cars from all people below a certain age because they are more prone to these crashes? I don’t see cars being fitted with devices that turn the vehicle off after 2hrs - because we all know that’s when the crashes happen, don’t we? People still smoke. Some of those (well many) continue to die from smoking. Not much in the way of bans on this and that have had a dramatic effect on the continued smokers, or take-up rates.

      This list of things people do and the associate risks could go on and on. The problem is, why has this not got the “wowser” factor written all over it? I see calls in papers and The Punch to ban Melbourne Cup – for various reasons, and the “contributors who penned them” where called wowser’s etc. I haven’t meet anyone in the street, work-place, shopping centre, opposite dinner table who has brought this up as a big issue, or even an issue worth the time, words and money already spent. In fact I am not even sure I have heard anyone ever say “you know, I’m rather concerned about all the problem gamblers out there, and gosh what harm they must be doing to their friends and family”.

      Do I gamble? No. Have I put $20 in a pokie? Yep. Did I win? Sometimes. So what, I had a choice. Just like my speeding choice, my sex without a condom choice, my using other peoples needles choice, my smoking choice, my drinking choice. I think you get my point, it’s all a choice. Some have a predisposition to addiction, sure I can bring myself to believe this, however un-like crack-cocaine, which it doesn’t matter who you are you will be addicted, pokies still remains a willing choice. Like the drugs, you had a choice to take/use it, and where they differ you have a choice to go back to the pokie machine.

      Tim, once upon a time the reason for everything bad happening was “I didn’t know”. It worked well until knowledge was dispersed a little more. It’s not often you hear “I didn’t know I could get aids from unprotected sex”, and why? Because people became aware. They didn’t ban sex, they didn’t ban homosexual behaviour, well maybe in Tasmania they tried. They didn’t do anything other than as so funnily put in The Hallowmen, “you mean it’s just going to be an awareness campaign?”

      Tim, you are nothing more, or worse than the elites you claim to bash when it comes to such petty and pointless associations. It’s funny how any argument, whether by “the man in the street” or “a man in a position” it always resorts to name calling and generalised, over simplified and silly associations.

      Tim, I’m sorry that people find it hard to tear themselves away from a pokie machine. Well, I’m sorry in that it’s a shame, yet not sorry they do it, it was their choice. Get the crux, choice = choice. You have a choice.

      I don’t agree with what the clubs do to get people in, have free buses to pick up the “elderly” and others to bring them to the club for “social” outings. This is just plain old BS. Yet these are very simple things that can be changed. Remove a number of elements to ease the “demand” to gamble and you might see a difference. Remove cash machines, that’s pretty simple. No cash withdraws from the “bar” or “til”. Poker machines can only operate after 6pm, that would stop the “social” gatherings of the “elderly” during Thursday pension day. The list goes on.

      The only problem with any of that Tim, is that it requires some effort. Yours is simple. Hold a bankrupt and corrupt and incompetent government to ransom and you will have them fix your problem.

      My last thought is this Tim, if it doesn’t work, and (get ready for irony) I’ll bet you $10 to any charity you like that it doesn’t, will you refund the companies the money they spent to change the machines back, and the clubs the potential revenue lost? No you won’t will you. Once again, I don’t care if the clubs lose $1 or $1 billion and the same for the companies, there will be some loss.

      I don’t claim that the numbers from the elites is any better than yours, in fact theirs appears to have changed just a few more times than you have changed (code for dodged) your figures. However, you have nothing to lose either way do you? If it works it works, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. I like your odd’s.

    • Economist says:

      11:51am | 02/11/11

      Regarding the accuracy of the figures, you seem to be relying on the IPA approach, that the standard deviation from the surveys are so wide to suggest it’s not a problem. The only problem with that argument is that standard deviations can go the other way, perhaps it is an under estimate.

      To what extent do you want the reforms to work? IT won;t eliminate all problem gambling. WA still has problem gamblers. The policy is designed to reduce the impact. The policy is designed to get people to question and think about their habit and reduce the likelihood of moving into the problem gambling group. Nobody just turns up on day 1 and gambles everything. It creeps up on people. You start off as a casual gambler and become hardcore.

    • John says:

      07:51am | 02/11/11

      Ban the machines, they are a waste of money. One man’s lose is another gain. Gambling is a swindle. The reality is it’s tax’s payers money that funds the majority of the poker machines, they contribute to wealth fare problem. The government should be creating measures for droping wealth-fare payments, by creating measures for the lower class’s to own their on property and be less reliant on wealth-fare.

    • Suz says:

      07:58am | 02/11/11

      Pokies are not the problem - take tham away and you drive gambling underground . Locally we are loosing customers to ON-LINE gambling.
      It uses a credit card so people are not even using their own $ but acumulating debt, no monitoring, no socialisation and not control other than what a person does for themselves. Sure, restrict pokies to lower losses like the UK, limit number in clubs but it won’t change anything. Ppl can stay at home and do it all on the computer.

    • Robert says:

      09:54am | 02/11/11

      Not true in all cases. Poker machines are specifically designed to cause addiction.

      it is the combination of flashing lights, Instant payouts, the speed at which you can bet. No other form of gambling has the same combination.

      While some might go onto other forms of gambling others won’t.

    • Holly says:

      08:05am | 02/11/11

      Thank you Tim Costello for adding a dose of commonsense to this debate.  I appreciated your explanation of how the pokie industry turned against the government ‘s concession.

      I’m quite frankly amazed that someone invents a machine specifically designed to rip people off big time, specifically designed to prey on those prone to addiction (something to do with dopamine I think) and manages to sell this as a good idea.  Of course I think the state governments must take some blame here as they saw this iniquitous proposal as a revenue raiser.

      You could have added the point that only a very very small part of the profits made by these pokie enterprises and clubs actually goes to supporting sporting and community organisations, something less than 3%.

      Wouldn’t the people who spend so much time huddled over even the low intensity machines be better off spending more of that time walking in and appreciating the real world.  Much better for the nation’s health than protecting the obscene profits of what are in effect con artists by proxy.

    • SteveAbx says:

      08:19am | 02/11/11

      I have no choice but to support the ponies based clubs, because they have bought up all the smaller sports clubs.
      The pokies subsidize my sports, but I would happily pay more for better facilities and services for my sport, rather than poker machine facilities.
      The clubs do not provide jobs and money, they minimize it.

    • Simon Waller says:

      08:22am | 02/11/11

      “What happened to individual responsibility”?

      Sometimes a Government has to make laws to protect people from themselves. That’s why we have speed limits and “P” plates. Believe it or not, some people have trouble making good choices.

      Well written Tim!!

    • AdamC says:

      08:27am | 02/11/11

      “I’m not the elite, you’re the elite!”
      “‘Fraid, not, everyone knows you are the out-of-touch one.”

      Wow, stirring stuff there, Tim.

    • Alf says:

      08:28am | 02/11/11

      I support poker machines. I view them as a voluntary tax on idiots.

    • Homer says:

      09:18am | 02/11/11

      Duh, ya, me says idiots and addicks is similar sounding words so must mean same ting.

    • Robert says:

      09:38am | 02/11/11

      Alf do you also like your taxes being used to fund these idiots. What about the social cost of housing families in public housing because they are penniless and have no other option.

      Yes people who put money into poker machines are idiots but they are not footing the bill. We all do in one way or another

    • Tim says:

      09:45am | 02/11/11

      Robert,
      the taxes taken from poker machines outweigh their social costs so really they don’t cost you anything.

    • Alf says:

      09:51am | 02/11/11

      Homer is one of them

    • Robert says:

      07:52am | 03/11/11

      @Tim. Do you have the figures to back that claim up?

      Besides even if it is at a break even point is it worth destroying people’s lives when you can get the same net affect by people spending on other goods and services instead of pokies and generating GST revenue?

      By your logic so long as taxes on cigarettes and alcohol cover the social damage they do (which I doubt) we should not do anything to stop people smoking or binge drinking. Wow if we’re collecting more in tax than it costs us maybe we should raise the blood alcohol limit back up to 0.08% so that drinkers can start to recoup some of what they are paying.

    • Neffie says:

      08:41am | 02/11/11

      There are gamblers addicted to pokies, cards, betting on horses etc etc. Are we going to ban all the gambling associated with other “vices”? And what about other addictions - nicotine, alcohol, prescription drugs, coca cola etc etc. Will they be banned also?

    • Peter says:

      09:20am | 02/11/11

      No, they won’t.

    • glenm says:

      08:52am | 02/11/11

      Tim,

      I dont have a problem with your intentions but I find it really annoying that you have to rely on the pathetic rich vs poor, us vs them , class warfare to make a point. Really you have to try to remove the chip from your shoulder. Not all wealthy are elitist , not all common people have common sense.  When will you realise that if you want people to come over to your point of view its best not to insult them first.

    • Peter says:

      09:02am | 02/11/11

      Compare pokie machines to another product that is dangerous, such as automobiles.  We are happy to slap on regulations and requirements on the auto industry to make cars safer We still enjoy our cars, but we have improved their safety record by miles.  Pokie machines should be viewed in this way.  They are a dangerous product and therefore need to be treated as such.  We can still use them to enjoy gambling but we can make it so that there are less people hurt by them in the future.  Makes sense to me.

    • Bob says:

      09:47am | 02/11/11

      Peter, the one problem with what you have said is that much of the safety items you find in cars today have nothing to do with “regulations” as you put it.

      The car makers have no more obligation than simply putting brakes on cars than they do to make sure it isn’t made out of cardboard. The ESP, ABS, ABC, XYZ, 123, and god knows what else is abbreviated in cars, along with air-bags, park assist etc is an invention purely by the car maker’s desire to put in a car. None is a requirement by anyone. They are a gimmick. Yes, they may work, and yes they may make a car safer, yet they are a gimmick designed to offer newer, better, safer cars to the public.

      That’s all, no requirement, no legislation, no law, nothing.

    • Peter says:

      11:18am | 02/11/11

      Lol, Bob, you must be joking.  It is a very highly regulated industry.  In the US, for example, they have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.  In Australia we have Australian Design Standards which are administered under the Motor Vehicles Standards Act.  This is but to name a few of the regulatory devices which are used to control and enhance the safety standards for cars.  There are lots more, for example, which pertain to the design and maintenance of roads, or baby seats, or car accessories, or driver training etc.  So the comparison is a good one, thank you very much.

    • Bob says:

      11:19am | 02/11/11

      @Bella Had a quick look and search, cant see anything there about all the safety gear we see in cars.

      This is about national standards. No mention about any of the “safety” components I mentioned as being national standards or required.

      If you have them, yes they must meet a standard, yet they are not required. Otherwise, pretty much any vehicle past say 5yrs, esp. 10yrs would have to be taken off the road

    • Bob says:

      11:49am | 02/11/11

      @Peter ... thank you very much for what? To enforce a standard on a good which you choose to inlclude or make is not a requirement or a regulation as you put it.

      There is simply no requirement or regulation for any safety measure as you allude to. If you have, yes, as I have said previously, put a safety measure in a car it must meet a standard yet there is NO requirement to have it.

      So ... ummm ...my turn now? Thank you very much.

    • Dave C says:

      12:04pm | 02/11/11

      Hi Bob - these are some of the Australian Design Rules.

      There are specific rules for various vehicle categories. They are in place to impose a minimum standard on motor vehicles, and reduce the overall risk faced by the public:

      http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx

      European and U.S. regulators (and in-turn, our own) hold regular reviews - to research, evaluate and discuss whether safety technologies such as ABS, EBD, ESC, etc. should be mandated - presumably in pursuit of a net benefit to the public.

    • Peter says:

      03:39pm | 02/11/11

      Bob, come now, I think you’re just pulling my leg, aren’t you?  It is absolutely crystal clear that cars are subject to a regulatory framework to impose and enforce design safety measures.

      Anyways, it’s beside the point.  The point is that products and services are required to be made safe all the time, particularly ones where there is a link between the use of the product and a known harm (usually physcial harm but not always - consider the regulatory standards concerning the provision of financial advice, for example).  Pokie machines are no different.  Why should they be?  That is the point.

    • Bob says:

      04:08pm | 02/11/11

      @Peter, the whole car thing is off the point, however, I will say this again, there is ABSOLUTELY no requirement, law, or regulation that stipulates anything to do with the safety measures I have mentioned.

      I cant be any clearer. This has nothing to do with standards.

      Moving on, there is no proof of harm. The harm is an association, not a direct link.

      The same applies to speeding cars in your view. All cars should be off the road. If you look at the stats of all accidents, then they make gambling stats seem pointless. So by all accounts, cars should be banned.

      Smoking is a major cause of much illness, hence should be banned.

      Fast food, junk food, fatty food has the same effects of smoking. Enormous health consequences. This should be banned.

      Drinking has the same effects, so this should be banned.

      Lets take it another step, if the behaviour of those who gamble should be moderated by law because they could become addicts and hence have effects elsewhere then religion should be banned. The relationship between murder, intolerance, and appalling behaviour between our “fellow man {sic}” is and can be related to religious attitudes and indoctrination, so ban it.

      It goes on, and where does it stop? Gambling has no definable statistic to back up any of the claims. None at all. They are figures based on, what is accepted to be, poor methodology, yet is accepted because that’s all there is.

      Just because you don’t like it and some people may get hurt it doesn’t mean that the resources of a government should be wheeled into actioned at the whim of a single man to buy a vote.

      I don’t care for gambling, yet I don’t care for my right to gamble to be infringed upon.

      I suppose you support the internet filter as well? Why not, people might look up kiddy porn and then act - that’s not good. Children might come across naughty chat - that’s not good. Yet responsibility should be used. Parents, if worried should make sure they know what their kids are doing. It should not be at the expense of many to cover the actions of a few.

      As for my tax payer $‘s being used to support the addicts and the families of their actions, big deal. While much of my $‘s are being wasted across the board one more item of waste means little when it’s all washed up.

      You have freedoms or you don’t. If you don’t, don’t just cherry pick the ones you like. If you do, then you have to accept some will always put themselves in the way of harm. You cannot, nor should it be, legislate for every potential action someone may take.

    • Peter says:

      04:55pm | 02/11/11

      @Bob,  “I don’t care for gambling, yet I don’t care for my right to gamble to be infringed upon.”

      That seems to be the nub of your argument.  Well, here’s the thing, Bob: it won’t be.  Please explain how you think it will be?  How in any way will you not still be able to gamble your head off, if that is really what you want to do?

      You see, Bob, it’s not about infringing your’s or anyone else’s rights.  It is merely a strategy, a device, which is designed to help people who need help to make rational decisions about gambling.  Because they are addicts, you see, and when it comes to gambling on the Pokies they have lost the plot.  So we are trying to help them - in advance - so they don’t lose the plot, the house and everthing else that is dear to them all for the sake of ... well what?  The sake of what?  You tell me.

      Look, i’ve seen what it can do and it’s not pretty.  It’s real and it is dangerous.  It destroys lives.  Why on earth do you think that is something we should be continuing to do?

    • john says:

      09:06am | 02/11/11

      I guess some of the industry $20 million fighting fund sponsors some of the idiots you see posting here.  The regulars know who they are.

    • Robert says:

      09:16am | 02/11/11

      The debate has more contradictions than the Bible.

      All these people “that don’t have a problem and only play the pokies socially or for entertainment” get so outraged at the suggestion of limiting the amount that can be lost in them.

      It is pretty obvious that these machines cause a huge amount of damage to a small percentage of the population. To me this just shows that the problem is actually much bigger then the problem gamblers because if “Socially and occasional” players will not allow these reforms then they are either extremely selfish with no sense of community or they themselves have a problem they cannot admit to.

      I’f you only play for fun then why complain about limiting machines to maximum bets of $120 an hour?

    • Katie says:

      11:45am | 02/11/11

      Exactly.  No ones ‘rights’ or ‘freedoms’ are infringed here.  Everyone will still have access to a ‘flutter’ if they so choose. 

      The only freedoms that are infringed here are those of the clubs.  The freedom for them to make ridiculous amounts of money from people with a problem. 

      Is anyone here also in favour of revoking the ‘responsible service of alcohol’ requirements? Its very similar isn’t it?

    • BobM says:

      09:19am | 02/11/11

      And you’re not a member of the elite, Tim?  I don’t see you ‘slumming it’ when you travel around the world pushing your barrow. Do you fly cattle class with the plebs, or business class?

    • jacky says:

      09:21am | 02/11/11

      If we knew how the clubs major supply and building contracts were chosen and wether the board members had an direct or indirect interest,This would also be of interest to the local community…..Where do I get this information

    • Anna C says:

      09:36am | 02/11/11

      I don’t understand why Wilke and his crew are singling out pokies for reform. What about other forms of gambling like horse races, internet gambling etc? Surely if you are going to do something about gambling it should be done across the aboard? Otherwise why bother when gamblers can just switch from one to another?

    • read about it says:

      10:16am | 02/11/11

      Do just a teensy, tiny bit of reading about pokies and problem gamblers Anna.
      Just a teensy bit, then post the answer the rest of us already know.

    • Anna C says:

      11:21am | 02/11/11

      @ read about it

      What are you saying that other forms of gambling besides pokies are not a problem in Australia? Don’t make me laugh. All forms of gambling is based on the misfortune of people. There are no good forms of gambling so why are only pokies being singled out for attention. Why not advocate for a ban on all gambling?

    • read about it says:

      11:48am | 02/11/11

      Anna C

      Did your 4 year old bookmark The Punch for you? Why don’t you get him to bookmark a search engine for you?

      “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.
      Some 86 per cent of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies.”

      Do you need to be spoon fed everything? You asked the question “why are only pokies being singled out for attention.” So do you now need someone to explain the answer?

      Seriously, try blogging on the sesame website you might find they are more suited to your comprehension level.

    • read about it says:

      11:50am | 02/11/11

      ps don’t be a crybaby

    • (small) Punter says:

      12:33pm | 02/11/11

      A slot machine pays out a maximum of 97%. It is guaranteed to keep 3% of its wagers over its life.
      You will never win long term playing these odds.
      In Australia, the minimum is 87% (which does not mean all of them are at 87%, it means they cant be set below that amount - and they are never set above 97%).
      SO - long term, you will lose between 3% and 13% of your wager playing pokies. You cannot play longer or wager more to impact the odds.
      Betting larger amounts into this system just increases the amount of money lost.

      Compare with horse racing, sports betting, online poker etc.
      It is possible for people to make a successful living by placing well researched and best-option bets on these events - and in the case of poker or games of gambling+skill, actual ability to play the game and stake your odds is a far better way to win than by picking a number or pressing a button.
      Its not easy otherwise everyone would do it, but a professional gambler wagering metropolitan horses with a good rating system and strict betting method can return an average 10% profit on turnover, day in, day out, continually.

      This opposed to the certainty that if you play long enough you will always be down a minimum of 3% on a pokie.
      And they’re designed to make you want to do just that. So the problem isn’t with the ‘problem gambler’ - its with attracting a problem gambler to a system that will. always. make. them. lose.

      (*Personal disclaimer - I bet on horses, dogs, trots and football. Averaged over the year my total outlay is less than $50/month. I never play pokies.)

    • Anna C says:

      01:44pm | 02/11/11

      “Some 86 per cent of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies.”

      read about it, what about the other 14% of problem gamblers. Don’t they matter? I ask again, why not advocate for reforms across the board or ban all forms of gambling instead of this piece meal approach?

    • Alf says:

      09:48pm | 02/11/11

      @Anna. It is particularly irksome when you think that a rat like Wilkie was voted in on a Tasmanian ticket - a State that contributes SFA to the national economy.

    • Fred Bassett says:

      08:58am | 03/11/11

      Let’s put it into words you can understand
      Anna C is a cry-baby because she doesn’t understand . This makes her a sook in my book because she is refusing to acknowledge facts, logic and reasoning.


      Waaah, waaah, waaah, waaah Anna C

    • Loxy says:

      09:44am | 02/11/11

      I watched this very debate on Insight (SBS) last night and failed to see any decent arguments from the Clubs as to why the pokie reform shouldn’t go ahead. Their lame argument that it won’t work doesn’t even begin to disguise their real argument which is “boo hoo it will impact my profits”. No matter how clubs try to refute it by renting out your rooms to Irish dancers, sponsoring sporting teams etc (who could probably afford to pay for it anyway), making large profits from the ruined lives of addicts and addict’s families is a moral disgrace.

    • fedup says:

      10:06am | 02/11/11

      I shake my head everytime I see a comment expressing anger that this legislation is somehow impinging on their rights/freedom. Are they so gullible or lazy that they cannot read/find out for themselves what the proposed legislation actually say instead of feeding blinding from the shock jocks, the pokies lobby and the opposition? The proposed legislation will not prevent you from having a bet on the $1 per bet machines, it’s only if you wish to bet on the high limit machines that you are required to pre-commit a self imposed limit. What is wrong with that? It may even save you from leaving the premises way out of pocket than you originally intended. So, please do not trot out lies like pensioners will not be able to have a flutter or that jobs will be lost or clubs will be forced to close or that there will be no money for sporting clubs - because it is just not true! People, please, please use your brains to find out for yourself and not be influenced by the lies and half truths peddled by the pokies lobby.

    • Tim says:

      10:27am | 02/11/11

      I shake my head every time someone tries to claim these restrictions aren’t impinging on freedoms.
      How could a restriction on what you can do (unless you register for a card) not be impinging on your freedom? By it’s very definition it is.

      I’d prefer to live in a society where people got to make their own choices, take responsibility for their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own actions.
      Unfortunately there seems to be a growing proportion of the population who think the government should protect people from themselves, cradle to the grave.

    • fedup says:

      10:38am | 02/11/11

      @Tim, so are you implying also that we should not be required to apply for a licence before we are allowed to drive a car or even a motorbike because that is also impinging on our freedom? Maybe we should all be allowed to do anything we like, without having to follow any pesky laws or regulations - that would be anarchy would it not?

    • Tim says:

      10:45am | 02/11/11

      fedup,
      the last time I looked it was impossible for a poker machine to directly kill or maim someone unlike guns, cars or other things that require a licence.
      Perhaps you can see the difference?

    • fedup says:

      11:08am | 02/11/11

      @Tim, what about indirectly leaving families destitute, domestic violence, petty crimes like theft, robbery maybe even murder - does that count for nothing? Hope you can see the big picture here… Don’t let your cry for ‘freedom’ cloud your judgement for what makes up a responsible and compassionate society.

    • Peter says:

      11:34am | 02/11/11

      @Tim, we regulate many, many things which do not “kill or maim” people, you dill.  Do you need a list of examples or are you brave and honest enough to admit this obvious fact to yourself?  How about the financial services industry, for example.  Or have a gander at the consumer protection laws which regulate the way businesses interact with consumers.  Or, hey, how about your very own local Council who determine who you can build, where you can do it and what it should look like.  Shock revelation for Tim: you can’t build something that does not accord to local zoning laws.  How dare they impinge on your Freedoms!!!

    • Tim says:

      11:54am | 02/11/11

      fedup,
      there are hundreds of different things that indirectly cause social problems.
      If we tried to ban or restrict them all then we would have an extremely boring and bland society.
      We should force clubs to more directly deal with problem gambling and problem gamblers but blanket restrictions are not the way to deal with it.

    • Tim says:

      12:56pm | 02/11/11

      Peter,
      that made no sense at all.
      Where did I say anything about regulating industries?
      The gambling industry is already one of the most tightly restricted and regulated industries in Australia.
      What that has to do with making people obtain a licence to engage in an entertainment activity I have no idea.

    • peter says:

      03:51pm | 02/11/11

      @Tim -  “What that has to do with making people obtain a licence to engage in an entertainment activity I have no idea.”

      I guess it has about as much relevance as your reference to obtaining a licence.  Who said anything about a licence?

    • Tim says:

      05:28pm | 02/11/11

      Um Peter,
      Fedup mentions a licence in their second comment.
      You know:
      Licence, noun. A certificate, document etc giving legal or official permission to do something.

      What would you call it?

    • onlooker says:

      10:13am | 02/11/11

      I am not addicted to anything but coffee, hopefully the Government will not want to regulate that. Poker machines will not affect my vote either way

    • Economist says:

      11:45am | 02/11/11

      That’s also a key point missed. Polls show the vast majority support the proposals, about 2 in every 3.

    • Barny says:

      10:30am | 02/11/11

      I had a mate years ago who’d always bet on the horses in the TAB. He’d lose a few thousand over 3 or 4 months but once in a while he’d have a hundred or 200 dollar ‘win’ He actually thought he’d won that money.

    • Bea says:

      11:19am | 27/11/11

      Yes, the brainwashing that the gambling industry has been doing for the last god know how many years, is working….so many people I know who bet on a regular basis and ‘win’ don’t ever look at how much they had to spend over that given time to get that ‘win’....sad, really.

    • JT says:

      10:46am | 02/11/11

      I see there are quite a few little totalitarians running around telling other people how to live. Here’s an idea; STFU and live and let live. You are responsible for your own actions, corporations are responsible for making a profit. That’s it.
      It is not for you to dictate to others how they should live their lives (regardless of whether or not it is of benefit to them) and it is not for you to dictate a social agenda to corporations (they exist only to make profit). The sooner you little fascists wake up to reality and stop seeking to control others the better.

    • Dave C says:

      12:41pm | 02/11/11

      So every citizen in our democracy should bow-down or bend-over to allow our corporations to have their way..?

      Will the corporations, who “only exist to make a profit” care about what happens to you, your kids, your parents or friends..?

      What if your wellbeing - or that of those you love - your stands in the way of their profits..?

      You might call it “live and let live”, but it sounds like a third-world free-for-all.

    • JT says:

      01:05pm | 02/11/11

      @Dave C ‘‘So every citizen in our democracy should bow-down or bend-over to allow our corporations to have their way..?’‘

      Firstly, are you feeling alright? You sound a tad hysterical. Secondly if you do not like a corporation product or services, do not buy them. Simple.

      ‘‘Will the corporations, who “only exist to make a profit” care about what happens to you, your kids, your parents or friends..?’‘

      Why should they?

      ‘‘What if your wellbeing - or that of those you love - your stands in the way of their profits..?’‘

      No one’s wellbeing in standing in the way.

      ‘‘You might call it “live and let live”, but it sounds like a third-world free-for-all.’‘

      Huh? It’s called the real world mate. Join us here if you like.

    • Michael says:

      10:54am | 02/11/11

      As many people have said,why target the pokies and not other forms of gambling? This seems like the government is supporting Wiklie to avoid him withdrawing his support. Furtermore I don’t see how this prevents people from switching over to Online Gambling which is even more addicitve,unless they propose to censor Internet usage next?  Also in the Northern NSW area,there are many smaller clubs that would be forced to close by such legistation,how does the government propose to find jobs for those affected by this? How about a trial plan,paid for by the government to see if it actually works before anything major goes through?

    • Anna C says:

      11:40am | 02/11/11

      “How about a trial plan, paid for by the government to see if it actually works before anything major goes through?”

      Michael, your proposal sounds reasonable and rational but unfortunately common sense and this government are mutually exclusive.

      Pokies reform is all about placating Independent cry-baby Wilke who for some reason has a real bee in his bonnet about pokies but not other forms of gambling? Go figure?

    • B4Bear says:

      01:07pm | 02/11/11

      Pokies reform is all about placating Independent cry-baby Wilke who for some reason has a real bee in his bonnet about pokies but not other forms of gambling? Go figure?

      Anna C, he we nt to the election with that as one of his policies. How does that make him a cry baby. Of course you would think this is a wonderful idea if Tony Abbott had convinced him to support the coalition in forming government. Wouldn’t you?

      I would humbly suggest that after having read through all of your ramblings on this topic, you have no idea about what you are talking about.

      The fact remains that 40% of the revenue from these machines comes from a minority of people. Other forms of gambling do not receive such a large percentage from such a small base. Not that you should really care, you spend your life on The Punch, not down at the local feeding in money.

    • Anna C says:

      02:23pm | 02/11/11

      B4Bear, Wilke is a cry-baby because he is threatening to take his bat and ball and go home if the Gillard government does not support his reforms. That makes him a sook in my book because he is holding the government to ransom if he doesn’t get his way.

      Waaah, waaah, waaah, waaah Wilke.

    • Bea says:

      11:29am | 27/11/11

      The whole social atmosphere in a club or pub contributes to wanting to play the pokies…being alone on the internet isnt many people’s idea of fun, nor does the internet have as many flashing bright lights, or loud noises of others winning and enticing you to play yourself. People usually start off having a ‘flutter’ with friends or family, who are usually there for a few drinks and/or lunch or dinner, and the thrill of winning can take over, causing the addiction. People don’t set out to be addicts, nor are they usually addicted on the first try. Its a gradual pull, like any addiction, and it usually starts off in a harmless, fun and social manner. Don’t be fooled by the pubs and clubs, who rely on this, to pointing the finger JUST at the gamblers…if the government didnt actually require signage, sunlight and clocks to be visible from any poker machine in a room, quite often you lose track of time, and keep sitting where you are. There should be more responsibility placed on both sides, and if legislation that protects the few but doesn’t affect the majority, why complain about it?

    • Green Liberal National Labor says:

      11:24am | 02/11/11

      There are no pokie machines in Parliament Houses in Canberra and in State Capitals. Hence there are no pokie machines anywhere as far as Labor and Liberal Nationals can see. So how could there be any pokie machine problems anywhere as far as Labor and Liberal Nationals can see! Its all rubbish! Whats out of sight is out of mind !

    • Bob says:

      11:36am | 02/11/11

      Tim, I will make a deal with you. I will support the pokies legislation, as its quite obviously not a reform if you do the following:

      1. Seek to tack on to the legislation a ban on all forms of gambling which can easily be accessed by problem gamblers, so that’s all gambling … ahhh now you see it don’t you? and
      2. Prevent any access to gambling by means of credit.

      So, what does this mean?

      There are so many “things” in society which we consider (by which I mean you, not ‘we’) to be a social “ill”. Credit and access to easy credit is one of them.

      So, why do I not see the outrage from you, or anyone else in your camp/on your side arguing for a ban on any method by which credit is accepted for gambling purposes?

      Gambling, as far as I am concerned is any means by which money is placed/taken in order to win money in return. So that includes, scratch-its, lotto, pokies, horses, dogs etc.

      I noticed the other week, after we brought a lotto ticket or $11 that we could pay by cash, chq, or credit. Seriously, credit! I checked the numbers on the Golden Casket site the next morning and I can buy tickets etc online with a credit card.

      If gambling is the monster you claim, and credit is so easy for people to get - when it should have tighter rules, which you advocate, then how are you not up in arms at this?

      Either you have the freedom to do as you wish or you dont. You either wish to enact legislation for the “greater good” or you dont.

      So Tim, which is it? Will you support my idea publicly and request that this be added to the legislation and get my support, or are you in it for the kudos of the “elite” bashing gentry?

    • palone says:

      03:09pm | 02/11/11

      @Bob. What do you think, (and I don’t want to stretch that too far), that Tim Costello gets from his opposition to clubs happily taking money from people addicted to pokies?
      Someone mentioned “taking responsibility for your own actions”, but of course that is the discourse of idiocy. If it weren’t we wouldn’t need laws.
      The likes of Alan Jones, Gus Gould, James Packer et al, are all financially interested, and well paid, by the money rolling in from the pokies. But Costello? Where is his kick-back?
      Maybe he just cares.
      Everyone who doesn’t consider he/she has a problem is unaffected by Wilkie’s well thought out proposal. Those who choose to be responsible, i.e., the addicts who wish to do something about their problem, are offered a possible part, at least, solution. What does that have to do with any infringement of freedom for you.
      Some pathetic creature earlier referred to our Prime Minister as “Giggles Gillard”. You can join him/her as a fellow member of the “Whatever happens let’s make it an anti-Gillard thing”. Weak, and pathetic.
      Oh yes. I forgot. What does Tony Abbott, the failed catholic priest who summed up his feelings on the death of an Aussie soldier sent by his bossman, Howard, to help the retarded Bush, by simply shrugging, and saying, “Shit happens”, think of this? Does he support Tim Costello’s argument? What does his supposed christian background lead him to say. “No comment”? That would be right.
      Addicts, all addicts, contribute to the weakening of our society. So do you.
      By the way, not many problem gamblers find it possible to get credit card access. But, unless you’re a complete idiot, (as against a simple idiot), you know that.
      My twelve-year-old grandson just pointed out, (and critically so), that I had missed your last sentence reference to “the kudos of the elite-bashing gentry”. He asked, “Aren’t the “elite” the “gentry”?
      Good boy. Shows that even a kid knows that you are a dill.

    • Bob says:

      04:37pm | 02/11/11

      @Palone A moron says what? What! exactly.

      Thank you for showing that some people in society are too stupid to look out for themselves. You have proved the point, yet I will still fight for your stupidity and freedoms to do as you choose.

      As for your grandson, I hope his education is not from you, as the elites and the gentry are not the same. However, couching your stupidity in pretending a 12yr old asked the question is well ... stupid.

      I’m glad that you think that your contribution has been valued. You and your grandson (aka you) can feel good about offering nothing more than failed one liners and abuse. Enjoy your afternoon with your grandson.

    • roo says:

      11:54am | 02/11/11

      I notice that my local club’s financials do not give a breakup of income generated from the pokies anymore, just a total revenue. I’m guessing that this is a directive from Clubs Australia to hide how much my club depends on gambling to survive. Who gave Clubs Australia a licence to fiddle with my club’s books?

    • Ros says:

      12:46pm | 02/11/11

      “And look how respectfully they have treated a generous concession and a reform that helps vulnerable people – they called it un-Australian”.

      That problem gambling is an issue that needs attention is hard to dismiss. That it should be looked at from a moral perspective rather than a health, financial and social one (which has been adopted by some of the players, eg Wilkie), is unfortunate. There seems to be considerable support for the case that there are cultural and mental health causal factors, eg

      “Escape gamblers are more likely to play passive games of pure chance — slot machines, bingo, and lotteries. They are often depressed or anxious and use gambling to numb or cheer themselves.”
      Harvard
      “Some factors that contribute to gambling problems include impulsivity, coping ability, and susceptibility to depression. A person’s proneness to substance abuse may also lead to a gambling problem. Substance abuse disorders and pathological gambling are often comorbid conditions, although neither necessarily causes the other; both conditions share many similarities, and both have an underlying cause in lack of impulse control (Petry, 2002). In addition to personality influences, environmental factors such as stressors can affect the development of a gambling problem. “
      Kory Sinha.

      You also advance the crowd wisdom argument but seem to misidentify what the crowd wisdom of those who are most vocal within the Australian hoi polloi is about this issue. In particular you seem to miss the crowd who play and are around slots attitude to gambling within Australia. Now while it is quite depressing to read a Pyschology of Australia paper from 1997 which says of the increase in gambling opportunities being legislated into existence then

      “It is recognised that the uncontrolled expansion of gambling is likely to lead to possible financial and pshycological difficulties among some community members who gamble excessively”
      It is also depressing to note what they had to say about the attitudinal origins for gambling in Australia as; the risk taking inclinations of first immigrants and its embedding in the Australian psyche, the non-puritanical cultural heritage of Australia and the introduction of clubs as venues for women versus the male oriented hotels. But what is the message from Tim and Wilkie etc. Another moral lecture from the morally vain to the plebs.

      The assessment of the Psychological Association then, and which I would suggest is still valid, describes the attitudes and beliefs about gambling held now by many from the socioeconomic crowd in Australia who gamble on or support the existence of EGMs . That far from seeing it as un-Australian they see it as very Australian. Two up anyone.

      But what is really depressing about the approach being adopted by the proponents of stop gambling amongst the working men and women , which is the message coming across, is that the Government’s programme to reduce access to pyschologists by Australians with mental issues, kicks in today. Education and mental health services should be the major focus, not the technological fix, which is what is being offered as the solution by this moralistic elite crowd.

    • Aussie Battler says:

      12:51pm | 02/11/11

      What I find strange is that there were “Addicts” when all we had was the old one armed bandits,  yet no one did anything at this time?.  There were no flashing lights, loud music etc to draw the player in.  Perhaps education at that time may have reduced some of what we are seeing nowadays?
      I also beg to differ with those that say Horse Racing, Dog Racing, Lotteries etc is different.  Many years ago I was involved in the debt collection industry and I can tell you that there were plenty of people affected by losses to ALL forms of gambling. They were losing cars, furniture and marriages were breaking down yet it all appeared to have been brushed to one side, not spoken about and ignored till it now appears to have got out of hand.
      I do not know if Wilkie’s legislation will have any affect on problem gamblers,  but if someone really wants a bet, they will find a way.

    • Bryan says:

      12:52pm | 02/11/11

      Tim, I get frustrated when I read about this so called pokie legislation being a salvation to problem gamblers. From personal experience, I have known 3 compulsive gamblers in my life. One who was a very successful businessman who lost several million dollars, his businesses and his family and the other two, several hundreds of thousands of dollars. They would each gamble on anything from the Stock market, Futures, Property, Dogs, Horses, Cards, Online games, SP, Casinos, AFL, NRL, Boxing, Lotto tickets -  you name it they did it. Yes folks even the good old scratchie which is a flutter for some is a compulsion for others. I don’t see any legislation stopping scratchies or any other of these forms of gambling

      Each of these problem gamblers needed more than just a mandatory commitment type system. They each needed immediate intervention – by stopping them access to any form of gambling along with intense psychological counselling. This would have given them some chance of resolving their problem. One of these spent almost 4 years in jail as a direct consequence of his gambling and whilst in prison he was not able to satisfy his urge to gamble. However upon his release took up the habit and continues on his losing ways to this day. The other two are without jobs or income and remain tied to the social services system of this country. But given access to any extra dollars, blow it on the punt immediatley.

      Restricting problem gamblers to a lesser (bet) amount is like restricting a smoker to one cigarette a day. It will not work! ALL forms of gambling have to be controlled and when there are so many forms of gambling, singling out one form over all others is inane and simplistic. You might make the point that you have to start somewhere but I suggest this is just a feelgood approach that fails to tackle the actual problem gambler in a more serious and effective way. Wilkies (and those that agree with him) proposal will do nothing but create a name for him. At the end of the day he will have done nothing to improve the lives of any problem gamblers. How he thinks that this idea is a good one is beyond me.

    • Tez says:

      12:59pm | 02/11/11

      Well done, Tim. required reading by all involved in this debate. While we are at it, throw in Mike Carlton’s article in Saturday’s Herald as well.

    • Occam's Blunt Razor says:

      01:12pm | 02/11/11

      Hey Tim,

      So you think Public Opinion should be followed?

      Then you’ll agree that we should have Capital Punishment and the CO@ Tax Legislation should be scrapped.

      No?

    • John says:

      02:06pm | 02/11/11

      You all realise, of course, that when a person has blown their last dollar, lost their job, their home and all the rest of it that the tab ends up being picked up by the taxpayer?  Yes, your taxes are the end user of pokie addiction.  Still happy to put it down to personal responsibility and walk away?

    • Graeme says:

      02:13pm | 02/11/11

      Havinmg experienced pokies in Victoria. I have two things to say:
      1. My marriage failure was in part to addiction….and addicts, while losing money and being consumed by their addiction,  become very self centred and selfish. Some form of control needs to be made on them.
      2. I’m Western Australian does not have the same plague of pokies as Victoria….if it ever happened the same people should throw in the keys and leave!

    • Panthers Man says:

      05:14pm | 02/11/11

      Gambling till you lose everything and throw up is a fundamental right that real Australians MUST defend, with their lives if necessary.  We are a nation of gamblers and whats wrong with that?  It is the only thing we got and makes us what we are are ... true-blue little Aussie battlers. Anything else is un-Australian and not normal. Go Tony Abbott , you good thing.

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:46pm | 02/11/11

      Every one of these comments and the story is wrong. (presuming I read them all, rather than skimming them…)

      This is not about gambling. It’s ONLY about Gillard staying in the lodge thanks to my local member Wilkie.

    • palone says:

      11:56pm | 02/11/11

      JoelB1… The only reason the lovely Ms Gillard is in the Lodge is that your pin-up boy, the life-saver who has never saved a life, lost an election. The failed priest, the failed Health Minister, the failed supporter of our troops overseas, (shit happens), and the policy free so-called Leader of the Opposition, (he’s not), is a complete idiot.
      Ask him whether he is in favor of a gambling restriction on agreeable addicts. Mind you, the Catholic Club is one of the big beneficiaries of addicted gamblers, so you will probably get a big “No” from the christian,(?), Abbott.
      And from his boss in the Vatican. Wake up JoelB1, this is nothing to do with Gillard.
      Abbott has his money coming from the club industry. Hypocrites have always used fools like you. Lay back, and think of Australia, you voluntary dickhead.

    • Eric The Red says:

      08:53am | 03/11/11

      @ Joel B1 , You are are a dead set dropkick. That operation you had to remove the other head went wrong I’d say. They took the wrong head.
      I was up at the club on Monday night and saw one person put at least $500.00 in a machine and that person had to borrow some money to pay for a cab home, Wanker! Just Put $1.00 limits on machines and leave it at that. I’m sick of the bullshit over Pokies and the problem Gamblers. It must be costing tax payers a mint with all the committees and talk fests .

    • stephen says:

      07:44pm | 02/11/11

      Money from pokies goes to the footy clubs, which goes to the administrations, which goes to - amongst other nasties - player’s salaries, which are still far too great that they can afford to go to every corner of the world, stay beside lagoons with pina-coladas and bikini mamas and get their digits digitalized across every newspaper not in Scandinavia.
      (Too cold, and not even Brendan play his pecker as a puck.)

    • Joan Bennett says:

      07:14am | 03/11/11

      As a problem gambler, will there be anything to stop me from limiting myself to losing $1million?  Is it capped at, say, $1000?  And, if so, how about wealthy people who aren’t problem gamblers who want to gamble more than $1000?  The thing about problem gamblers is they are not like you and I.  No matter how much they lose, they really think they are going to win, so would nominate some astronomical figure as the amount they are prepared to win.  It’s a sickness.

    • kevin harris says:

      11:46am | 03/11/11

      Addicts will always find a way around the problem of precommitment. Basically the state of N.S.W. is bankrupt Hence the reason why we are selling off all the state owned assets. It is in a “Catch 22” situation,(your mad if you do and your mad if you don’t). The state has to have a continuos revenue stream to retain it’s AAA credit rating and provide basic services. Without pokie money the dollars have to come from another source,at the moment it’s looking like Coal Seam Gas which is even more of a gamble than the pokies.Any creative accountants out there with a novel solution?

    • Tony Hay says:

      10:40am | 04/11/11

      I know this fat guy who cant resist going to the cake shop most days.His health is deteriorating before my,and his families eyes.After all you sticky beaks finish with clubs,could you please lobby to limit cakes to fat people to maybe one a week.

    • jf says:

      11:06am | 05/11/11

      That is a poor analogy. The true analogy is that they should lobby to limit cakes to everyone, fat, thin or otherwise.

    • Rick says:

      01:51pm | 14/11/11

      “Money, political power and owning the media can buy a lot of misinformation. Have a look at the lies so far.
      It’s time for them to come back to the table and face up to the responsibility they owe all Australians.”

      DEMOCRACY MEANS RULE BY THE PEOPLE.

      OLIGARCHY MEANS RULE BY THE FEW….. (political parties)
      Switzerland is a federal republic with a system of direct democracy, in which the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people not political parties as it is in Australia.
      Direct democracy is a way to check political power. It allows benevolent and enlightened citizens to oppose laws made by evil politicians and a FEW.

      Switzerland’s direct democracy means that all proposed amendments to the constitution are decided by referendum. Any other federal law can be put to a referendum if 50,000 citizens sign a petition - meaning that Switzerland’s federal system can be changed by its citizens.

      Any takers.

    • thatmosis says:

      08:18am | 14/12/11

      Precommitment , bullshit.If I want to exercise my democratic right to go and play a poker machine that dare I say pumps billions into the government coffers than I blood well should be allowed to do it without some wowser telling me I have to pre commit. If people have a problem with gambling its not my fault but their and they should seek help or pay the consequences. This is like saying people are being killed by cars then all cars are killers so lets ban them from the roads, completely ridiculous. Either the people who have a problem seek help or they dont, its up to them not the government to do the babysitting for them and therefore reducing the rights of those who dont have a problem. Sick to death of this nanny mentality that seems to becoming the norm.

    • Robo says:

      04:25pm | 24/12/11

      Ohh spare me, self appointed custodians of our society, like Tim “I know What’s Best for All of Us” Costello, can go take a flying leap off whatever is nearest.  If adult people enjoy a gamble - be responsible, if you’re not - seek some help - you’re an adult act like it.  If you want own 1, 100 or 1,000,000 pokies - chase the dream, within whatever the law of the land says.  Tim “I know What’s Best for All of Us” Costello, chases the publicity of the anti-pokies lobby, walking right past lotto’s, racing (horses, trots, dogs, two ants up a wall), scratchies, church raffle and on and on and on….

      Enjoy this Christmas Season, drink, eat, sing, dance and if you, as an adult want, gamble and don’t let the self-appointed con-artists of “do-gooderness” like our mate Tim steal your enjoyment of life!  Merry Christmas - lets celebrate the man’s birth, who’s first public miracle was water to wine!

    • Noely says:

      02:45pm | 04/01/12

      Sorry Tim, I don’t know about Perth, but I do know about my Region and we don’t have any massive pokie palaces, BUT, we do have quite a few small Bowls Clubs & RSL’s and without the funding they give our local sport we will have next to no junior sport here.  It is not just sport either, we support a local Hospice which is the first of it’s kind on the coast and as it is a Hospice, obviously it is hard to get donations as dying people are obviously not a cute & cuddly thing and without the support of the RSL’s they would not be able to operate as the Government & Council are not going to help.  I have no problem with trying to help people addicted, and I also have no problem with belting the big pokie palaces, BUT, in small regional areas we can’t survive without the community money that comes from the little bowls clubs, RSL’s & Pubs, and again, as we are little regional areas, the Government doesn’t care about us.  Not to mention there are not a hell of a lot of jobs here, so the job loss will hurt!  So how about you stop thinking about big business (that you mentioned a number of times here) only and think about the little ones.  Maybe only mandate this new nanny state rule on the clubs with over 100 pokies?  So forgotten regions like ours don’t suffer.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      05:28pm | 12/02/12

      Inanimate objects cannot force one person to do anything.  The morons who think they might win on the machines are truly morons who go looking for the machines while hearing the clubs mob state that they are ripping them off.

      Truly moronic.

      however 15,000 people every year die from tobacco related diseases while no-one has been killed by a pokie machine.

      I know some commit suicide to avoid debts, but the machine did not make them do it.

      And not one person has offered up any proof that there is this major epidemic of actual crime running amok because of the pokies.

      Having said that, I hate the things and believe they should be boiled down to make saucepans.

    • Hans Sander says:

      04:52am | 26/03/12

      Mr. Costello. It has nothing to do with the elite and it has nothing to do with you. The Australian people are quite capable of looking after themselves and if they can’t there are relatives who can. May I suggest you find something else to do, genealogy for example.

    • Luap Rellim says:

      07:32am | 12/04/12

      I did play ...
      It is not the weak person that is subject to pokie addiction but the person at a weak moment of their life. This is what the venues prey on.
      - the disabled
      - the elderly
      - the unemployed
      - the destitute
      All of the above turn to their local ‘club’ to feel part of the community, to avoid the social isolation of generally depressing lives. To be out with people as opposed to extremely sad alternatives.
      I did this. I monitored my ‘minimal addiction’ and I justified it with the benefits; socialising, entertainment and the occasional win. In the time I played, I saw the changes.
      From an average of $100 for up to 5hrs entertainment, to 2 mouthfulls of beer costing $20. I stopped.
      Since I stopped;
      - I have seen the devastation; the broken relationships the carers of the disabled dragging them to the club for hours, an elderly disabled man pleading for help because his carer/wife got another loan from the bank. He fears for his house, yet can do nothing. Indeed a plea to staff was returned with a shrug. His carer is ‘a VIP’ (A member with privileges) The more you spend = more privileges.
      I have seen players so drunk they have fallen asleep at the machine and woken by staff, not to be sent home but to continue playing ! Indeed a management problem. So maybe we should consider who the people with the problem are ... ?  Possibly, it is the ones addicted to the profits of their business at the expense of the ones at their weakest moment. In any other context we would call the profiteers; bullies ! ... employing psychologists, utilizing enticements and ignoring their responsibilities. ‘Limit’ the damage bullies can do to society ? I think we should.

    • Unity against Exploitation says:

      12:55pm | 10/05/12

      Agreed!

        We need our culture to be APPALLED at this type of exploitation!

        We need our culture to ONLY visit pubs that do NOT have pokies!

        We need to understand that our patronage encourages pubs to retain their pokies.

        It is not up to Government.

        Is it not up to the Australian Hotel Association.

        It is UP to us, the Australian People, who are exploited by our eagerness to frequent these places.

        Join together.  Find a pub with no pokies and support them - of course with good patronage, good behaviour, and having great times!

    • The Bear says:

      09:10am | 23/04/12

      Gambling is a voluntary tax on the stupid.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter