Pokies trial in Canberra ...

A lot of you have brought up very good points, of which I mostly agree with- in principle.

My fundamental problem with the policy responses, public debate discourse, treatment of victims, cultural deformity and market interventionism is that they all dismiss the most obvious cause.

In the last few decades we have allowed a socialist style of encouraging the individual to relinquish their responsibility and rights to the mob. It is hard to come by such a pertinent example affecting so many elements of society than the pokie issue.

If you f*ck up, it is your fault. Humans tend to forgive and help out if you’re willing to concede that fact, but if we support a system where we take away the freedom to fail, there is no reference of success. Moreover, if we support a system of removing potentials to f*ck up (which is impossible), we remove the incentive to act responsibly.

I doubt this trial will work but I’ll wait and see, and to give Greens a rare plug, they suggested a much better option for reform- perhaps they’re finally maturing their policy? Who knows.

But no party leader has the guts to suggest that consumers are responsible, addicts very much included.

P.S. This should be a state response- not a centralised federal one capable of bringing down government.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Although I’m not actually against legalising drugs, can you remind me when was the last time someone overdosed and died directly from using a poker machine?

Are you sure that’s the metric you want to use in judging whether something should be prohibited or not?

No, and I can’t see where I said it was.

HenryBG said :

What would Jesus do?

Require gambling machines to have a 1% chance per use that you get flagged (all machines in a venue being linked) – flag does absolutely nothing, and goes away 24 hours later. Getting a second flag though, gets you drafted into the army. (Judges 20:9-10)
The only way you can get caught is if you are foolish enough to keep gambling after getting a flag, so only problem gamblers will be caught.

chewy14 said :

Although I’m not actually against legalising drugs, can you remind me when was the last time someone overdosed and died directly from using a poker machine?

Are you sure that’s the metric you want to use in judging whether something should be prohibited or not?

drfelonious said :

The pokies shambles is yet another example of how business can prevent government reforms (however well supported by evidence or sound public policy they may be).

Where is the evidence to support the idea that this particular reform would reduce gambling addiction? Also, business can’t actually “prevent” reforms – the government can pass any constitutionally-valid legislation it wants to. It is just too wimpy to do so a lot of the time.

The issue is that Gillard and Co’s policy positions are sometimes based on a sensible and well-thought-out premise, but most often are based upon some unfeasible pie-in-the-sky idea that betrays their lack of real-world experience. Policy based upon bad principle doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and isn’t defensible, so Gillard’s instinctive response the minute someone complains about a policy or decision is not to defend it, but to change it, water it down, or throw money at the complainer.

She could take a cue from Hawke and Keating, whose decision-making process basically involved talking to business about a proposed change, considering business’ feedback, making the decision they thought was in the nation’s best interests regardless of what they thought business would say, and then deflecting criticism from business with reference to why the path they’d chosen was the best one for Australia (backed up by some pertinent evidence).

drfelonious said :

The pokies shambles is yet another example of how business can prevent government reforms (however well supported by evidence or sound public policy they may be).

Step one – convince the bogans of Australia that their interests are aligned with your business.

Step two – see step one

Shouldn’t that be try and convince bogans that giving away freedoms is OK because a minority of people can’t take responsibility for their own actions? Luckily the one member of the HOR that this was an issue for, didn’t succeed with his minority view and attempted blackmail.

And Jim Jones,
Although I’m not actually against legalising drugs, can you remind me when was the last time someone overdosed and died directly from using a poker machine?

Pretty strong victory for people power and the rights of a private club to conduct internal revenue raising amongst its own members.

It’s a shame we are going to waste 10’s of millions on a trial that wont work. The anti-pokie brigade would have been far better off targetting Wolworths than footy clubs.

Jethro said :

A bit hypocritical to be in favour of legalising one vice (drugs) but not another (gambling) don’t you think.

Legal but regulated – ie. the industry plays by our rules and has very little right to complain if those rules cut into their profits by a tiny amount.

No – I’m not talking about banning gambling. People can sit at home and play with a one-armed bandit to their hearts’ content, but ideally we’d be doing something about organisations ripping-off stupid people.

It’s not really fair to prey on the stupid, although it results in loads of cheap food and drink and easy raffles for the rest of us, so if I were being self-interested I would say let it continue.

It is interesting – on this issue you’ve basically got overwhelming apolitical public support but for some bizarre reason an incoherent PR campaign (“It won’t work” + “It will kill your local club” – I mean, WTF? What kind of lobotomised vegatable are they aiming that at?) causes the government to vacillate.

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Why the witch hunt on heroin dealers when the addicts are entirely to blame?

As a result of this arse-backwrds announcement, I may see what I can dredge out of ACT Gaming and Racing.

Not at all naturally helpful people if you start asking for their detailed tax models, but they’ll suddenly become helpful if you threaten Ministerials can talk policy. 🙂

The pokies shambles is yet another example of how business can prevent government reforms (however well supported by evidence or sound public policy they may be).

Step one – convince the bogans of Australia that their interests are aligned with your business.

Step two – see step one

HenryBG said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Quite.

But who is the real addict here? The person feeding the machine or the club which empties it?

I’ll concede shared responsibility.

It’s blatant exploitation.

I’m generally of the opinion that fools deserved to be parted from their money, but I find con-men and scammers even less appealing than fools, so I’m all for getting rid of the bloody things.

What would Jesus do?

A bit hypocritical to be in favour of legalising one vice (drugs) but not another (gambling) don’t you think.

Legal but regulated – ie. the industry plays by our rules and has very little right to complain if those rules cut into their profits by a tiny amount.

How much does the $37 million the government is reported to be compensating the clubs with, compare with the amount the clubs spend on community-good activities?

It’s rather weird that the feds plan to compensate the clubs for money that they are ripping out of the pockets of people on welfare. Or proceeds of crime.

The ramifications haven’t been thought through.

p1 said :

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Yup, same reason I say we should either legalise the selling of Heroin and Ecstasy by ACT Clubs, or strongly regulate pokies and treat the Clubs a little more like we treat drug dealers.

Well, the drug debate is a good lens through which to view the issue.

Like drugs currently are, pokies once were illegal.

They only operate today due to changes in the laws that allowed them to be a product ‘sold’ by clubs.

Yet since they have been legalised they have been made more and more effective at triggering addiction in some users (and, yes, they are designed in such a way that they trigger addiction in some people – this isn’t just something that hasn’t happened – there are specific design features, such as ‘the feature’ that are there because they trigger reward mechanisms in the brain that cause addictions in some people.)

Let’s imagine that we woke up to ourselves and created a legal cannabis market. A small selection of businesses were granted licenses to either grow or supply cannabis. Now let’s imagine that these businesses played around with the cannabis they were growing, deliberately making it a more addictive drug than it is (this is just an analogy, so roll with me here, but let’s imagine they did something like somehow splicing nicotine into cannabis plants).

Now let’s imagine that the negative consequences of smoking cannabis spiraled out of control. Would it really be fair for the players in the cannabis industry to cry fowl when some slight changes to the regulations governing them were introduced in order to try and mitigate the worst consequences of the drug they are selling? Of course it wouldn’t. I can’t see how it is any different for the pokie industry. They operate because they have been granted a license to do so. If we want to change the conditions of that license, that is completely our prerogative.

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Quite.

But who is the real addict here? The person feeding the machine or the club which empties it?

I’ll concede shared responsibility.

It’s blatant exploitation.

I’m generally of the opinion that fools deserved to be parted from their money, but I find con-men and scammers even less appealing than fools, so I’m all for getting rid of the bloody things.

What would Jesus do?

Diggety said :

Although I have big problems with poker machines and the people rolling them and emptying them, I believe we are letting the best opportunity to remind everyone of their choices in life.

Band-aids like this (presuming it works) don’t get to the root of the problem, IMO.

I certainly agree with the personal responsibility angle. In this context, though, it’s a little hard to accept when the clubs are very keen to bang on about all the good they do for the community while willingly and knowingly exploiting vulnerable members of the very community they say they are helping.

It’s a dirty little secret that everyone knows about but is too gutless to address. There was an opportunity to do something constructive about it and Gillard bottled it.

Shame.

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Yup, same reason I say we should either legalise the selling of Heroin and Ecstasy by ACT Clubs, or strongly regulate pokies and treat the Clubs a little more like we treat drug dealers.

Holden Caulfield said :

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Quite.

But who is the real addict here? The person feeding the machine or the club which empties it?

Although I have big problems with poker machines and the people rolling them and emptying them, I believe we are letting the best opportunity to remind everyone of their choices in life.

Band-aids like this (presuming it works) don’t get to the root of the problem, IMO.

Diggety said :

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Quite.

But who is the real addict here? The person feeding the machine or the club which empties it?

I’ll concede shared responsibility.

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

The Queanbeyan comment in the OP is very valid. The ACT is tiny geographically, so problem gamblers who reach their limit and want to keep on gambling are only minutes away from a jurisdiction where they don’t need to worry about the limit.

Yeah, but pokie addicts tend to have poor mobility, so that’s not so easy for them as it is for you or I.

They would only have “poor mobility” until the clubs in Queanbo laid on free buses of course …

Why the witch hunt on poker machines, when the pokie addicts are entirely to blame?

– Local pub shut down because of pokie competition? Addicts fault.
– Local music drowned out from poker machines? Addicts fault.
– Kids hungry because food money is being consumed by pokies? Addicts fault.
– Marriage breakdown from pokie related financial strain? Addicts fault.
– Mental health ailing due to pokie addiction? Addicts fault.

It’s called personal responsibility.

I read somewhere that WA only allows pokies in casinos, which seems sensible to me.

As a WA transplant, I was stunned at the level of influence the clubs have here and in NSW. The whole pokie thing is an absolute non-issue in the west, which I think is why I find the exploitation being practiced here to be particularly abhorrent.

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

The Queanbeyan comment in the OP is very valid. The ACT is tiny geographically, so problem gamblers who reach their limit and want to keep on gambling are only minutes away from a jurisdiction where they don’t need to worry about the limit.

Yeah, but pokie addicts tend to have poor mobility, so that’s not so easy for them as it is for you or I.

That is not completely true.

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

“The ACT Government will actively participate in a trial of mandatory pre-commitment if the Commonwealth Government and the clubs sector here in the ACT are able to reach agreement on the terms of a trial,” Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said.

Weak as piss.

What do you prefer, it be forced on us?

I’d prefer it if poker machines didn’t exist.

Jethro said :

The Queanbeyan comment in the OP is very valid. The ACT is tiny geographically, so problem gamblers who reach their limit and want to keep on gambling are only minutes away from a jurisdiction where they don’t need to worry about the limit.

Yeah, but pokie addicts tend to have poor mobility, so that’s not so easy for them as it is for you or I.

housebound said :

The latest news is that the ACT Clubs will get paid $36 million for their efforts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-22/pokies-fallout-deepens-as-trial-cost-revealed/3786972?section=act

Someone, anyone, please convince me this isn’t an indirect grant from the Federal Labor Government to ACT Labor in an ACT election year.

As for why the clubs need compensating for something they say will have no effect, well, that’s anybody’s guess.

It’s a truly huge amount of money isn’t it? Wonder what the $ per better ratio is?

I am stumped as to why the hell Julia Gillard doesn’t just get the hell on with making some damned decisions – you know: governing. Why set herself up for another year of cashed-up lobbying from vested interests??

As for the huge number the clubs were quoting as being the cost to upgrade the software in the machine – one analyst over the weekend broke that down to about $7500 per machine!

Honestly, if we’re at a point where something as (relatively) trivial as poker machine reform needs to be “taken to an election” then we might as well just pull up stumps on democracy and start looking for a good benevolent dictator.

Maybe Ive been living under a rock, but what is this pokie trial?

None of the linked articles seem to explain much other than “Commonwealth has indicated its desire to hold a trial of mandatory pre-commitment “.. and a whole lot of other buzzwords

chewy14 said :

Jethro said :

This whole thing is a victory for the interests of a greedy and vocal minority. The pokie reforms were never going to destroy the industry or local communities, just maybe limit their profits from people losing more than they can afford.

So clubs are a greedy and vocal minority?
Remind me how many parties ran on a pokie reform platform at the last election and how many votes they got?

“greedy” – putting your interests ahead of others – Check
“vocal” – loud – Check
“minority” – not representative of the majority – check (about 75% of people surveyed support some sort of reform on the matter)

I accept your point about it not being taken to an election, but considering the wide-spread support I don’t think it’s enough reason to counter my statement that a greedy and vocal minority won out over a common sense approach to something that causes massive social harm.

Can’t help but comment……
I lived in Scotland during the Thatcher years when they introduced the Poll Tax. It was trialled in Scotland…reason being…no-one voted Tory so it couldn’t hurt their electoral chances
Deja Vu … Gillard will introduce ‘pokie reforms’ in the ACT as we are not a marginal electorate … will have no effect on her re-election chances regardless of the outcome
However, Thatcher ignored the protests and it was only abolished once the rest of the UK took to the streets

That’s another half a million voters who’ll desert the federal Laboral Party at the next election.

Jethro said :

This whole thing is a victory for the interests of a greedy and vocal minority. The pokie reforms were never going to destroy the industry or local communities, just maybe limit their profits from people losing more than they can afford.

So clubs are a greedy and vocal minority?
Remind me how many parties ran on a pokie reform platform at the last election and how many votes they got?

I don’t know how anyone could be anything but cynical about this… and how much more cynical the rest of Australia would be if it realised how dominant clubs are in the ACT.

The Queanbeyan comment in the OP is very valid. The ACT is tiny geographically, so problem gamblers who reach their limit and want to keep on gambling are only minutes away from a jurisdiction where they don’t need to worry about the limit.

This whole thing is a victory for the interests of a greedy and vocal minority. The pokie reforms were never going to destroy the industry or local communities, just maybe limit their profits from people losing more than they can afford.

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

“The ACT Government will actively participate in a trial of mandatory pre-commitment if the Commonwealth Government and the clubs sector here in the ACT are able to reach agreement on the terms of a trial,” Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said.

Weak as piss.

This will be good for the ACT Labor Party owned Labor clubs who have been instrumental in swelling the coffers of its owner to over $40 million. I thought it was the late Kerry Packer who said “you can never have enough money”

What do you prefer, it be forced on us?

And here I was thinking we were meant to have self government, why are we going to be used as the guinea pig for these ridiculous restrictions?

housebound said :

As for why the clubs need compensating for something they say will have no effect, well, that’s anybody’s guess.

Because it will cost a bomb to install this system that can’t work.

Capping bets to $1 would be much more effective and much cheaper to implement. A week ago it sounded like they were leaning this way, but they’ve swung away again.

My tin-foil hat theory is that the mandatory pre-commitment scheme is less about limiting damage and more about tracking/identifying seriously heavy punters. To make any sense at all, it *has* to be identity-based. Check these names for black money/welfare cheating/etc.

housebound said :

The latest news is that the ACT Clubs will get paid $36 million for their efforts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-22/pokies-fallout-deepens-as-trial-cost-revealed/3786972?section=act

Someone, anyone, please convince me this isn’t an indirect grant from the Federal Labor Government to ACT Labor in an ACT election year.

As for why the clubs need compensating for something they say will have no effect, well, that’s anybody’s guess.

+1

The Labor club group have approx 10% share of the pokies. The Tradies have approx. another 10%, which indirectly means that the Fed’s are proping up ACT Labor with a $7m bonus… (assuming the CFMEU aren’t going hand out a significant proportion to the Raiders).

Holden Caulfield said :

“The ACT Government will actively participate in a trial of mandatory pre-commitment if the Commonwealth Government and the clubs sector here in the ACT are able to reach agreement on the terms of a trial,” Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said.

Weak as piss.

What do you prefer, it be forced on us?

And here I was thinking we were meant to have self government, why are we going to be used as the guinea pig for these ridiculous restrictions?

Isn’t it remarkable how the Gillard government has to pay out so much compensation to the victims of their policies. First The Greens’ carbon tax, now Wilkie’s pokies trial. What sort of “reform” is it if you have to keep paying compensation?

No wonder this country is broke.

The latest news is that the ACT Clubs will get paid $36 million for their efforts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-22/pokies-fallout-deepens-as-trial-cost-revealed/3786972?section=act

Someone, anyone, please convince me this isn’t an indirect grant from the Federal Labor Government to ACT Labor in an ACT election year.

As for why the clubs need compensating for something they say will have no effect, well, that’s anybody’s guess.

“The ACT Government will actively participate in a trial of mandatory pre-commitment if the Commonwealth Government and the clubs sector here in the ACT are able to reach agreement on the terms of a trial,” Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said.

Weak as piss.