Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

The Give Money To The ALP pokie plan rides again

By johnboy - 22 May 2012 18

The National Times has the word that Andrew Wilkie has made peace with the Gillard Government (they need his vote again) and the precommitment trial is going to roll next year.

The government’s watered down bill will require all new poker machines to have precommitment technology from 2013, with all machines to have the technology from 2016. It will not be mandatory for players to use.

A trial of a scheme forcing punters to preset how much they are willing to lose will be held in the ACT, with plans for it to begin next year.

The National Times understands Mr Wilkie is now happy with amendments to the bill including that the trial will be in the legislation. He and the government had been locked in a stand-off over the wording of some clauses.

We presume that the compensation for potential lost revenues to the clubs has been retained, which is a clever way for taxpayer dollars to wind up in the Labor Party via the Tradies and Labor Clubs.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
18 Responses to
The Give Money To The ALP pokie plan rides again
shirty_bear 9:54 am 10 Oct 12

Pre-commitment can’t work – there’s too many ways around it without making it unacceptably intrusive. There only needs to be one, of course, but it’s *such* a dumb idea that there are numerous.

Wilkie either (a) doesn’t understand, or (b) is an idiot. Or both.

The only simple way to cut pokie turnover is to cap maximum bet size. Slowing them down wouldn’t hurt.

This is glaringly obvious, yet the pre-commitment gibber rolls on. It’s a dog and pony show.

Masquara 11:08 pm 09 Oct 12

Now that Peter Slipper has resigned, presumably the odious Gillard will eat crow and head cap-in-hand for Andrew Wilkie’s office? And Andrew Wilkie may get the pokies trial up after all?

p1 12:17 pm 23 May 12

Thumper said :

As I’ve said on numerous ocassions, there is only one way to be sure….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogj5ztTE0zw

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD-zGIJkbY

It’s the only way to be sure.

Thumper 11:29 am 23 May 12

As I’ve said on numerous ocassions, there is only one way to be sure….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogj5ztTE0zw

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD-zGIJkbY

p1 10:56 am 23 May 12

dvaey said :

Gamblers will now have the ability to ‘preset how much they are willing to lose’? … What if they change their mind, do they have to move to another machine, or a different venue?

I think the real issue is that you can pre-set your maximum loss at $100k…

dvaey said :

….if they have a $200 win are they allowed to reset the limit and try again?

Now *that* is an interesting idea. If you pre-set your loss at $20, you should only be able to loose that much in any bets, regardless of any money you win. So you can’t win $10k then feed it all back in. I bet the clubs would protest *that* rule.

Thumper 8:22 am 23 May 12

Wilkie again shows that he is indeed the man of steel.

Well, solder maybe…

dvaey 11:59 pm 22 May 12

A trial of a scheme forcing punters to preset how much they are willing to lose will be held in the ACT, with plans for it to begin next year.

Gamblers will now have the ability to ‘preset how much they are willing to lose’? So, if a gambler is only willing to lose $10, and they stick a 20 in, will it reject it? It seems a bit pointless to allow someone to insert whatever money they want, then nominate how much they want to lose. What if they change their mind, do they have to move to another machine, or a different venue? What if someone presets that their loss limit is $10, if they have a $200 win are they allowed to reset the limit and try again?

Myles Peterson 4:37 pm 22 May 12

Hey JB, if you want to link a Fairfax yarn in the most user friendly manner, whack ?skin=text-only on the end of the URL.

Gives the text only version for any page, which is the friendliest across all platforms and saves those with mobile devices from chewing up their download limit. Especially useful for those pages that keep auto-refreshing themselves ie all of them.

screaming banshee 4:19 pm 22 May 12

Because in such a small area with the pokies tightly held it is much easier to nudge the results in the direction desired by said whats is name

Tool 4:08 pm 22 May 12

This is just plain stupid, how many problem pokie gamblers are in the ACT? Does this equate to the $60 million the trial is somewhat going to cost?

Clubs ACT are playing along with this charade because they stand to gain, the government has assured them compensation throughout the trial to ensure they are not out of pocket, plus they get most likely all new machines at Government expense so they can cater for the upgraded technology – a total sham. This money could be far better spent elsewhere particularly when money is meant to be tight. If you are going to do it, do it properly and don’t compensate the clubs, make them experience what will really happen and suffer financial loss and see how ‘happy’ everyone is for this to roll out.

It also demonstrates how Wilkie’s bark is far worse than his bite, perhaps the reality finally hit him that if he pulls his vote Abbott will be PM, Julia should call his bluff and scrap this.

MERC600 4:02 pm 22 May 12

I don’t quite understand why the spokesman for the ACT clubs , Mr whats is name, is so keen to do this trial here. Why ain’t it being done in Tassie. I mean that’s where Wilkie now hangs his hat. And no problems about disgruntled pokie players driving their car across the border to escape the trial.

SnapperJack 3:46 pm 22 May 12

Quangers here we come …

p1 2:44 pm 22 May 12

Dilandach said :

I would have just told them to flap off. They screwed him over before, they’ll predictably do it again.

Disappointed in Wilkie, he’s rewarding bad behaviour. How are they supposed to learn if they go back on something there are consequences?

Yup, Wilkie should have offered them double or nothing. Taking them back like he has just smacks of an abusive relationship.

Dilandach 1:57 pm 22 May 12

I would have just told them to flap off. They screwed him over before, they’ll predictably do it again.

Disappointed in Wilkie, he’s rewarding bad behaviour. How are they supposed to learn if they go back on something there are consequences?

p1 1:52 pm 22 May 12

This is a great idea. And since I am not willing to loose any money, it will totally stop me gambling.

I assume lie detector tests will be administered during the “pre-commitment” stage?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site