Discussion on SEN: Pokie revenue

[StrappingTape]

Just another thing for the wowsers to whinge about. If it isn't pokies then these people would be at the casino all the time, if not at the casino then it would be online slots or gambling these days. Gambling has always been a problem it's just that before the people would do it all the time at the casino or somewhere else but now they can do it in many places you can see them people notice it more. So, I'm all for keeping the pokies in the club and getting more so that the 99% of people who use them normally can enjoy a flutter or two if they feel like it with a few beers.

 

[Dobie G]

Those who have no objection to Pokies should go the whole hog with free choice and be more like the Americans. Let's start with no government control by doing away with consumer affairs, centrelink, medibank, minimum wage laws, OHS, environmental considerations, traffic rules, the police, fire brigade, ambulances, gun controls and drug laws.
No taxes and laisse faire rules.

 

[PepeSilvia]

In my opinion, the solution isn't to get rid of all pokie machines, but rather to regulate the use of the machines. It's the same with basically anything considered dangerous/risky.

 

[raman]

Those who have no objection to Pokies should go the whole hog with free choice and be more like the Americans. Let's start with no government control by doing away with consumer affairs, centrelink, medibank, minimum wage laws, OHS, environmental considerations, traffic rules, the police, fire brigade, ambulances, gun controls and drug laws.
No taxes and laisse faire rules.

Why?

I don't feel the slightest bit of internal conflict being pro-pokies (or more accurately, anti banning pokies) and still being in favour of almost everything else you listed. I'm entirely pro-regulation, I just want that regulation to be sensible.

Also, LOL @ your implication that Americans are somehow anti drug laws.

 

[Dobie G]

Why?

I don't feel the slightest bit of internal conflict being pro-pokies (or more accurately, anti banning pokies) and still being in favour of almost everything else you listed. I'm entirely pro-regulation, I just want that regulation to be sensible.

Also, LOL @ your implication that Americans are somehow anti drug laws.

The point is you either want government control or not?
The argument that Pokies are a free choice should be extended to all other things being a free choice.

 

[raman]

The point is you either want government control or not?
The argument that Pokies are a free choice should be extended to all other things being a free choice.

What a load of absolute(ist) poppycock! What a simple, black and white world you must live in.

 

[Jim Dixon]

What a load of absolute(ist) poppycock! What a simple, black and white world you must live in.

I live in a simple black, white and teal world

I don't know the answer to pokies, I just hate the impact that they have on people.

 

[Dobie G]

What a load of absolute(ist) poppycock! What a simple, black and white world you must live in.

You haven't answered the question.
Are you in favour of government control or not?
It seems it's ok for consumer rights and minimum wages but not ok for protecting the vulnerable against the pokies. Is that right?

Addendum; Absolutely Yes, living in a black and white world of Port Adelaide

 

[Killer Power]

Just another thing....

Even a basic level of research would have shown you how wrong you are. More thorough studies have taken place in states outside of SA but I'm confident in drawing paralells.

Just another thing for the wowsers to whinge about.

A study in Vic showed that 67% believed that pokies were too accessible and 75% believe they do more harm than good. That's a lot of wowsers.

If it isn't pokies then these people would be at the casino all the time, if not at the casino then it would be online slots or gambling these days. Gambling has always been a problem it's just that before the people would do it all the time at the casino or somewhere else but now they can do it in many places you can see them people notice it more.

A comparitive study between Vic (have pokies) and WA (no pokies outside of casino) showed the average gambling loss in Vic at $1133 for every adult in the state vs $460 per adult in WA
The problem gambling rate in Vic is three times that in WA
In Vic 25% of all ATM access occurs in hotels and clubs vs 14% in WA
In Vic 86% of people seeking financial counselling for gambling reasons are pokie related vs only 18% in WA
In SA 34% of all people seeking financial counselling are problem pokie gamblers and this demographic is highly female.
In fact 90% of females who are problem gamblers use pokies primarily. The proportion of females being treated for problem gambling in SA was 10% of the total prior to the introduction of pokies here, it is now as high as 60% of those being treated.
And SA has more venues with pokies than Vic despite a large population difference.

And as for the assertion that 99% of people play them with no ill effect, simply not true. In fact 40% of all losses come from problem gamblers with each losing upward of $20k per annum. And 1 in 6 people who play regularly will become problem gamblers, much much more than your 1%.

Happy to provide my sources when you do for the claims you made.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Have been looking at the CBA and share of revenue the players got from the 2007-11 TV deal period to 2012-16 TV deal period on the Footy Industry board. The AFLPA produced a summary of the CBA for the players called Your CBA - A Snapshot. I noticed the following at the end of the 2 page document.

http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFLPA067_Wellbeing_Program_Factsheet_WEB.pdf

8. Ensuring Players Share in Growth of the Game

• The package of player benefits contained in the new CBA are forecast to deliver players approximately 25% of industry revenue (excluding club gaming revenues and government facility grants).

• However, as the players contribute to the growth of the game, this needs to be captured moving forward and under the new deal this is designed to occur in two ways:

» Profit sharing method to ensure players receive a share of AFL net profit above forecast
» A genuine review mechanism at three years incorporating incentives for both parties to reach agreement.

http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFLPA067_Wellbeing_Program_Factsheet_WEB.pdf

 

[Killer Power]

In my opinion, the solution isn't to get rid of all pokie machines, but rather to regulate the use of the machines. It's the same with basically anything considered dangerous/risky.

Agree if by "regulate use" you also include a reduction of accessibility. There is absolutely no need to have machines within walking distance for around 90% of the population in our state.

 

[raman]

You haven't answered the question.

That's because it was a deliberately stupid question. At least I hope it was deliberate.

Are you in favour of government control or not?

I already said I was pro-regulation. I believe I even elaborated that I preferred that regulation to be sensible.

It seems it's ok for consumer rights and minimum wages but not ok for protecting the vulnerable against the pokies. Is that right?

Yes, that's my opinion.

Addendum; Absolutely Yes, living in a black and white world of Port Adelaide

I'll concede that black and white was a poor choice of metaphor in this instance.

 

[raman]

I don't know the answer to pokies, I just hate the impact that they have on people.

I agree if you're talking about the impact of the infernal racket, but most venues are finding ways to tone that down these days anyway.

If you're talking about people losing money, I put that down to people having an impact on themselves.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In my opinion, the solution isn't to get rid of all pokie machines, but rather to regulate the use of the machines. It's the same with basically anything considered dangerous/risky.

Once the genie is out of the bottle you wont get it back in. State governments are addicted to pokie revenue except WA - who according to the pokies thread on the footy industry - are the biggest gamblers in the world on lotteries. See story here. A cut and paste of a couple of things i wrote about how state governments have become hooked on pokies revenue.

Blame section 51 of the constitution and state governments handing over income taxing power to the commonwealth for WWII and not getting them back. The states have to provide most of the services, but don't have the taxing powers, the feds give them tied grants so they don't have freedom, the high court decision of 1996-97 taxing away excerise duties from states and you have this massive Vertical Fiscal imbalance. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_imbalance_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_96_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Yes the states can introduce income taxes but none of them will do it as income taxes are high enough and you will see business and individuals move out of the state.

So the state governments have gone on these gambling binges. In the 1950's NSW issued pokies for the Leagues clubs partly as a way to raise some revenue but also to build community clubs.

In the 1980's and 1990's the rest of the states in dire financial straits first let in casinos and then gaming machines as a way to bring in new revenue. They were hungry for new revenue streams. And whilst the GST all goes back to the states and isn't tied, has helped, state governments are still on a gaming binge as they spend money on the most expensive of government services - health and education. Its why Packer can ram thru his Casino - we are bring jobs and tax revenues to the state - it will only be for the wealthy gamblers - but 10 years down the track they will want gaming machines as they can't survive without them.

Until Section 51 of the constitution and the tax powers are fixed up and brought into balance, this state government binge on gaming machines will continue.
======
Who is the target? Once the entitlements/machines are issued, then its bad luck how the licence holders use them. If the foundations are weak then they wont survive a good shake when the earthquake comes. The foundations of our federation re vertical fiscal imbalance are poor so the state governments wont stop issuing gaming entitlements.

And if you look at it, state treasury departments don't care if problem gamblers lose a shit load. If someone loses $500k and then loses their house, then that means the state government would have got probably $200k of that lose thru gaming taxes, the house has to be sold so that means more stamp duty revenue, but they don't have to pay any dole payments, Centrelink ie the feds pay all these other assistance package and charities get involved and help out the individual who has lost his life. So where is the incentive for the state government to stop this happening???

Until you get state governments off their addiction to gaming taxes and gaming revenues because the feds have not properly addressed the vertical fiscal imbalance issue, then the problems will continue. When those fundamentals have been fixed, maybe state governments will start to buy back gaming entitlements.

 

[Concussion]

I agree if you're talking about the impact of the infernal racket, but most venues are finding ways to tone that down these days anyway.

If you're talking about people losing money, I put that down to people having an impact on themselves.

Yes, people have to be accountable for their actions but the government can and should place controls on the machines to slow them down and reduce the losses.

 

[Killer Power]

If you're talking about people losing money, I put that down to people having an impact on themselves.

Except that the issue was brought onto them by the government in the first place (as REH has just shown) and the impact is not on only a few. Around 25% of our population is adversely impacted directly (problem gamblers themselves plus effected family etc) as a result of pokies. They were brought in as a result of self interest despite the mountains of evidence available of the impact they would have on society. While it may be too late to ban them we should at least look to reduce the impact they are having. Instead we allow online gambling to establish unabated and the younger generation are flocking to it. I can only see gambling issues becoming worse over the next decade.

 

[StrappingTape]

Those same people who you want the government to save from themselves can easily bet a shitload more on horses or through sportsbet etc than they can in a minute through the pokies in seconds. People would just move from one source of gambling to the next, I would hazard that most people who piss away money on the pokies uncontrollably are not unfamiliar with other forms of gambling. If you are going to ban pokies you would have to ban all forms of gambling but to me it's akin to banning drinking because some people become alcoholics. Personal responsibility people, everyone wants to blame someone else these days for problems of their own doing.

 

[StrappingTape]

Killer Power, your situation does indeed suck and I do feel bad for you. Can I ask you this, do you think if pokies never existed and she was sitting around at home bored, is it possible she may have become addicted to online pokies or betting on horses or sports to pass the time?

 

[raman]

Except that the issue was brought onto them by the government in the first place (as REH has just shown) and the impact is not on only a few.

That's only true if you view banned or restricted pokies as the preferred status quo in the first place.

 

[Killer Power]

Killer Power, your situation does indeed suck and I do feel bad for you. Can I ask you this, do you think if pokies never existed and she was sitting around at home bored, is it possible she may have become addicted to online pokies or betting on horses or sports to pass the time?

Not on horses, had no interest. Online gaming yes (and there was some evidence she had been doing so). Research has already shown females are drawn to online gambling because of the anonymity. In SA since its peak in 2007, pokie revenue has dropped by 10% with experts believing this has transferred to online forms.

 

[Killer Power]

That's only true if you view banned or restricted pokies as the preferred status quo in the first place.

No. It is true because the facts are established. Pokies were not here prior to 1995 and were introduced by a state government hungry for revenue, despite strong case studies on the likely impacts. And the impact they have had is there to clearly see for anyone who wished to take an unbiased look. The state introduced the issue and has a responsibility to manage the risk better than they have in my opinion.

 

[Killer Power]

Those same people who you want the government to save from themselves can easily bet a shitload more on horses or through sportsbet etc than they can in a minute through the pokies in seconds. People would just move from one source of gambling to the next, I would hazard that most people who piss away money on the pokies uncontrollably are not unfamiliar with other forms of gambling. If you are going to ban pokies you would have to ban all forms of gambling but to me it's akin to banning drinking because some people become alcoholics. Personal responsibility people, everyone wants to blame someone else these days for problems of their own doing.

Did you even read my post on the case study between WA and Vic?? There are no facts to support what you are saying here. If you think otherwise then provide them.

 

[raman]

No. It is true because the facts are established. Pokies were not here prior to 1995 and were introduced by a state government hungry for revenue, despite strong case studies on the likely impacts.

I'm not denying any of that. But until you show me a hospitality worker or a government official holding a gun to a gambler's head insisting that they feed those coins into the machine, then the social and economic fallout you refer to takes a backseat to personal and commercial freedoms, in my view.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I don't think this argument is really relevant to the thread. There's a difference between wanting the government to stamp out pokie machines and wanting your football club to find a less harmful revenue stream. I don't think cigarettes should be criminalised, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna start selling them myself.

 

[Killer Power]

I'm not denying any of that. But until you show me a hospitality worker or a government official holding a gun to a gambler's head insisting that they feed in those coins into the machine, then the social and economic fallout you refer to takes a backseat to personal and commercial freedoms, in my view.

No one holds a gun to a meth addicts head either. Perhaps if it were legalised the government could tax it. Sure it has an associated medical and societal impact but freedom is freedom and we could sure use the money when we need to fund our post Holden recovery. The only difference here is one is a socially acceptable vice while the other is not. A government is responsible formaking decisions for the betterment of the electorate they represent. The net result of allowing pokies into this state has been anything but.