Federal government proposes a ban on gambling advertisements during sport broadcasts

[R00StaR]

Yes well, and this is meant as constructively as possible, when looking at classic-liberalism, you can't just take one individual (the gambler) and ignore the rest. What about the child that grows up considerably poorer because his father is a problem gambler? Are that child's rights worth taking into consideration? Most would say "yes" and that would lead you to a ban on advertising... assuming the connection between advertising and increasing problem gambling is there (which of course it is, hence why they advertise so much).

No, its restricting the rights of others for the morons. Now im all for women killing their unborn if they wish, id assume you are to? But somehow those same people figure they must infringe on the rights of others because some moron cant withstand some advertising?

 

[R00StaR]

Gambling is stupid. I hope it passes.

I dont like man buns, they should be banned. I dont gamble much and barely notice the ads - im too busy watching the game. I dont mind the betting odds given on radio i like to know where the money is going (which i often ignore anyway) for my tipping.

 

[rippersnipper]

I dont like man buns, they should be banned. I dont gamble much and barely notice the ads - im too busy watching the game. I dont mind the betting odds given on radio i like to know where the money is going (which i often ignore anyway) for my tipping.

I would agree on man buns. Also rolled up jeans and nikes. Need to ban the s**t out of that too

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

IMO Something needs to be done. Self regulation was working fine for a while, but clearly the wheels have fallen off. The amount of gambling is ridiculous, kids now think in terms of $1.50 favourites, etc. A total ban I would support, but I would prefer a less draconian measure first.

When I was a kid, you knew who was favourite by reading the footy tips in the Herald Sun.

 

[discodaddy]

No, its restricting the rights of others for the morons. Now im all for women killing their unborn if they wish, id assume you are to? But somehow those same people figure they must infringe on the rights of others because some moron cant withstand some advertising?

Wow.

Look at an analogous situation. How many lives have been wrecked by tobacco? A countless number, no doubt. When governments finally acted in the interests of the nation instead of their political donors we saw advertising of tobacco stop. Then we had plain packaging. The result? Smoking numbers have been steadily decreasing. That benefits those people that now won't take up smoking and die, and it benefits all taxpayers who would otherwise be footing their (inevitable) medical bills.

Most reasonable-thinking people couldn't care less if someone wants to have a flutter - it's part of our national DNA. One cigarette won't ruin your life, nor will the occasional flutter. However, problem gambling is wrecking lives across the nation. The financial destruction then impacts people's health, not to mention it being a contributing factor to domestic violence.

So let's not play the "nanny state" card on this one. I hate living in a nanny state, but some things are more important. All pervasive gambling advertising is downright insidious - its is normalising gambling and wrecking lives.

Oh, and north eschewing gambling revenue is another reason I love this great club. Other so called "family clubs" are quite happy to rake in millions whilst quietly playing their hand in the ongoing destruction of some people's lives.

So get gambling advertising the * out my face. Get it out of my kid's faces.

 

[Dirty_11]

All these betting angencies are joke. As soon as the professional punters start winning off them regularly they ban them and refuse t take their bets. They feed off the weekend punter hence why they saturate the programming. Nathan Brown actually now sits at the table with Roosy, Dermie and co. on Fox Footy's League Teams and goes through the odds. That is s***house.

 

[Dirty_11]

Wow.

Look at an analogous situation. How many lives have been wrecked by tobacco? A countless number, no doubt. When governments finally acted in the interests of the nation instead of their political donors we saw advertising of tobacco stop. Then we had plain packaging. The result? Smoking numbers have been steadily decreasing. That benefits those people that now won't take up smoking and die, and it benefits all taxpayers who would otherwise be footing their (inevitable) medical bills.

Most reasonable-thinking people couldn't care less if someone wants to have a flutter - it's part of our national DNA. One cigarette won't ruin your life, nor will the occasional flutter. However, problem gambling is wrecking lives across the nation. The financial destruction then impacts people's health, not to mention it being a contributing factor to domestic violence.

So let's not play the "nanny state" card on this one. I hate living in a nanny state, but some things are more important. All pervasive gambling advertising is downright insidious - its is normalising gambling and wrecking lives.

Oh, and north eschewing gambling revenue is another reason I love this great club. Other so called "family clubs" are quite happy to rake in millions whilst quietly playing their hand in the ongoing destruction of some people's lives.

So get gambling adversities the **** out my face. Get it out of my kid's faces.

Great post. Gambling addiction is an issue with a loved one's ex-husband. The fallout and destructive trail it has left is huge. He started off a weekend punter.

On another note, I recently did a refurb of a popular RSL. It was one of the more difficult jobs I have done due to the fact that we could not interrupt the pokies, not for a minute such was the amount of money made. It was sad seeing the same people there waiting out the front until it opened just to get back on their favourite machine for the next 10 hours.

This is another reason I love our Club with the stance it has taken.

 

[archereleven]

If Perth had pokies it would also have The Highway, The Chelsea, Shents, Swannie, Mossie Park, The Globe, Rose, Fitzy, Federal, North Perth and what ever other pub has closed down since I've been gone.

You'd also have cheap schnities!

And a lot less Lotto adds!

Probably all got turned into apartment blocks and helped put Perths housing market into a downswing. Also, less pubs means the ones still open have better atmospheres? lol

Nothing is cheap in Perth and pokies arnt the reason why Parmas are dear. I remember paying $14 for a pint in Freo years ago. Some clowns still try and charge like the mining boom is still raging- pity half the city relocated once it finished(might have something to do with above too)

Lotto at least contributes some monies back into good causes but i cant really remember the lotto ads, maybe there were so many i blocked them out?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hawthorns 5 minute stay in the "BIG 4" is just about up

 

[Hojuman]

Never " got " gambling. Work too friggin hard to give it to the likes of Packer, Williams and some asian squillionaire for free.

Last time l looked they were flying around in their private jets to their private resorts with all their rich mates and big-boobed wifes / g.f.'s laughing and saying " people give us money for nothing.......SUCKERS " !

 

[ansonholt]

Nanny state arguments are often thrown around without justification or research. If something has a proven record of affecting people's lives negatively and the state can do something about it, often in a cost effective way, it should. There will always be those who claim their "rights" or "freedoms" are being restricted, and these claims are made without any following statement to describe how this is occurring and to what degree. I would like to put forward some evidence that "nanny state" claims are unhelpful at best, and destructive at worst.

Evidence #1: Examples of independent studies around the world that show that prevention works and saves money:
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (United States) (Clark et al., 2002)
• Empirical evaluation
• Timescale: 1 year
At the government level
• Cost: US$ 1.6 billion for programmes over 5 years
• Saving: US$ 14.8 billion in net averted social costs
At the individual level
• Cost: US$ 15.50 per woman
• Saving: US$ 159 per woman in averted costs of criminal victimization
School-based interventions to reduce bullying (United Kingdom) (Knapp et al., 2011)
• Modelling study
• Timescale: no fiite timescale
• Cost: £15.50 per pupil per year
• Saving: £1080 per pupil
Affordable warm housing: insulation and heating (United Kingdom) (CIEH, 2008)
• Investment of £251 million to reduce domestic impacts of excess cold
• Savings of £859 million (assuming full coverage) will result in a £608 million
return of savings to NHS (England)
• Return on investment within 0.3 years

The source for these cases, among many others, is the World Health Organisation.

Evidence #2: Editorial comment on the proposed (at the time) introduction of a Tuberculosis vaccine, whom virtually no-one would oppose these days:

‘It has interfered between parent and child, not only in imposing limitation on industrial uses of children, but also to the extent of requiring that children should not be left unvaccinated. It has interfered between employer and employed, to the extent of insisting, in the interest of the latter, that certain sanitary claims shall be fulfilled in all places of industrial occupation. It has interfered between vendor an purchaser; has put restrictions on the sale and purchase of poisons, has prohibited in certain cases certain commercial supplies of water, and has made it a public offence to sell adulterated food or drink or medicine, or to offer for sale any meat unfit for human food.
Its care for the treatment of disease has not been unconditionally limited to treating at the public expense such sickness as may accompany destitution: it has provided that in any sort of epidemic emergency organized medical assistance, not peculiarly for paupers, may be required of local authorities; and in the same spirit it requires that vaccination at the public cost shall be given gratuitously to every claimant.’
Eleventh Annual Report, 1868

Evidence #3: Australia's gambling obsession:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...-in-one-depressing-chart-20150901-gjd2w1.html

We need to do something. Claiming our rights are being infringed doesn't cut it.

 

[ferball]

No, its restricting the rights of others for the morons. Now im all for women killing their unborn if they wish, id assume you are to? But somehow those same people figure they must infringe on the rights of others because some moron cant withstand some advertising?

What rights are you talking about?

 

[ferball]

Great post. Gambling addiction is an issue with a loved one's ex-husband. The fallout and destructive trail it has left is huge. He started off a weekend punter.

On another note, I recently did a refurb of a popular RSL. It was one of the more difficult jobs I have done due to the fact that we could not interrupt the pokies, not for a minute such was the amount of money made. It was sad seeing the same people there waiting out the front until it opened just to get back on their favourite machine for the next 10 hours.

This is another reason I love our Club with the stance it has taken.

Pokies are electronic heroin. Literally.

FFS Pokie addicts are known to whinge about winning because it interrupts their trance.

 

[discomute]

Wow.

Look at an analogous situation. How many lives have been wrecked by tobacco? A countless number, no doubt. When governments finally acted in the interests of the nation instead of their political donors we saw advertising of tobacco stop. Then we had plain packaging. The result? Smoking numbers have been steadily decreasing. That benefits those people that now won't take up smoking and die, and it benefits all taxpayers who would otherwise be footing their (inevitable) medical bills.

Most reasonable-thinking people couldn't care less if someone wants to have a flutter - it's part of our national DNA. One cigarette won't ruin your life, nor will the occasional flutter. However, problem gambling is wrecking lives across the nation. The financial destruction then impacts people's health, not to mention it being a contributing factor to domestic violence.

So let's not play the "nanny state" card on this one. I hate living in a nanny state, but some things are more important. All pervasive gambling advertising is downright insidious - its is normalising gambling and wrecking lives.

Oh, and north eschewing gambling revenue is another reason I love this great club. Other so called "family clubs" are quite happy to rake in millions whilst quietly playing their hand in the ongoing destruction of some people's lives.

So get gambling adversities the **** out my face. Get it out of my kid's faces.

Yes a good post. I personally think the two best examples that are often in the media are: guns, and pr0n.

The right to own guns and the right to make pr0n are two things that classical liberalist (like me) would is part of your basic right.

Okay but what if it harms others? A lot people claim that:
a) Guns harms others (therefore infringing on the right to be safe and not be shot)
b) pr0n harms women (thereby infringing on the right for women to live in a sexist-free society)

To which, a classical liberalist (like me) will say "okay so show me the evidence"
I think the evidence is very clear on (a) and reasonably clear on (b)
a) Gun control works
b) pr0n does not harm women

Therefore I am in favour of gun control (not a total ban, I think Australia's current rules are pretty good) and no restrictions apart from classification for pr0n.

For me, it is pretty clear that gambling is much more like gun control. There is nothing wrong with it, but it does too much societal damage to be completely unrestricted. I would never want gambling banned. I occasionally bet through William Hill, usually on UFC or NBA. But I don't want children saturated with it to the extent they are now.

And I am very proud to be a member of a club that doesn't take money from it.

 

[astrovic]

The federal government is looking for ways to limit the amount of sports betting on free to air tv stations - http://www.theage.com.au/business/m...ut-down-freetoair-sports-20170420-gvosv1.html - although the AFL and other sporting bodies are working hard to ameliorate any proposed legislation - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...red-down-gambling-reform-20170420-gvp0wz.html.

I mention this because advertising revenue, including that from bookmakers, underpins the ability of tv stations to bid for the right to transmit sporting events, and hence bids up the value of broadcasting deals.

The AFL and broadcasters are locked into a six year agreement, so the AFL is fine for now. But it perhaps suggests that there might be an upper value to our broadcast deals, with all the potential flow on effects to the funding of clubs, player salaries and the promotion of the game at the grass roots.

Hmmm

There's an interesting point in here for North Melbourne IMO.

I've had the view for a while that Demetriou seemed to roll over surprisingly easily after Brayshaw got up at Dallas Brooks Hall and said the two letter word we all wanted to be said. When we said "no" to Gold Coast, he pretty much said "ok". Why? The bloke is as pig headed as Sam Newman makes for crap TV.

Seems to me the reason why is that keeping North in the comp made it easier for him to move to his next phase, which was bringing in GWS. If we went to Gold Coast, it would mean a 17 team comp and 8 games plus a bye each week. Whereas an 18 team comp means no bye, and importantly an extra game per week...which means more matches on TV...which means greater TV rights revenue...which revenue is underpinned substantially - more and more all the time - by the gambling industry.

I wouldn't be surprised if the additional TV rights revenue from having that extra game has pretty much paid for the costs and losses associated with propping up Gold Coast and GWS. Which would mean our decision to stay put has, after a fashion, paid for the existence of both those clubs.

Where I am going with this is that while North is proudly, and wonderfully, a no pokies club, we are also a club whose ability to fund its operations and reduce its debt and basically compete off field has relied on the disportionate AFL funding model that sees smaller clubs get more AFL money. AFL funding is pretty much generated from TV rights.

So...if the Federal chops the legs out of gambling advertising, it chops the legs out of advertising revenue for the TV stations, which means next TV rights negotiations we could see the stations turn the screws to reduce the amount paid for the TV rights, which shrinks AFL revenue, which puts the smaller clubs - Gold Coast (who let's face it are doomed anyway simply by virtue of being located in the sporting equivalent of Auschwitz) and GWS - under the most pressure, but then also puts us back under pressure as well.

So while I am all for making gambling advertising disappear completely - I have no need nor time for it, and it adds nothing to society - I am conscious of what that could mean for us. As proud and fierce as we are, right now the AFL is working with us cos it has loads of cash to do so, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would hate to see that cash dry up and the pressure right back on our survival again.

I'd like to think that I'm just being doom and gloom here, but I reckon when a club has been through what ours has been through, we can't ignore these kinds of things. Not that we can do much about influencing government policy, but we also can't afford to assume that policy won't affect us.

 

[ferball]

No, its restricting the rights of others for the morons. Now im all for women killing their unborn if they wish, id assume you are to? But somehow those same people figure they must infringe on the rights of others because some moron cant withstand some advertising?

Also

Kids watch footy on telly.

Those kids aren't "some moron(s)" they are people with brains that haven't developed the same resilience and critical thinking skills that adults are sposed to have developed.

So basically if some betting company campaigner is whinging about having their right to brainwash vulnerable children into thinking gambling is an essential part of football interfered with they can FOAD.

 

[ferball]

Hmmm

There's an interesting point in here for North Melbourne IMO.

I've had the view for a while that Demetriou seemed to roll over surprisingly easily after Brayshaw got up at Dallas Brooks Hall and said the two letter word we all wanted to be said. When we said "no" to Gold Coast, he pretty much said "ok". Why? The bloke is as pig headed as Sam Newman makes for crap TV.

Seems to me the reason why is that keeping North in the comp made it easier for him to move to his next phase, which was bringing in GWS. If we went to Gold Coast, it would mean a 17 team comp and 8 games plus a bye each week. Whereas an 18 team comp means no bye, and importantly an extra game per week...which means more matches on TV...which means greater TV rights revenue...which revenue is underpinned substantially - more and more all the time - by the gambling industry.

I wouldn't be surprised if the additional TV rights revenue from having that extra game has pretty much paid for the costs and losses associated with propping up Gold Coast and GWS. Which would mean our decision to stay put has, after a fashion, paid for the existence of both those clubs.

Where I am going with this is that while North is proudly, and wonderfully, a no pokies club, we are also a club whose ability to fund its operations and reduce its debt and basically compete off field has relied on the disportionate AFL funding model that sees smaller clubs get more AFL money. AFL funding is pretty much generated from TV rights.

So...if the Federal chops the legs out of gambling advertising, it chops the legs out of advertising revenue for the TV stations, which means next TV rights negotiations we could see the stations turn the screws to reduce the amount paid for the TV rights, which shrinks AFL revenue, which puts the smaller clubs - Gold Coast (who let's face it are doomed anyway simply by virtue of being located in the sporting equivalent of Auschwitz) and GWS - under the most pressure, but then also puts us back under pressure as well.

So while I am all for making gambling advertising disappear completely - I have no need nor time for it, and it adds nothing to society - I am conscious of what that could mean for us. As proud and fierce as we are, right now the AFL is working with us cos it has loads of cash to do so, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would hate to see that cash dry up and the pressure right back on our survival again.

I'd like to think that I'm just being doom and gloom here, but I reckon when a club has been through what ours has been through, we can't ignore these kinds of things. Not that we can do much about influencing government policy, but we also can't afford to assume that policy won't affect us.

That is a good post.

My first thought is - maybe if non stop promoting of gambling across the community is the cost of having a footy club then that cost might be too high? That would be a part of the thinking behind us not having pokies. (Frankly one of the things that shits me about phone gambling to a small extent and pokies to a huge one is that every other form of gambling has some social aspect to it. Even gambling on sport does cos you have to interact with the outside world to know what to bet on. There was an ad last year for one gambling company that basically structured the ad in a way that ... its hard to explain but using their app would block out the rest of the world in a similar manner to pokies.)

How many clubs lose members or potential members because of problem gambling and members/potential members being unable to afford the cost of a membership or unwilling to spend spare money on it cos they could blow it on pokies or phone apps? Maybe its not an issue, i honestly don't know.

What are we prepared to sell to guarantee our future?

I guess the reality is right now we are ok but we should always assume the AFL is out to get us. The only real protection against that is supporter engagement and building membership.

 

[R00StaR]

Also

Kids watch footy on telly.

Those kids aren't "some moron(s)" they are people with brains that haven't developed the same resilience and critical thinking skills that adults are sposed to have developed.

So basically if some betting company campaigner is whinging about having their right to brainwash vulnerable children into thinking gambling is an essential part of football interfered with they can FOAD.

Happy for gambling to be restricted to 18 and above. Are you suggesting the only products that can be advertised are those that can be used by children?

 

[ferball]

Happy for gambling to be restricted to 18 and above. Are you suggesting the only products that can be advertised are those that can be used by children?

I'm suggesting that children cannot deal with advertising the way adults are supposed to be able to. Therefore when children are exposed to a product like gambling in any of its forms they will be more vulnerable to uncritical acceptance of the messages in those adds. Football is a tv product that all children are exposed to so during and the hour before and after that advertising should be limited or completely removed.

Advertising is a powerful thing. The uncritical acceptance of gambling by the AFL at the moment combined with very sophisticated advertising and the saturation of gambling thru most pre game discussion makes gambling seem not just normalised (that's fine most people gamble "normally") but integral to football. That is the problem.

Anyway you said your rights were being infringed by a ban on gambling ads. How?

 

[CrazyQ]

Hmmm

There's an interesting point in here for North Melbourne IMO.

I've had the view for a while that Demetriou seemed to roll over surprisingly easily after Brayshaw got up at Dallas Brooks Hall and said the two letter word we all wanted to be said. When we said "no" to Gold Coast, he pretty much said "ok". Why? The bloke is as pig headed as Sam Newman makes for crap TV.

Seems to me the reason why is that keeping North in the comp made it easier for him to move to his next phase, which was bringing in GWS. If we went to Gold Coast, it would mean a 17 team comp and 8 games plus a bye each week. Whereas an 18 team comp means no bye, and importantly an extra game per week...which means more matches on TV...which means greater TV rights revenue...which revenue is underpinned substantially - more and more all the time - by the gambling industry.

I wouldn't be surprised if the additional TV rights revenue from having that extra game has pretty much paid for the costs and losses associated with propping up Gold Coast and GWS. Which would mean our decision to stay put has, after a fashion, paid for the existence of both those clubs.

Where I am going with this is that while North is proudly, and wonderfully, a no pokies club, we are also a club whose ability to fund its operations and reduce its debt and basically compete off field has relied on the disportionate AFL funding model that sees smaller clubs get more AFL money. AFL funding is pretty much generated from TV rights.

So...if the Federal chops the legs out of gambling advertising, it chops the legs out of advertising revenue for the TV stations, which means next TV rights negotiations we could see the stations turn the screws to reduce the amount paid for the TV rights, which shrinks AFL revenue, which puts the smaller clubs - Gold Coast (who let's face it are doomed anyway simply by virtue of being located in the sporting equivalent of Auschwitz) and GWS - under the most pressure, but then also puts us back under pressure as well.

So while I am all for making gambling advertising disappear completely - I have no need nor time for it, and it adds nothing to society - I am conscious of what that could mean for us. As proud and fierce as we are, right now the AFL is working with us cos it has loads of cash to do so, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would hate to see that cash dry up and the pressure right back on our survival again.

I'd like to think that I'm just being doom and gloom here, but I reckon when a club has been through what ours has been through, we can't ignore these kinds of things. Not that we can do much about influencing government policy, but we also can't afford to assume that policy won't affect us.

Frankly, I'd see this club die a thousand times over than a family being broken up.

 

[RobZombie]

So wat?

There are more pressing issues.

I propose "A Bill to remove BT from AFL Ch 7 Friday night games."

And for related purposes.

 

[R00StaR]

Wow.

Look at an analogous situation. How many lives have been wrecked by tobacco? A countless number, no doubt. When governments finally acted in the interests of the nation instead of their political donors we saw advertising of tobacco stop. Then we had plain packaging. The result? Smoking numbers have been steadily decreasing. That benefits those people that now won't take up smoking and die, and it benefits all taxpayers who would otherwise be footing their (inevitable) medical bills.

Most reasonable-thinking people couldn't care less if someone wants to have a flutter - it's part of our national DNA. One cigarette won't ruin your life, nor will the occasional flutter. However, problem gambling is wrecking lives across the nation. The financial destruction then impacts people's health, not to mention it being a contributing factor to domestic violence.

So let's not play the "nanny state" card on this one. I hate living in a nanny state, but some things are more important. All pervasive gambling advertising is downright insidious - its is normalising gambling and wrecking lives.

Oh, and north eschewing gambling revenue is another reason I love this great club. Other so called "family clubs" are quite happy to rake in millions whilst quietly playing their hand in the ongoing destruction of some people's lives.

So get gambling advertising the **** out my face. Get it out of my kid's faces.

Ahh yes ban this or that because it good for the tax payer/ collective. Only 60% of Australians pay no net tax, so we're not really interested in the tax payer here, but most of already knew that because theres so many other things we could do if the tax payer was any concern what so ever.

Heres a radical idea, instead of trying to control everyone like some crazed religious cult how about giving everyone a voucher that covers basic medical. Take it off to your insurance company where the smoker would have to pay a higher premium.

Funny i was listening to SEN radio one day and they discussed if we should force fat people live healthy, of course for the benefit of the tax payer lol. Fortunately they begrudging decided theres nothing they can do about it. But even listening to people considering this line of thinking is very troubling, i wanted to call in and say YES comrades lets send to a fat gulag where we'll keep them active and minimize their calorie intake.

There are other ways rather than stamping on the rights or forcing others to pay for other people's f'ups. Yes a safety net is great, but it must promote personal responsibility or it simply subsidize the unhealthy. You know what you get when you subsidize things? You get more of it. Funnily enough the voucher system healthcare would reward those who drink sensibly, dont take drugs, those who losing weight, eating healthy, exercise and so on. That would save the tax payer serious money without the need to coerce people into living how the religious collectivist zealots feel they should, without infringing their rights.

 

[Phillyroo]

If Perth had pokies it would also have The Highway, The Chelsea, Shents, Swannie, Mossie Park, The Globe, Rose, Fitzy, Federal, North Perth and what ever other pub has closed down since I've been gone.

You'd also have cheap schnities!

And a lot less Lotto adds!

A pokies pub is a ****ed pub!

 

[koshari]

All these betting angencies are joke. As soon as the professional punters start winning off them regularly they ban them and refuse t take their bets. They feed off the weekend punter hence why they saturate the programming. Nathan Brown actually now sits at the table with Roosy, Dermie and co. on Fox Footy's League Teams and goes through the odds. That is s***house.

You do realise that they are businesses?

 

[astrovic]

Frankly, I'd see this club die a thousand times over than a family being broken up.

Unfortunately it's not an either/or situation. Whether we like it or not, people are still going to gamble on footy matches, the AFL will still accept money from gambling houses (directly or indirectly) and some of that money will find its way to North, directly or indirectly.

What I'm concerned about is the effect that a decrease in the money paid by gambling houses will have on North's bottom line, and whether we are prepared for that possibility, rather than being caught unawares if it does happen.

Personally, I would like to see it happen. I'd like to see pokies and gambling advertising banned overnight. In part cos I'd like to see the supporters of quite a few big name clubs who rejoice in their wealth and sneer down their noses at our finances, suddenly discover that a house built on gambling revenue has shaky foundations. I'd enjoy that. Not as much as I'd enjoy seeing the removal of the cancer that are pokies from our society, but I'd get a healthy dose of schadenfreude nonetheless.