I don’t much like poker machines. (I’m more of an Xbox 360 fan.)
Not for a moment do I think that my own preferences should necessarily dictate what other people do for fun or a flutter.
However, most thinking Tasmanians agree that we’re way off track with pokies in casinos, pubs and clubs. I venture the opinion that most if not all families in this state have been somehow negatively affected by someone who has been ensnared by these suburban gambling machines. I doubt the cost to the community in damaged lives, ruined careers and broken families can ever be calculated.
Yes, we can all agree that there should be limits set. So the question is: just where should that line be drawn?
A quick bit of history: In 2003 this compromised, tired Labor government generously and secretly signed up Federal Hotels to extend its licence:
For 20 years to 2023 (based on a 15 year renewal of the agreement due to expire in 2008)
Total number of machines set at 3680 for the state (one for every 84 people of gambling age, one of the highest of any region in the world). source, James Boyce
For this FAQ I will disregard financial returns to the state – except to point out that there is significant evidence that the Labor government, while thoroughly addicted to gambling revenue, allowed the state to get ripped off.
My position is negative toward pokies because of the harm I know they cause to the Tasmanian people and their special design features to prey on human vulnerability. Is taking food off the family table really the best way to build our state revenues?
Fair enough, not all pokie players are problem gamblers but our approach as a community should be mindful that many users are completely lost in a false reality and unable to pull themselves out.
I want to see pokies scaled back over time – no later than the current expiry date of 2023. They should be removed from small suburban venues where they prey on human weakness in secret atmospheres and certainly restricted to the two casinos. I’ve also got some ideas on introducing accountability for users to “protect me from myself”.
I’m very heartened by Will Hodgman who has put poker machines and concerns about problem gambling on the Liberals’ agenda in 2009, and he has committed to act, and will consult with all stakeholders, to work out a better outcome for the Tasmanian community.
All this can and should be done in such a way that has regard for the financial viability of pubs and clubs.
But let’s remember: when we’re choosing the right policy settings, the people we should be most concerned for are … ourselves.
Michael,
I strongly agree with you. Unfortunately,it will be necessary to frighten the Federal Hotels horse. The Tasmanian Government has difficulty standing up to big companies. Political parties like donations.
We really need to assess the true value of pokies to the state’s economy and society. Would we be any worse off if we had no pokies? We may benefit more if people disposed of their money in some other way.
Playing the pokies is an addiction which defies common sense.
I must go now Michael. I feel the urgent need to play solitaire on the computer.
Graeme
I loathe the pokies. They add nothing to the mood of a club or the sociability of its visitors. In many cases they’ve replaced live entertainment. And while I hestitate to use The Simpsons as a source of ethics, the following quote has stuck in my mind. It’s where Monty Burns decides to open a casino…
Smithers: Sir, you haven’t slept since the casino opened five days ago.
Burns: Yeah, well, I’ve discovered the perfect business: people swarm in, empty their pockets, and scuttle off.
Thanks Graeme and Kenneth. I appreciate your comments. The fact is, the biggest addict of all is our own Tasmanian Government. A shame that during our prosperous years we didn’t take the opportunity to take some positive steps. It will instead fall to the next government (which I want to be a part of) to grasp the nettle and make the hard decisions that are really in the best long term interests of Tasmanians.
Please think about this question: what technological / policy improvements can improve the way these machines are used (or people are used) in the meantime? I’ve thought of a few but would like to cast my ideas net wide. Please discuss with your friends and feedback to me.
Michael.
It’s certainly a difficult question to answer. Firstly I should say that I am personally not a pokie fan and may lose around $40 a year on those stupid machines. Having said that, while I do feel there needs to be a scale back in the number of pokies in the state,I don’t feel that pokies should be limited to the two casino’s.
I do however have two ideas that I will throw out there to help limit the damage that they cause to people’s lives. The first is to ban the automatic change machines, particularly in the smaller venues. It’s all too easy to put a $50 through a machine and get the money back in $1 coins. At least make them go up and see a real person if they want to convert some more money. Secondarily, correct me if I’m wrong, apart from the occasional sticker giving a number to ring for people who feel they have a gambling problem, there is really not the level of advertisement against the adverse affects of using this product, as say, cigarettes receive on the back of their packs. How bout mandating that full sized colour posters against problem gambling must be hung around any venue in full visibility that carries pokies.
Just my two cents
Philip I like that idea, maybe we could extend it with cigarette-like warnings about the risks ? And the risks here are about losing money. I suggest something like this, required to be displayed on EVERY machine:
This gambling machine is configured so that you are likely to lose your money.
G’day Kenneth and Philip,
Great suggestions. Sadly, rational ideas like yours would do no harm but probably minimal good… because what is going through the mind of a problem gambler is irrational. The posters and warnings would give the gambler more feelings of guilt (and the sense that they are making a big mistake) but I suspect would do little to motivate them to deal with the problem, rather to try harder to get out of the mess…
Which brings me to the guts of the issue: these machines are designed in special detail to exploit human weakness. Flashing lights, noisy coin trays, fun icons, ‘happy’ sound effects, the list goes on. I think these machines are so bad very little can be done to improve them (so far as problem gamblers are concerned).
I just look forward to a change of Government so we can see some real leadership on this issue.
Here’s a question for anyone reading this: who should be responsible for the human/family/community consequences of problem gambling: the gambler, the licencee, the pokie manufacturer, the government, the community?
In the meantime, I’m going to do a little bit of research by seeking out and getting some thoughts from some recovering pokie addicts.
All the best,
Michael.
Hi Michael,
You are correct – problem gamblers are no longer rational and reason just does not work. Problem gambling is a sign of another issue in life and therefore provides an escape.
In response to your question on who should be responsible for problem gambling I think you have forgotten another sector – the family. I know this sounds harsh but in many cases of seniors that have a problem (and a majority don’t) it is simply because they are entertained at gaming venues and feel safe. Problem gambling (like the larger issue of problem drinking) is usually manifested as an attempt to fill the void of loneliness or other troubles in life.
1. All responsibility for the actions of an individual must first come from themselves.
2. The licensee of venues should be responsible in providing a form of entertainment ensuring they don’t ‘bleed’ patrons past their comfort zone.
3. Families need to take notice in these very busy times of what is happening within their family unit. While problem gamblers can be very cunning in hiding their issue it amazes me that it can take families so long to notice a change in behavior.
4. For manufacturers – it is simply business. Are car makers to be held responsible for road deaths or alcohol companies held directly responsible for drink drivers? No.
Cars, Alcohol, Gaming are all forms of legitimate industries where a high majority of users don’t abuse.
We mustn’t sweep the problem under the carpet. By trying to remove the ‘drug’, the underlying personal problems will never be fixed. Let’s celebrate gaming as a legitimate past time that can be enjoyed by all and remove the stigma. Bring back the Las Vegas buzz! Industries that remain prominent and well utilised can appeal to a wider range of the population in a responsible manner without shame.
Also it’s important that we don’t equate the amount of money someone spends on gaming to a problem as long as it doesn’t eat in to their ‘housing budget’. Example: how is a person that is 20 years of age and chooses to spend $140 on alcohol, $40 on nightclub entries, $30 on taxi fares any better than someone who spends $200 a week on gambling in a safe environment, often as part of a social network and enjoying a host of other entertainment options?
I think everyone should have the choice to choose how they spend their entertainment dollar but we must all be aware that some people go too far as a result of needing to fill a void from another part of their life.
Make time for your friends and family, take notice of what they are up to and for heaven’s sake – remember that we must ALL take responsibility for our own actions. The gambling industry has a lot of regulation which prevents easy access to money but no matter what you do – if an emotional void needs filling, someone will always be able to get around those regulations.
As an event manager “flashing lights, noise, fun and happy” are what goes in to every entertainment choice so once again these aren’t signs of being evil – they are signs of being ‘entertainment’.
Thanks for reading and I hope this puts a balanced perspective on the issue.
Rick
I smell A genuine LACK of spine here Micheal .If you were to attain government I can hear the back peddling alredy “…but we can’t just remove them people will lose money!YOU say “I just look forward to a change of Government so we can see some real leadership on this issue.”
So show some and reject these machines outright.You have asked some really STUPID questions here I mean LEGITIMATE USE for these machines and whos fault is it we have them everywhere we turn government or community? ARE YOU SERIOUS mate ?:)??
Wasn’t there a recent proposal to cap pokie bets at $1 ? That seemed like a decent start. What do you think about those ideas ? At least someone wouldn’t be able to blow their entire wage ina few hours.
It’d be great to see the anti-social machines stripped out of clubs and real live human entertainment come back.
I find it interesting in the current election campaign that only the Greens are offering to phase out poker machines, whilst the Libs are promising to phase out plastic bags!
I agree with those above who say that these machines should be completely banned, as they are the worst form of gambling apart from casinos in terms of socially detrimental effects. The two major parties are not going to do that though. Now we know that the Greens can only promise it because they know they won’t be in government and won’t have to deliver on it. But it’s the principle that matters.
The argument that it will affect the livelihood of clubs and pubs is no more valid than the same argument applied to smoking in those places. Besides, if no one has them, they are all equally disadvantaged which is no disadvantage at all. Our local RSL club has bravely resisted having them for years, and they have survived.
Though I disagree with many Greens policies, this is one area where I think their principles are ahead of Labor and Liberal.
I repeat my view: They [pokies] should be removed from small suburban venues where they prey on human weakness in secret atmospheres and certainly restricted to the two casinos.
Bravo Michael ! I wish more politicians would have the honesty to actually have a position on this issue instead of the usual platitudes and waffle. I think Nick Xenophon in South Australia has shown that this is an issue which a lot of people feel very strongly about.
What most annoys me is when “practical and realistic” politicians point out that they government can’t afford to lose the revenue. But it isn’t like these millions of dollars just disappear. Instead of going into pokies the money will be spent in other, more productive ways, all of which will flow into the local economy better than into the gambling companies and a trickle to government in direct tax.
Someone stated that the companies that have pokies limit easy access to money. The Casinos both have ATMs where you can get out as much money as you can to lose. This is wrong. They should not be in these venues.
I think the $1 cap on bets is a good idea, but still, when you are on a low income, losing $50 is a lot of money. I think it would be interesting to do a study on who are the main users of pokie machines. Is it mainly low or high income earners? And is the amount that they lose proportionate to their income?
Is it possible to somehow put a daily cap on bets – ie, I only want to lose a maximum of $30 today, and after that, I will be unable to use the machines? This limit could be set by the individual concerned. This would be the equivelent of bartenders being unable to serve people who were drunk.
I’ve had a family member adicted to the pokies. He ran though an inheritance quite quickly at the pokies. He is now on a centrelink income. Surely this money would have been better use spent elsewhere in the community? Sometimes he goes back to the casinos, and loses $50-60 of his family’s money in times of great stress. He doesn’t want to, but it is a horrible addiction. And no matter what you say, family can not stop him. We have lives to live too, and can not keep dibs on his behaviour 24 / 7 / 365.
Kim Booth really stuck it to the Hotels Assoc president today on the issue of $1 bet limit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/05/3030219.htm
What is your position ?
G’day William I am open minded on this one. Instinctively I support any moves to put reasonable controls on how much “loose change”, “beer money”, “savings” and “grocery money” gets put through these starving machines. We in the Liberal Party have had and will keep having a discussion on this and other ideas. Our benchmark test is whether any ideas are practical to achieve (ie, how will the industry manage those enforced changes) and more importantly what positive effect will they have on the behaviour of problem gamblers. Bottom line (and the greens know this) is that we should definitely use the opportunity to get changes across the board nationally, and one of these is individual bet limits as well as the amount of money a person can pour into a machine in one hour. Here’s what Will Hodgman had to say about the issue just a few weeks ago:
I was pleased today that the Tasmanian Greens supported our move to refer their bill to set $1 bet limits to a Parliamentary committee. This means that when Parliament is asked to make a decision on $1 bet limits it will have all of the facts before it. We support measures to reduce problem gambling, but it is important to assess the harm minimisation benefits as well as the potential impact of this change on small business hoteliers, and on government revenue. Our move to put the issue to a committee, which the Greens have now accepted, means that the Tasmanian community will be able to enter into an informed debate. I look forward to the committee commencing its investigation as soon as possible and providing the most detailed and balanced analysis of $1 bet limits ever undertaken in Tasmania.