I had hoped that La Gillardine might have pulled away from the instructions in spin from the Sussex Street boys, but alas, we now have sunshine as the best antiseptic and she is pulling back the curtains. Honestly … she is turning into a boring windbag like the Ruddster. Where is the pre-PM Gillard, who was quick-witted, articulate and didn’t take herself too seriously?
Among the many things that Jools has in her in-tray are the demands being made by that pesky other independent Andrew Wilkie (channelling Nick Xenophon, who is no doubt becoming a bit nervous about his removal from the spotlight come July next year… Nick who?, we will be saying) in relation to gambling taxes and regulations.
Being a middle class, Protestant girl from Melbourne, I personally know absolutely nothing about gambling. I couldn’t even work a poker machine if I tried. Having said that, there are a number of keyprinciples that should guide decision making in this policy area:
- Gambling is a legal and legitimate form of leisure activity for people to enjoy.
- It is a problem for some people.
- Problem gambling seems to be largely confined to the poker machines; it is largely absent from other forms of gambling, such as wagering on horse races.
- A reasonably high proportion of problem gamblers are women (I”m not sure that this all that relevant but the increase in the prevalence of pokies in all the states bar Western Australia has produced a gambling past time available to women in a way that was not the case in the past.)
- Gambling taxes can be thought to have Pigovian characteristics, offsetting the social harm caused by gambling.
- Gambling taxes are collected by the States.
- Gambling is regulated by the States.
So what should we think of the idea of reducing the unit bets, insisting on pre-commitments by people using the machines and limiting cash withdrawals from nearby ATMs?
For non-problem gamblers, these types of measures amount to a significant restriction on their freedom of choice. And in all likelihood, the amount of money that will be fed into poker machines will fall, which is no doubt why the pubs and clubs are concerned. The dollar value of gambling taxes collected by state governments will also decline.
For problem gamblers, by contrast, these types of measures may be sufficient to stop self-destructive behaviour which in turn leads to greater social problems.
The issue becomes a trade-off: is the cost of the restriction on freedome of choice more than offset by the benefits of reducing the prevalence and extent of problem gambling? And a further question is whether these measures are really the best to help problem gamblers and prevent new players from falling into the problem category? Self-imposed restrictions on access to venues and betting limits nominated by these people are alternative measures.
A misunderstanding of federalism is yet again illustrated by this policy area. The idea that the federal government could ride rough-shot over the states by using the Corporations Power to impose Wilkie’s (Xenophon’s) policy ideas is without justification. Should the states agree to the make some changes, there was also be need to a reshuffling of federal-state financial arrangements – that is, the states will need to be compensated.
“Where is the pre-PM Gillard, who was quick-witted, articulate and didn’t take herself too seriously?”
She has always been utterly crap at everything. A friend of mine went to hear her speak in 2008 and said she was the most boring, inarticulate idiot he had ever heard.
Rococo Liberal
8 Sep 10 at 4:28 pm
I don’t like pokies, but I do consider gambling to be one of the finest things a person can do with their momney. Yet another ALP attack on the character of our nation. Un-Australian mongrels.
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 4:38 pm
Not sure about whether problem gambling is particularly concentrated in respect to poker machines. In absolute terms that is probably right, since there are so many pokies relative to other forms of gambling. I’d suggest that the small local tab venues have a significant proportion of problem gamblers, on a pro rata venue for venue basis.
Keith
8 Sep 10 at 4:43 pm
“Yet another ALP attack on the character of our nation. Un-Australian mongrels.”
I thought you were looking forward to having children, IT, but you do a good impression of cranky old age pensioner on talkback radio.
steve from brisbane
8 Sep 10 at 4:48 pm
Frankly I can’t imagine a stupider use of one’s money. Aside from the odd office sweepstake I’ve never gambled in my life and like Judith, wouldn’t know how to work a poker machine, much less buy a lottery ticket. But to each their own. The best solution for problem gamblers without infringing on others is to allow them to ban themselves and have that contractual ban enforced.
jtfsoon
8 Sep 10 at 4:50 pm
Anti-gambling sanctimony – along with its sibling, Temperance Society abstemiousness – are very old srains of Australian wowserism, dating back to the nineteenth century (when newspapers published sermons on these subjects week in and week out). It’s fascinating, historically, to see both of these antique moral panics brought to the fore of public discourse again. This time, however, not by some starched divine essaying the ruination of men via betting shops and beer but by that former bastion of the great drinking, gambling unwashed – the Australian Labor Party (Wesleyan).
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 4:58 pm
Not only is your attitude very Un-Australian, Jason, it also very Un-Asian. If you think Australians like a punt wait until you see the Asians go at it – mind boggling.
I think the stats on gambling are that 97% of people are losing and 3% are cleaning up. That may be horse racing specific. I’ve met a few of the 3% and believe me the amount of work, discipline and sheer genius involved is out of this world. The best nowadays all come from a pure maths background.
Great little story here on a leviathan you’ll have never heard of: http://www.puntingace.com/punting_profiles/zeljko.html
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 4:58 pm
Yes I know, IT, I have been called a banana.
jtfsoon
8 Sep 10 at 5:01 pm
I can’t have children now, Steve. I was only prepared to do it if the taxpayer footed the bill. I’ll have to wait 6 months until Tony’s safely in the Lodge.
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 5:02 pm
Banana! Haven’t heard that before!
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 5:04 pm
Judith
My dear, you have clearly never been inside a TAB, either!
Allow me to assure that the great rump of the lower orders continue to fester in their subaltern mires because of their love of a punt – daily!
The ladies tend more to poker machine, whilst their blokes tend more to the nags; both at home and at the track.
Peter Patton
8 Sep 10 at 5:05 pm
There’s nothing worse than ducking into a newsagency to but one’s copy of Quadrant and having to wait while the great unwashed line up for hours to buy their fricking scratchie!
Peter Patton
8 Sep 10 at 5:08 pm
PP if you had any sense you’d just subscribe to Quadrant so quit your whinging
jtfsoon
8 Sep 10 at 5:10 pm
The Chinese are magnificent gamblers. They once ran their own numbers rackets too (Pak ah pu) in every Australian city in which they were found in numbers.
Re pokies, I think there’s a fair bit of snobbery about them because bourgeois aesthetes don’t like the look and sound of them in their pubs and clubs. Pokies are, to be sure, a mindless incarnation of gambling – none of the shared thrill of the betting ring, the card table or the two-up school.
That said, this is yet another sickening example of the Nanny State protecting people from themselves. The very sight of the Reverends Tim Costello and Andrew Wilkie preaching against it is vomitous.
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 5:11 pm
jtfsoon
I haven’t bought a copy of Quadrant for years;
tedious tired rag that is.
Peter Patton
8 Sep 10 at 5:13 pm
I’m no expert, but I can see how the pokies are a particular problem because of the speed at which they provide a response and allow losses to accumulate. The type of ideas Wilkie was suggesting sounded pretty reasonable, and geared towards problem gamblers placing limits on themselves at the start before the Pavlovian response kicks in.
It all sounded like a clever solution to a difficult problem, allowing for an activity to continue while making it less potentially ruinous.
steve from brisbane
8 Sep 10 at 5:17 pm
Stop being such a Nanny Steve,God I’m sick of being treated like a child
tal
8 Sep 10 at 5:19 pm
then subscribe to it, patton and some great unwashed will put it right into your leftterbox
JC
8 Sep 10 at 5:20 pm
I’m truly surprised, Steve, that you approve of some Tasmanian yokel with a hand-full of votes imposing his moral will on the entire country. But that’s the junta we have, isn’t it? Wilkie pursues his pokie moral panic while Oakeshott and Windsor laugh about preventing the people getting the government they want.
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 5:24 pm
Pokies moderate excess consumption of alocohol, or otherwise fund moderate consumption of alcohol.
Providence.
.
8 Sep 10 at 5:26 pm
The very sight of the Reverends Tim Costello and Andrew Wilkie preaching against it is vomitous.
Particularly Wilke. At least Costello tries to help the less fortunate and although he’s wrong on this, he does show concern in a heart felt altruistic kinda way.
Wilke on the other hand is a rank opportunistic turd and the only thing he cares about is numero uno.
JC
8 Sep 10 at 5:28 pm
CL, I have never looked in detail into how big an issue pokie gambling is, but at the same time I strongly suspect you haven’t either. You just prefer your weird brand of Catholic libertarianism to kick in and accuse anyone who says this deserves better regulation is a wowser and it can’t really be a social problem, cos CL says it isn’t.
steve from brisbane
8 Sep 10 at 5:28 pm
JC
It is a tedious, whingeing, whining rag.
Peter Patton
8 Sep 10 at 5:28 pm
Passive. Aggressive.
And what an historically illiterate, dishonest, angry person you are, Steve. We’re talking about gambling and you actually think it’s “weird” for a Catholic to be ill-disposed towards Wilkie wowsers. Do you realise how stupid this argument is? Have you ever heard of, say, John Wren?
There is nothing incompatible between Catholicism and economic libertarianism. The only reason you support this religious policy is because a) you’re an evangelical protestant who is weirdly supporting a coalition of abortion-obsessed Christophobes; and b) Gillard and Labor are now associated with it. Therefore, zombie-like (as we’ve come to expect), you’re faithfully publicising the party line. Had Abbott run on the idea, you’d be lampooning it.
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 7:01 pm
“Wilke on the other hand is a rank opportunistic turd and the only thing he cares about is numero uno.”
Dead right JC.
Is gambling on poker machines actually a problem? Does anyone know, or are we just taking Andrew Windbag’s word for it?
Dandy Warhol
8 Sep 10 at 7:02 pm
If pokies were the problem they’re made out to be there’s be hundreds of thousands of homeless pensioners. If we let the old dears have a smoke they wouldn’t have so much cash to gamble with.
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 7:09 pm
The only reform of gambling I’d like to see is deregulation. That is, people should be entirely free to run books on races, private casinos, Bingo, poker matches, sweeps etc without any requirement for government permission, permits etc. Too bad about the losses for government treasuries. They’re free to run caskets etc if they want to raise revenue from gambling. Every year, journalists like to add the colour commentary about two-up being “legal on Anzac Day.” Why the hell should it not be legal whenever a bunch of blokes want to form a school and toss the coins? It’s simply individuals taxing and churning one another’s money. It is not the addiction of pokie players we should worry about and ameliorate. It is the addiction of governments to gambling revenues – a development that has exacerbated their profligacy.
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 7:39 pm
I’ve witnessed bar staff tell pool players off for betting on games of pool because “it’s illegal”. Fair dinkum, this an officious bastard of a country.
Infidel Tiger
8 Sep 10 at 7:47 pm
“Every year, journalists like to add the colour commentary about two-up being “legal on Anzac Day.” ”
Damn right. The day is to celebrate an alleged right to do stuff like play two up (drink, miscegnate, worhsip, freely associate, freely express ourselves, own and control property etc) whenever we like, not when the Boers, der Kaiser, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, the Juche dynasty, Ho chi Minh, Saddam, Obama or mullah muhammad say we can. Hyperbole? I’m merely reflecting the insincere shit that dribbles from our Parlaimentarians every ANZAC day.
Wars are bloody and pointless. Do you want to defend your freedom now, or fight for a clayton’s freedom in a war?
I don’t see why giving the Packer dynasty a free kick was somehow a way of controlling problem gambling.
.
8 Sep 10 at 7:49 pm
The reason so many people dislike pokies has very little to do with problem gambling, and everything to do with Aesthetics.
In fact the original opposition to pokies came from the music industry because pokies destroyed the live music scene. Seems more people would prefer to play pokies than pay to listen to a rock band. That’s sad in a way, but it’s hardly something worth regulating.
And of course the inner-city left student unions are all up and about the inner-city live music scene, so when those ex-student leftists grew up, they took their pokie opposition with them to the Labor left and the Greens. See Tim Freidman.
Yobbo
8 Sep 10 at 7:50 pm
It is not the addiction of pokie players we should worry about and ameliorate. It is the addiction of governments to gambling revenues – a development that has exacerbated their profligacy.
Indeed.
Adrien
8 Sep 10 at 7:51 pm
“I’ve witnessed bar staff tell pool players off for betting on games of pool because “it’s illegal”. Fair dinkum, this an officious bastard of a country.”
IT,
When I hear about dopey shit like this, I remark, how can you NOT be a libertarian?
Even if you want a welfare state there is massive scope to make it better under lower tax rates and rational, consistent policy.
The only reason why you would support anti libertarian ideas is an urge to somehow control people.
.
8 Sep 10 at 7:51 pm
“In fact the original opposition to pokies came from the music industry because pokies destroyed the live music scene. Seems more people would prefer to play pokies than pay to listen to a rock band.”
Maybe they should stop being so shit and become more entertaining than something which gives as much stimulation as boilerplate soap operas.
.
8 Sep 10 at 7:53 pm
In fact the original opposition to pokies came from the music industry because pokies destroyed the live music scene.
Not around here it didn’t.
Seems more people would prefer to play pokies than pay to listen to a rock band
Totally different crowd.
Adrien
8 Sep 10 at 7:55 pm
Umm with clover’s small bars deregulation it is actually possible to go to bars without poker machines. I admit to preferring those kinds of bars. Everyone gets what they want with greater economic liberty, there is no need for aesthetics regulations.
jtfsoon
8 Sep 10 at 8:06 pm
Yea.. if the bands were that good people would prefer to listen to them instead of playing pokies.
Even in my younger days I recall listening to a live band at times was a truly unpleasant experience, as they were too freaking loud and almost bust your eardrums with incoherent noise used to disguise their poor musical ability.
JC
8 Sep 10 at 8:23 pm
I don’t know about rock but Australia has a pretty good jazz and blues music scene. I’ve always had good experiences with live music and there are lots of venues in Sydney which cater to this.
jtfsoon
8 Sep 10 at 8:28 pm
Early Midnight Oil, yes JC?
Dandy Warhol
8 Sep 10 at 8:39 pm
Yeah, it was the deregulation wot saved drinking in public houses. The pre-Clover shakedown on the costs and restrictions on holding a booze-selling licence was a fricking scandal.
Now, if you wish to avoid the smoking, mulleted, unwashed, pokie-pulling, nag-betting hoi polloi, the barriers to getting off your buns and opening your own place are much lower. Thank god, many have done so.
Peter Patton
8 Sep 10 at 8:42 pm
And what exciting places they are, hey Peter? Non-smoking men in black turtlenecks sipping white wine.
C.L.
8 Sep 10 at 8:47 pm
JC is talking about Vera Lynn
rog
8 Sep 10 at 8:48 pm
The free world gets a little less free every day.
At least the commies liked smoking, drinking, hunting, fighting and making stuff (admittedly they were very poor at making stuff). These socialist green killjoys don’t enjoy anything remotely approaching fun. Their idea of fun is telling other people how to live.
asf
8 Sep 10 at 9:04 pm
At the risk of incurring JC’s ire – LOL Rog!
Dandy Warhol
8 Sep 10 at 9:19 pm
yea right. Dandy. Midnight oil. I couldn’t ever figure out in those days what a bald stalk was singing and his dancing around the stage was very funny. I even despised he dickhead then.
Hey Wodgie.. Gerofrey’s hollering. Say he wants that special massage only you can give. Hop to it, loser.
JC
8 Sep 10 at 9:25 pm
I see the Productivity Commission report on gambling that recently came made these core findings:
“In addition to the wider ramification of addictive gambling, the report singled out “pokies” or electronic poker machines commonly found in hotels, as an area of policy interest.
The Productivity Commission estimated that about 600,000 Australians – or 4 per cent of the population – play the games at least once a week. About 15 per cent of those players, or 100,000 people, are considered “problem gamblers”, the report said. They account for about 40 per cent of total spending on the machines.
“The risks of problem gambling are low for people who only play lotteries and scratchies, but rise steeply with the frequency of gambling on table games, wagering and, especially, gaming machines,” the report concluded.”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/address-gambling-like-binge-drinking-report-20100623-yxdh.html
CL, I don’t even think you understand what passive aggressive means. Come up with something new.
I don’t give a stuff about the history of wowserism in Australia and the Catholic/Protestant divide. If a particular form of gambling is recognized as inherently problematic today (ie is causing disproportionate social harm compared to its benefits), then I say it’s a good thing for it to be more tightly regulated. There’ll still be myriad forms of gambling around; they’ll still be pokies around.
Go complain to the Productivity Commission about how stupid they are to be sucked into believing there is a problem with pokies, will you? I’m sure they’re just a bunch of proddie wowsers.
steve from brisbane
8 Sep 10 at 10:51 pm
Here steve
It says they’re annoying , can harm organizations and managers need to stamp it out.
We all have stories about the annoying, sometimes conniving ways of a family member, friend or co-worker. While irritating, passive-aggressive behavior usually isn’t costly. Except that in many workplace situations, passive-aggressive employees can sabotage deadlines, morale and productivity. That’s why it’s critical for leadership and managers to recognize passive aggression before it affects workplace efficiency.
That’s you, steve.
JC
8 Sep 10 at 11:00 pm
The report said nothing bloody like that Steve. It said gambling had a net social benefit and Jason’s approach was the best to mitigate problems.
.
9 Sep 10 at 12:00 am
So Steve was verballing the commission, Dot.
Thanks.
In any case…
“The risks of problem gambling are low for people who only play lotteries and scratchies, but rise steeply with the frequency of gambling on table games, wagering and, especially, gaming machines,” the report concluded.”
And?
Does this mean, Reverend Steve, that you now support crackdowns on casinos (table games) and Melbourne Cup day (wagering)?
Tell us, oh holy one. Tell us how the “prime minister” will clean up our country with help from Brother Wilkie.
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 1:44 am
It’s not that the live pub bands were shit per se, it’s more that the people who liked them (primarily students) had a very low disposable income and so it was difficult to make a profit with them as your main clientele.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 2:40 am
Dot, here’s a cut and paste of the list of recommendations from the Overview of the Report:
“A more coherent and effective policy approach is needed, with targeted policies that can effectively address the high rate of problems experienced by those playing gaming machines regularly.
Recreational gamblers typically play at low intensity. But if machines are played at high intensity, it is easy to lose $1500 or more in an hour.
– The amount of cash that players can feed into machines at any one time should be limited to $20 (currently up to $10 000).
– There are strong grounds to lower the bet limit to around $1 per ‘button push’, instead of the current $5–10. Accounting for adjustment costs and technology, this can be fully implemented within six years.
Shutdown periods for gaming in hotels and clubs are too brief and mostly occur at the wrong times. They should commence earlier and be of longer duration.
There should be a progressive move over the next six years to full ‘pre-commitment’ systems that allow players to set binding limits on their losses.
- Under a full system, there would be ‘safe’ default settings, with players able to choose other limits (including no limit).
– In the interim, a partial system with non-binding limits would still yield benefits,and provide lessons for implementing full pre-commitment.”
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/95684/02-overview.pdf
In other words, Wilkie didn’t pull his ideas out of his backside, and CL’s “this is just a Proddie moral panic again” line is rubbish. He should talk to the Archbishop of Hobart, for example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/05/2838241.htm?site=hobart
But I guess if Pell hasn’t said anything about it, it mustn’t be an issue.
steve from brisbane
9 Sep 10 at 7:17 am
Steve, you dishonest clown, you introduced the subject of denomination in your earlier, bizarre comment. Not me.
Nobody said Wilkie pulled “his” ideas out of his backside (straw man alert). There has been a moral panic about poker machines for several years.
I don’t care what the Archbishop of Hobart thinks – no Catholic is obliged to care what he thinks on the subject.
Finally, you avoided my question:
Does this mean, Reverend Steve, that you now support crackdowns on casinos (table games) and Melbourne Cup day (wagering)?
Tell us, oh holy one.
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 9:08 am
CL, pillock, (is that less passive aggressive for you?) you bring up the history of wowerism in Australia and mention the Temperance Society ad Wesleyan belief all in the one comment and then deny you’re bringing up sectarianism as providing some sort of perspective for the current issue.
To which I say: rubbish. Try looking at the current form of gambling in issue (and it’s not the horses or – to the same extent as pokies – gaming tables) and what Wilkie and the Productivity Commission say. Namely, gambling itself is not going to be banned, but one particular form to which it seems too many people are too easily addicted deserves tighter regulation to help prevent so much problem gambling.
Stop your libertarian inspired “it’s all or nothing” gambit (“oh – so you want to crackdown on all gambling”) and try growing a skerrick of a Catholic social conscience on what’s reasonable for a government to do.
steve from brisbane
9 Sep 10 at 9:29 am
Nick Xenophon is only half way through his six year term and wont be finishing in July next year. You may want to correct that mistake.
jen
9 Sep 10 at 10:04 am
“The free world gets a little less free every day. ”
Or actually the reverse at least in terms of gambling. While I don’t agree with the proposals, our ability to gamble is vastly more free now than pretty much ever.
Steve Edney
9 Sep 10 at 10:18 am
Steve, I was referring to actual historical facts – of which, embarrassingly, you were ignorant. You then responded with a bizarre howler that suggested Catholics were against gambling.
… one particular form to which it seems too many people are too easily addicted deserves tighter regulation to help prevent so much problem gambling.
So you’re saying 1) that one Tasmanian yokel that hardly anyone voted for can and should issue forth a moral panic fatwa against poker machines throughout Australia; and 2) that – as we saw with Rudd-Gillard’s moral panic on alcho-pops – this will save the day for the people concerned.
And you really believe that.
Incidentally, someone who worships an abortion fanatic like Julia Gillard should probably recuse himself from commenting on morality or conscience, justice and the welfare of the innocent.
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 11:08 am
“You then responded with a bizarre howler that suggested Catholics were against gambling.”
Only in your imagination, CL.
The government had already said, in June 2010, in response to the Productivity Commission report:
“The Australian Government accepts that further work can be done to improve harm minimisation measures for electronic gaming machines….
The first priority for the Australian Government will be to progress a nationally consistent pre-commitment model for electronic gaming machines.”
http://assistant.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/138.htm&pageID=003&min=njsa&Year=&DocType=0
What an imaginary crisis you carry on about when an Independent simply gets a government to move more quickly on what they had already agreed with.
steve from brisbane
9 Sep 10 at 12:08 pm
Not in my imagination. You explicitly argued that a libertarian attitude to gambling was historically or culturally incompatible with Catholicism.
From your link:
So the government and Wilkie are in fact stifling the findings of the Productivity Commission.
Nice bit of airbrushing, Steve.
Incidentally, I see that Wilkie also zealously believes in euthanasia.
Steve, would you support it if Wilkie forced Gillard to legalise this throughout the Commonwealth?
Or don’t you care about the vulnerable being harmed by a culture of utilitarianism and selfishness when it doesn’t involve poker machines?
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 1:00 pm
It turns out Oakeshitt is a lazy bum
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-the-nice-bloke-facade-is-just-another-wily-politician-20100908-1519k.html
And there are plenty of raised eyebrows among those who have worked closely with him in the past, including those in the Coalition, who wonder if he’s up to the challenge of what lies ahead.
They recall how he struggled to effectively land any punches while opposition gaming spokesman at a time when the NSW government gave pubs poker machines – free.
They recall questions over a $160,000 refit of his electoral office and a decision to move it away from the main street and constituents to a business park, which didn’t go unnoticed in his electorate.
One describes him as having a great ability to charm and woo you, while another says that “it will be hysterical to watch him try and keep up with the workload” in Canberra.
Between 2003 and 2008, Oakeshott was absent from almost 15 per cent of the 301 parliamentary sitting days. A clear pattern shows he would leave Sydney early on Thursday so he could return home to Port Macquarie – and usually skipping any Friday sittings.
jtfsoon
9 Sep 10 at 1:04 pm
CL, your argument has become so scattergun and tangled it’s not worth the effort to try to untie the looping heap of excrement it has become. (I am trying hard to drop the “passive” element, see.)
steve from brisbane
9 Sep 10 at 1:20 pm