Like a large proportion of the population (but unlike two lucky winners) I’m a little bit poorer after last week’s jackpot lottery. That might put me in the right frame of a mind for a visit to the Commonwealth Treasury next week where, among other things, I plan to talk about how to treat gambling in the context of the Henry Review of Taxation.
State governments are heavily reliant on revenue from gambling, which is a combination of explicit taxes and payments for monopoly privileges. But gambling (particularly casino gambling and racetrack betting) is socially destructive, since the majority of the revenue is derived from problem gamblers. And while restrictions on gambling were justified by these social ill-effects, the current structure of taxation actually makes things worse, by ensuring that gamblers lose faster. Policy must also deal with the fact that, for the great majority of participants (who only account for a minority of expenditure, however) gambling is harmless and pleasurable. That’s particularly true of non-instant lottery gambling.
I’ve been thinking about how to fix this, and I’ve had the idea of subjecting gaming enterprises like casinos to a (net) revenue cap. That is, rather than being restricted to a certain number of machines, tables and so on, they would be limited in the amount they could take from the machines in a given year. This would eliminate incentives to increase the take from gaming, and replace it with incentives to do more business selling food, drinks, entertainment and so on. It would also increase the incentive to comply with measures aimed at restricting the access of problem gamblers, since they would not change the gaming take and would presumably spend less on other goods and services. My worry, not fully worked out, is that gaming enterprises would just reduce service and extract their allowable revenue from the problem gamblers as cheaply as possible.
Any thoughts on this?
John Quiggin 
I bet your ideas will fall on indifferent ears. It’s time for old lefties to de-cathect from the Labor party. They’ll only hurt you. They’ve been going to bed with the corporations for years.
I used to work in the gaming industry and I think that some of your concerns about problem gamblers are justified but your solution is not workable. The machines are specified to pay out 90% of what they take in. Unless you legislate to change that number then the industry will still make money but more cash will be paid out increasing the incentive for people to return because they think that they will have a greater chance of making money.
The next problem is problem gamblers. There is an argument as to what constitutes a problem gambler and whether you have the right to dictate that these people cannot be allowed to enter premises. Problem gambling has already been identified as an issue in the industry and where people have said that they no longer want to gamble, their details and photo are taken so that the staff will refuse to let them enter.
I am concerned that you are undertaking a fundamentally illiberal policy that will not work.
The argument for legalised gambling was always that people were going to gamble anyway, so it was better to allow some sort of legal outlet than to force it into illegality; much the same argument as applied to alcohol or prostitution. Also that government is not in the business of making moral statements, and that government actions should be intended towards effect and not show.
So, one likely effect is that gambling venues will simply break the law and find some way of exceeding the revenue cap. Perhaps some dummy gamblers could be allowed to win (but in reality pay their winnings to associates of the venue); this would then reduce revenue. Also, aren’t problem gamblers cheaper to serve, as they do not require nice surroundings or a veneer of luxury, unlike recreational gamblers who want to convince themselves that gambling is a luxury.
I suspect the best approach is to allow a limited number of outlets that are enough to keep the illegal gambling down while minimising the social costs. But I am pessimistic; there are few cures for stupidity or addiction.
True Ikono – but come the next State election – watch the landslide.
Roozendahl is an idiot that is worse than, but in the same mold (?mould) as Costa. Can you believe a Labor govt wants to sell the lotteries for 100 mill when it brings in 50 mill a year and they are short of cash?
No private business would sell such an income producing asset – just stupid bureacrats. Really stupid. Really really stupid. Really really really stupid. Dense. Thick.
Unimaginable how dense…!! No rhyme, no reason, no judgement, just destructive (self destructive).
I say to NSW labor, sell yourselves (up the creek without a paddle) because you are (expletive) idiots and we dont want or need you. And Roozendahl has to be the BIGGEST fool that ever passed for a NSW treasurer.
That fool has to go.
Seriously.
This is a massively worthwhile debate which from most people I personally talk to transcends any partisan lines indulged in above.
As a resident of Cairns the observation I would initially make is that the casino here does exert market power in other areas such as live entertainment and food because of its position. Live entertainment has faded while the casino dominates. The cheap (used to be value but now just disgusting) Flinders Bar is cross subsidised by the gambling operation to keep patrons inside as is the live entertainment Vertigo Bar. This provides an advantage over alternatives.
The initiatives by Clover Moore in Sydeny for more liberal licencing laws for small venues also need to be followed up? This was spruiked for Qld but think maybe a dud? Lets face it our licencing laws are anal compared to say, Europe or UK,and nee dhuge update. The power of the hotels association here is a problem while research bshows most crime comes from a few large venues ie the politically powerful pubs!
Any imaginative initiative on gambling and licencing laws is welcome!?!?!?!?
So you regulate the amount that can be turned over by a machine. If that means self-regulating gaming operations then forget it. If it means an army of departmental inspectors then it probably means plenty of jobs, including those at ICAC prosecuting corrupt officials.
Currently each machine in NSW is reputed to ‘earn’ a base $50 000+ pa to be ‘economic’ so I guess that is likely to be your ‘base’ figure in NSW.
I guess if the state tax per machine paid for an incorruptible inspectorate then the idea would be revenue neutral and would get my vote. But I won’t hold my breath.
Alice,
I can believe a Labor government would do anything to stimulate the economy by living off the past and the future – it makes them feel good to maximise short term gdp and we vote them in for doing so. Australian right of centre parties are not much better.
Alice Says:
Not only that, they want to sell off electricity for $6bn, when it brings in $2bn a year, and they want to spend $5bn on the CBD metro which will bring in a negative income.
You have to suspect that they aren’t stupid, instead they’re extremely corrupt.
The analysis needs to consider the net business. I suspect the costs of meals and drinks at venues are likely to be subsidised by the gambling revuene. So what gamblers lose at the machnes might be made up at the bistro when the net returns to the business as a whole being normal. To the extent that happens problem gamblers should be dealt with through the welfare system or the health system and not through additional taxation or regulation of the gaming industry per se.
stockingrate Says:
I guess it depends on definitions, but as far as I’m aware we don’t have any major parties that aren’t “right of centre” on a strictly left-right continuum.
Sinclair Says:
This is obviously true for the local bowling club or RSL, which are non-profits. It’s obviously not true for, e.g. Crown Casino or NSW Lotteries.
Non sequitur.
Sinclair,
As my previous post your concept of the ‘net business’ is internal to that business and has no regard for broader impacts as a result granted privileged rights? No regard also for how that impacts competition in this market and externalities such as crime and social disturbance?
Anyone who has looked at this in a specific society such as I am in can only come to the conclusion that there is a problem here which is NOT being addressed.
John, if I may reply to Alice by saying even though the polls are not good for NSW Labor I would not just write them off from winning the next election even with Rees at the helm for the opposition in this State is very very very weak.
[…] colleague at UQ, John Quiggin, has a post on revenue regulation for gambling. See here. John finishes his post with some concerns about his revenue cap proposal: My worry, not fully […]
I had a go at this earlier, but the filter is holding it up. I’ll try again.
Sinclair Davidson Says:
This is obviously true for your local bowling club or RSL. It’s obviously not true for something like NSW lott3!3s or Crown K@z!n0.
That does not follow.
How the hell did NSW labor and any merits or otherwise of ownership structures get into this debate as raised?
My own preference is to increase restrictions on machines, use anti-advertising propaganda/education and gradually try to fade the pokies out – and it is the pokies that is the problem.
Education in the schools on the ex post character of ‘luck’ and the psychological deviances associated with the ‘illusion of control’ would be useful. Veblen pointed out that gambling promotes public irrationality and he was right.
The taxes in the Australian states are given a range of titles but in most cases they look to me to be profits taxes or lump-sum costs of getting a pokie. If groups such as the casinos and pubs operate as local monopolists then such taxes on gambling will be neutral and have no effect on equilibrium loss rates and hence on levels of gambling.
Of course setting absolutely huge taxes of 90% plus and hypothecating much of these towards treating problem gambling would reduce the supply side incentives to buy the damn things.
One suggestion is to issue gamblers with a smart card which would permit a certain amount of gambling and reduce ‘impulsiveness/hyperbolic discounting’ issues. This would trim problem gambling.
Another suggestion would be to kick out of contention the hordes of ex-Labor politicians and party hacks who now work for the gambling companies. Why did Mr Brumby vertually give away a slab of new machines to Packer’s Crown in recent weeks and tax the lot at a markedly lower rate that the pubs and clubs? We know James has been down on his luck recently but this is ridiculous.
Gambling addiction is a sad sight to see though. I remember one customer who would come in for five or six hours and sit on a machine burning through cash. One day she won $24k which I had to pay out. All the other customers said for her to take a holiday and not come back but the very next night she came back in, sat down on the machines and then lost all that money.
There are massive social losses but having machines pay out more will only entice more people to come in. You need programmes for people who want to quit to join up and coach them and provide support so that they will not blow all their money on gambling.
Gambling is 70% of my gross income.
Have carefully thought this post through & been working on this comment since just after the post was made. (crunching numbers in excel that is, not on typing this out,haha)
Pablo @ 20.46 has some points which require clarification. Pablo, I’ll do that tomorrow. Sinclair Davidson @ 22.13 and Martin @ 20.03 are also both on topic, I may reply to your comments also, tomorrow. The remaining commenters raise some interesting discussion points, but are on some other topic altogether: Focus people, Focus. The topic is gambling.
I operate 3 styles of non-instant lottery gambling (but am also non-casino).
To state a bald fact: I provide gambling services well. I defer to nobody when it comes to how to profitably operate gambling.
If gambling income were to be rationed my actions in response would depend entirely on the degree of rationing. JQ isn’t clear on this point, nor if it would apply to non-casino, non-racetrack gambling.
(To clarify: Though it may not appear so to a layman, the difference between pub/club to casino gambling is just as great as the difference between casino to racetrack gambling.)
However, assuming the rationing sets net income at somewhere just south of where it currently sits, my actions would be as follows:
(Note: These actions are not political, or imagined, or “modelling”, it is what I would do if my gambling income were capped at anything less than what it currently is)
I would sack all gambling specific staff. They are not needed, ordinary bar staff would handle gambling requirements in their spare time. With income capped (for me & competitors alike) the gambling customers would have to wait until I finish serving the uncapped income (ie, liquor/food)
The promotional budget would be axed, as would all services to gambling customers (tea, coffee, sky channel subscription, free form guide, big flat screen TV’s & so on)
With income fixed, I would do as anybody else would. Eliminate costs.
As loud as the squeal would be from clients (when I reach my threshold, and have to end provision of all gambling services for the year) it would be NOTHING compared to the squeal from the RSl & Leagues clubs, as such a rationing measure would be the death knell for the bulk of those fellers.
We need more casinos. The existing ones are profiteering due to a lack of competition.
An added benefit would be that casino competion would piss of the Packers.
Estimate the $value of problem gambling and pleasure gambling; set the cap; reduce the incentive (reward or payout depending upon which side of the fence you sit on) so that it just accomodates the cap. eg. if I bet $1 the most I can win is $1.25!
Moderate incentive, moderate pleasure, moderate reward, moderate income, moderate harm done.
Brochural information provided near the machines extolling the virtues of responsibility, describing the nature of problem gambling, replacement therapies, and links to counsel.
Pokie machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling and they are found not only in casinos. Pokie machines are designed to encourage addiction. As are gambling venues which do not have natural light and do not have clocks so the addicts are not distracted. A major problem with gambling is that the availability of gambling options and especially the more addictive forms inevitably turns some of those for whom gambling is harmless and pleasurable pastime into addicts.
Lets face it, many illegal drugs are, for the vast majority, a harmless and pleasurable pastime and start that way for those who become addicted.
Those who need to be weaned off gambling the most are the States who are completely addicted to gambling revenue.
Sj says
“I guess it depends on definitions, but as far as I’m aware we don’t have any major parties that aren’t “right of centre” on a strictly left-right continuum.”
Agree SJ we dont – there is only one consistent phrase in both their budget speak “sell assets”. They dont understand “income streams” “manage” or “invest.”
I also suspect corruption of both major parties is occurring through the donations and kickbacks process and is now pretty rampant.
Steve at the pub @ 18 has a few suggestions as to how to make gambling less attractive. I add these. A high entrance fee to the gambling room, no ATM or EFTPOS access, large windows, limited lighting, hard seats and lesser bets with slower machines are measures which are easy to police and would reduce the attraction and the potential rate of losses. I am as doubtful as SATP that rationing would work because there would be a great temptation to cook the books and policing would be so expensive that the governments concerned just wouldn’t do it.
I agree that the deferred satisfaction type of gambling seems best.
Steve at the pub says
“I would sack all gambling specific staff. They are not needed, ordinary bar staff would handle gambling requirements in their spare time. With income capped (for me & competitors alike) the gambling customers would have to wait until I finish serving the uncapped income (ie, liquor/food)
The promotional budget would be axed, as would all services to gambling customers (tea, coffee, sky channel subscription, free form guide, big flat screen TV’s & so on)
With income fixed, I would do as anybody else would. Eliminate costs.”
Of course you would Steve as any business person would – but only so far…. as some elimination of your services to gamblers (the coffees, big flat screen, sky channel subscription etc) is going to eliminate some gamblers from gambling….and if you drop the pay outs they will smell it and go somewhere else or stay home.
Maybe thats the point.
Gambling should be thought of in the same way as entertainment and taxed accordingly. We should remove all restrictions on gambling and treat it for what it is – a way to pass the time – and it should not incur extra taxes on turnover but taxes on profits. Get rid of all special legislation around gambling and make it like any other service.
Problem gamblers are in the same category as problem drinkers and problem eaters. We could ban food and that would solve eating disorders. Banning gambling to solve problem gambling is equally stupid.
Pr Q says:
Here we go again. Time to roll-back the imprudent, if not iniquitous, liberal legislation of the past generation.
I dont mind race-track betting so much. The track has at least got its own community spirit. And everyone likes horses.
Legalizing casino gambling was yet another social disaster brought to us by (post-) modernizing liberals. The same firm responsible for de-regulating finance (a glorified form of gambling for those out-side the inside).
It was pushed through under the guise of snubbing the “wowsers”. Those dreadful High Victorians responsible for planning the CBD, installing a proper sewage system and preventing the working class from getting drunk and “p*ssing their wages up against the wall”.
How we derided the “wowsers” in those by-gone days of my miss-spent youth. With their prim disapproval towards “harmless vice”, up-tight social views and generally kill-joy attitudes. But of course on issue after issue it turns out that they were right, or at least more right than wrong: drugs, boozing, obesity, STDs and now gambling. (Or gluttony, lust and greed as they used to be called.)
Which is why one sees massive posters plastering bus-stops everywhere one goes as govts try to control the “socially destructive” effects of ultra-liberalism. Especially amongst high-risk classes and cultures.
I hate the way gambling has ruined all the old pubs. It tends to suck the life out of them as punters are not as willing to fork out for live entertainment.
Things were on the whole better when gambling was done on the sly, through back-room casinos, floating crap games and SP bookies. People who really wanted a flutter were still able to have one. Everyone else went home to their wives to have a nice roast dinner.
What are the Greens solution to problem gambling as they didn’t want the N.S.W. Lottery sold!My thoughts are, like problem drinkers,they need a license to drink,so with gamblers.The drinkers should prove they don’t need the grog of any type by an initial four week absence,and tested regularly every year,without notice.With Gamblers the same,a test being able to go without gambling,without prior notification covering a number of weeks.Some sort of reward for paying licenses would be a necessity ,after all a flutter on the Gee Gees wont harm,and a social drinker today is probably someone who has actually given up the grog.Or still a Apprentice,eh legal one,having ,as yet, not tasted the various poisons and social settings for such!Trouble is, Government that causes people to gamble and drink will have another penalty for their designs.
John
I’d need to see more detail about your proposal to subject “gaming enterprises like casinos to a (net) revenue cap. That is, rather than being restricted to a certain number of machines, tables and so on, they would be limited in the amount they could take from the machines in a given year.”
Presumably, since this is going to be part of your discussion at the Henry tax review, you are suggesting some limit on the after tax income gaming places make by taxing anything over that limit at 100%.
That wouldn’t address problem gamblers directly but might make it less profitable for gambling providers to provide facilities to make more than the set amount. Who determines the set amount?
If it is not a tax but a fiat, that might stop some problem gambling in pubs and clubs, but presumably the substitution effect would see it move elsewhere, eg gambling on the net, especially gambling oversees through the net. And if it applies to all forms of gambling then perhaps the substitution effect would see problem gamblers substitute one form of addiction with another – eg booze. Maybe they release the same chemicals in the brain.
And would you regulate all forms of gambling – from two-up on Anzac day to lottery outlets with lotto and scratchies, to the nags and bookies and TABs, Crown Casino and the like? Sounds like a herculean task, and one unlikely for a government of any persuasion to take up.
Now, left field thought coming up, an hypothecated ‘closing the gap’ tax spent on a real plan for doing so is different again.
And another thought. if this were some form of tax, what would you do with the mutuality principle – a misnamed principle if ever there was one. Clubs would claim they are not making income from their members so any such income would be excluded from the tax unless you overrode mutuality (and that would be a good thing since most clubs are just businesses in disguise.) I wonder how we treat pokie income at the moment from clubs for income tax purpsoes?
John Passant, clubs do not pay any income tax, including their poker machine income. Until GST arrived, most of them did not retain records of financial data.
Pr Q says:
You just fall in love with the idea of “cap-and-trade” for any and every social problem, eh? Call me old fashioned but I prefer the “tax-and-ban” approach.
How about “subjecting gaming enterprises like casinos to a (net) revenue cap” of $0? Together with a ban on those infernal poker machines.
Actually, I am not so opposed to games of skill, as opposed to games of chance. So I am fine with poker or “21”.
The advantage of games of skill is that, absent skilled hustling, the player pretty quickly learns which league he is in. So there is an incentive to not get in over your head. Its no fun being cleaned out every time.
With games of chance there is always the illusory hope that Lady Luck will smile on you for one big score.
One thing that always struck me as being odd in Australia are the horrible cow barn like clubs and pubs……maybe a bit of competition from the quaint corner pub style they have in Europe and UK wouldnt go astray here. Bit more diversity and a few less cow barns packed to the rafters with pokies for pensioners and bonus pokie points for cheap meals…maybe its time to rethink the RSL model (horror of horrors…what did I suggest? Its a hanging offence to crticise RSL clubs…but then there were also the huge cow barn footy clubs as well..or there were till they sold off the game). Such a macho macho approach to boozing down under – got to have somewhere big enough to attract the tradies and park their utes on a Friday afternoon for the payroll to be distributed as well (when they go home the pensioners and mums and dads come for a cheap dinner and buy a few keno tickets).
Yes, maybe some competition would reduce gambling.
I have just been to the Cairns RSL for lunch. A great people watching episode with happy hour in th back bar packed. While I was there the horse racing screen volume was turnedup to a level which prohibited further conversation.
Observed was one female patron too drunk to be served further alcohol by any judgement, disturbing othe rpatrons who left, but who nevertheless had a drink anyway. And it certainly didn’t stop serving her at the gambling window as I wathed her turn her purse upside down searching for more cash. Responsible service of alcohol legislation is a joke which puts most costs on wasted education by smaller locations where there is no problem while the big gambling establishments rake it in!
I don’t blame the ‘trained’ RSL staff I wouldn’t want to be in a position of refusing service to anyone drunk, or even trying to make that judgement from behind a bar! Education is a joke and waste of resources compared to more direct disincentives as, i think, JQ is proposing?
Pr Q says:
‘”I’m no wowser!” he retorted indignantly.’ Gee-gees, lotteries and games of skill are fine. Gotta love poker. Never really learned how to play bridge.
Otherwise we should revert to those halcyon days that prevailed before 1990, when a bankrupt ALP govt opened the door for AUS’s richest man to become many times richer. Kerry Packer got Alan Bond, Lloyd Williams and Joan Kirner all in one decade. He sure saw them coming.
Of course they’e had plenty of time to rue their fate. Kirner and Kennett in particular have expressed their regrets at liberalising gambling laws. The Age records their regrets:
They neatly exemplify Kristol’s aphorism: “A conservative is a liberal mugged by reality”.
One thing that is missing from this public policy debate is morality. Gambling is morally wrong in two fundamental ways. It is essentially fraudulent, since working on false hope. And it encourages indolence, money for nothing unearned income.
No one points out these very obvious moral truths. That would constitute “being judgmental” the very worst of sins. Thats liberalism these days. Completely lost its moral bearings.
Steve at the pub. To disgress, clubs do pay income tax. The ATO says:
For taxation purposes, Clubs are regarded as a company. Therefore, all the provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act which apply to companies have equal application to Clubs.
Under self assessment, Clubs are required to determine their own tax liability and pay the amounts due by dates specified in the law. This is a shift in emphasis by the ATO from that of processing returns and issuing assessments on which tax collections are based, to assisting taxpayers to meet their obligations and taking enforcement action against those who don’t.
A Club may be liable to additional tax if it does not declare or calculate the correct amount of taxable income and/or tax payable.
Principle of mutuality
The principle of mutuality provides that where a number of persons contribute to a common fund created and controlled by them for a common purpose, any surplus arising from the use of that fund for the common purpose is not income. This principle, of course, does not extend to include income that is derived from sources outside that group. Where the principle aim of a Club is to provide and improve facilities to its members, the principle of mutuality will apply to all transactions between that club and its members.
The result is that for taxation purposes the income derived and the expenditure incurred by a Club will fall within one of three categories.
1
Revenue/Expenditure – wholly exempt
Receipts from and/or payments on behalf of the members (eg. subscriptions, cost of membership badges etc.)
2
Revenue/Expenditure – wholly assessable/deductible
Income and/or expenditure from sources outside the club or its members (eg. interest on investments).
3
Revenue/Expenditure – partly assessable/deductible
Revenue and/or expenditure derived from the general trading activities of the club which cannot be identified as either member or non-member (eg. poker machine, bar and catering trading).
The principle of mutuality will apply where the Club has the following general attributes:
a. the rules of the Club prohibit any distribution of surplus funds to the members
b. upon dissolution of the Club, the rules of the Club provide that surplus funds must be donated to another Club with similar interests and activities
c. the operations of the Club fall within the ambit of State/Federal laws governing Clubs, and
d. the Club is a member of a recognised Club Association.
The ATO then applies a formula (known as the Waratah’s formual) to divvy up the income/expenditure that is not able to be determined between members and non-membrs.
South Australia used to have pokies limited to the casino, IIRC. Most pubs operated okay without them. The good ones offered decent meals, or live bands, and had an atmosphere peculiar to the pub. Pokies, once introduced saw the demise of the local pub atmosphere and hit the live band scene fairly had. Luckily, live bands found new venues willing to cater for that crowd; however, new live bands looking for that first gig had to compete with the more polished and experienced bands at venues that relied on the music as their attraction.
Things seem to have adjusted to a new balance in terms of pubs and clubs and their reliance on attractions other than alcohol. Nowadays, it would be difficult indeed for a pokies based pub to return to its former attractions; the sudden loss of most of their income would make removal of pokies a courageous decision indeed.
I think the Jini is well and truly out of the bottle – and the cork is long lost – and he aint willingly returning.
John Passant, that reads like a cut & paste from the ATO website.
Freedom from income tax, combined with sole rights to casino operations in suburbia & the regions, allowed RSL/Leagues clubs to each build a Taj Mahal for a clubhouse, as well as expand to the point where the bulk of the membership has no concept of what the purported purpose of the club is.
If they are now paying some income tax (albiet self-assessed) then some of the rivers of gold is going back to the community.
JQ, this topic is one I’d prefer to leave to social science propper and medical science (ie no micro or macro-economic imperialism). As for taxes, I roughly concur with Kevin Cox, but including ‘problem cigarette smokers’ (ie those who have a dependency problem).
Steve at the pub. yes. That’s why I say ‘As the ATO says.’
And can we get rid of the ban on counting cards? It always struck me as highly unfair.
I think that it was the federal government having the state governments as both regulators and direct bes dependent on gambling revenue, as they were content to allow Kerry Packer to pay 3c in the $ tax and did little about it.
That made state government beneficiaries of gambling has created a very bad model and multiple conflicts of interest. It is obvious that the major casinos are now in a position to exert a corrupting influence on all of the state governments. Hence the comment, “Why did Mr Brumby vertually give away a slab of new machines to Packer’s Crown in recent weeks and tax the lot at a markedly lower rate that the pubs and clubs?” Yes! I too would like some accountability and transparency and an answer to this and much more besides.
If I was a betting person I would say that economic technical advisors were instructed NOT to model the social, health, crime and other economic impacts of diverting such a major portion of the nation’s wealth into this unproductive sector. If they had done this modelling, Premiers like Queensland’s formerPremier, Wayne Goss would probably not been able to form such a cozy relationship with Jupiters and gutted the Heritage Listed Treasury Building.
But then, alas, Australians are such lazy voters. They never get to know what their political leaders have been up to till it is thirty years too late to undo the harm. What about some really effective FOI legislation without the ‘commercial-in-confidence’ BS and really effective whistleblower legislation. These need to be at Federal level till all the states abandon corrupt practices.
The thing to understand about gambling is that some forms of gambling are more addictive and have a higher social costs than others. I doubt that a regular lotto ticket causes marriages to fall apart, people to steal from their employers, families to lose their homes, or huge sums of money to be sucked out of local businesses and economies. The same cannot be said for the pokies.
But all gambling is a form of regressive taxation.
Interesting idea about caps. Sadly, gambling regulation needs to be thought out carefully beforehand as an instant and very lucrative vested interest is created the moment the government gives the go-ahead. The horse has already bolted and I don’t know how you get it back into the yard.
WB: “What about some really effective FOI legislation without the ‘commercial-in-confidence’ BS and really effective whistleblower legislation. These need to be at Federal level till all the states abandon corrupt practice”
If we were allowed one and only one piece of legislation aimed at achieving the greatest public good, this might be it.
I couldnt agree more NWK – the “commercial in confidence” provisions have hidden a multitude of public sectorn corruptions.
spelling is bad – sorry
the “commercial in confidence” provisions are BS and behind these provisions so much dirty public sector dealing is done away from scrutiny. As SJ suggested before – its nothing less than corruption to the highest levels. I dont know who or what party will clean out this mess…or whether it will even be done. Total loss of confidence in political parties, to govern properly, in Australia, here.
Total disenchantement with both…
Pokies: Australia’s Modern High Intensity machines spin rates are around 3.5 seconds and with multiple lines an incredible amount of money can be pumped through a machine in a small time period The odds of winning a jackpot on a 25 symbol reel a is around 9.7 million to one. The 35 symbols a reel odd can be up to 52 million to one> The odds of being hit & killed by lightning in Australia in a given year is around 1,5 million to one.
The HI machines have so called free spins that are included in the Return to Player Ratios (in QLD by law 85 to 92%). The inbuilt variable ratio reinforcement behavioral modification of gaming machines players (see Pavlov)ensures that the intermittent drops & free spins, heralding wins, music and limited information provided to users keep people on the machines. This along with the slick marketing, loss of time, funneling, promotions and ‘free tea / coffee, promotion $$” etc all work to keep the poor mug punter on the machines or heading toward the ATM ‘chasing’ their losses. Even if problem gamblers are about 1% of the adult population (the same as diabetics, bipolar or schizophrenics) it is causing a major problem in our society. Spin rates should be lengthened, maximum bets limited, heralding and music / lights toned back, receipts for expenditure, churn and losses should be available on demand on all machines as the mug punters get minimal feedback about their expenditure sessions. Commitment cards are a great idea lets make them compulsory. I will talk about the so called ‘soft’ gambling’ and so called ‘skill gambling’ if this thread goes on. Who is the mug who thinks Blackjack card counting can give an edge .. with eight card packs in a shoe the house edge remains. Michael Walker a researchers says that playing a perfect game of blackjack allows you lose a little more slowly. Don’t start me on wagering the term mug punters was invented for them.