The desertion of Liberal (or LNP?) member Peter Slipper to take up the Speakership offers the Labor government a great opportunity, but also the temptation to mess things up disastrously. The opportunity is to see out a full Parliamentary term, long enough to put the carbon tax and MRRT in place in a way that the Opposition will either have to accept them, or announce a credible plan to replace them – something that is clearly beyond the capacity of its current leader.
The temptation is that the corrupt hacks who infest the ALP machine will use the extra vote to renege on the promise to Andrew Wilkie to tackle the scourge of poker machine gambling through precommitment. A large section of the ALP has been tied to the hotel and club industry since time immemorial and have obstructed any reform that would challenge the interests of this industry.
Even disregarding the issue of principle, it would be really stupid to break the deal with Wilkie. The government’s only chance is to survive past the point when the scare campaign about the carbon tax and MRRT will be shown up for what it is. If Wilkie abandons them and one ALP member has to leave Parliament for some reason, the government will fall. In that case, electoral support or opposition from the poker machine lobby will make no difference.
John Quiggin 
Very much agreed.
This will be a test of how much pull the NSW Right has within Labor right now. Hopefully, not much.
The Age says that Gillard says she told Wilkie she is still committed to the reforms. Hopefully that is true.
The proposed poker machine reforms will not impact upon problem gambling.
So what is the point of them?
“The proposed poker machine reforms will not impact upon problem gambling”
I guess we’ll know that in hindsight. I’m willing to bet that they will.
Irrelevant off-topic rant deleted. You’ve run out of chances, LW. Any future comments from you will be deleted, unless disemvolment or posting with corrections seems more amusing = JQ
Steve, How do you know that? They have not been implemented. You are guessing.
On a priori grounds a repetitive low stakes gamble such as pokies where players chase losses might well respond to pre-commitment devices.
If they were destined to fail why are the pubs and clubs getting so uppity about them. If they fail these groups will be able to continue to exploit problem gamblers who yield 40% of their revenue.
My guess seems better than your guess. These measures will plausibly work.
Steve, Insight on SBS did a program on the issue which seemed to me to provide a convincing argument for the idea that $1 machines would be the better solution, and that was Wilkie’s original suggestion.
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/443#overview
The camera people on Insight are brilliant, just watch the faces on the club representatives when whatshername – she’s good but no-one seems to like her – asks them some inconvenient questions. Watching faces in slow motion is a wonderful way to ‘see’ what people are really saying.
What is the basis of your claim that mandatory precommitment for poker machines will be ineffective, SATP? Where is your evidence?
JQ,
The ALP now have an extra 2 vote margin. The manouvre has more to do with the likelyhood that Craig Thompson might need to resign to defend himself leaving a doubtful bi-election battle on the cards. The bonus is the humiliation of Abbott, an opportunity too politically useful to pass up.
As all commentators have Gillard has negotiated with integrity throughout. It would be out of character, not to mention totally unwise, for her to rennig on the promise on poker machine reform. It is curious that Abbott has been so successful in transposing his very character and traits to Gillard in the public and press minds. Forging the very notion that she would be dishonest and unreliable when her every achievement is the exact opposite is indeed Abbotts ONLY achievement.
Add to the list of things to get bedded down the NBN. Half a million working services by 2013 is a lot harder to abandon.
It’s also interesting that Abbott’s electoral disapproval appears to have increased since he declared his support for the clubs. Not suggesting that’s the direct consequence, but it’s safe to say that didn’t help his electoral popularity.
Problem gamblers are the best example of rational agents maximising their utility function until the marginal utility is equal to the market price.
How can I calculate the consumer surplus in their case?
The following is the result of applying the “governments must tax or borrow before they spend” logic:
“In my view, there is no evidence that introducing mandatory pre-commitment or introducing a one-dollar maximum bet will be effective in tackling problem gambling, but it will hurt recreational players, and that will cost jobs and investment across the industry and cost the state government tax revenue used for essential community services.”
James Packer, chairman of casino owner Crown speaking at Crown’s annual general meeting in Melbourne on 27 October 2011
So we must tolerate these parasites because they increase the state revenue and increase employment.
What if the root cause of the problem are not the “corrupt hacks who infest the ALP machine” but the “scientific” economic paradigm constraining our thinking?
@Julie Thomas
Julie
recall just recently a lot of discussion on austerity. Something you said in one of your comments inspired me to write a short story.
I’ve dedicated it to you and to John (for providing this forum)
It’s called “the land of skinny people”
here’s the link
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/11/land-of-skinny-people.html
i hope you enjoy it
pop
@The Peak Oil Poet
Whoops! Sorry about the slip up with the punctuation. My Bad.
pop
Leon Walras it is customary to provide a link to the source of copy-paste posts, even if it’s from the Moonie Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/legislators-and-honest-graft/
if they’re not going to make any difference, why is the hotel and club industry so opposed?
In all this talk about mandatory pre-commmitment I find it funny that people seem to have forgotten that not so long ago Pokies weren’t around in Queensland and Victoria and they still aren’t around in WA (lucky buggers).
Hmm, nobody above seems to know the first thing about poker machines. Probably got their knowledge from the recent media reports.
hc, your guess does not seem better than mine. Mine is accurate, yours is an uninformed ramble. You couldn’t be more wrong. That is something for you to reflect upon before commenting again.
The cover story for the Wilkie pre-commitment proposal is to reduce problem gambling. We’ll take that story at face value.
If that is the purported aim, the proposal will fail in its objective. ie it will have negligible impact upon problem gambling.
I could assume there are thinkers on this thread, but I’ve found that to be an erronous assumption, so I’ll go on:
There is no law of the universe that says if something is going to fail in objective (a) that it will not achieve unexpected conseqquences of (b). This basic error in thinking seems to run through the middle of just about every opinion on the proposal. (or in English, “If the clubs are so against it, then that can ONLY be because the proposal is going to work).
Even saying this demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability, & certainly a lack of scientific background, or exposure to scientific methods.
The Wilkie proposals will require a lot of capital expenditure by clubs. They reforms will have little impact upon problem gamblers. The proposed reforms will however bring discretionary gambling to a near halt.
Clubs know that the bulk, or if not the bulk, one helluva lot, of their income is not from problem gamblers, but from discretionary gamblers.
Thus the Wilkie reforms will cost a lot of money, will not achieve their stated aim, and will cause inconvenience (ie the sack) to workers in the industry. Furthermore the Wilkie reforms will impact upon the discretionary recreational gambling of people for whom gambling is not a problem, why bother legislating to remove a person’s freedom to engage in what is for them a harmless activity?
The problem gambler will still be gambling. Pre commitment hasn’t achieved the stated goal in New Brunswick, nor in (though done slightly differently there) Norway.
On top of that the timetable for implementation of the reforms is unlikely to be met. Logistically it will take longer than that to replace every poker machine in the country.
@El Mono
Obviously there couldn’t have been clubs back then if the horror stories of the likely consequences of the tiniest curb on problem gambling pokie cash flow is to be believed.
Moderation?
I’m in moderation too, dont know why
My preferred outcome on poker machines is to dispose of them completely, SATP. If the clubs cannot come to terms with the need to prevent the immense destruction that these ghastly devices cause then the outcome will in due course be their total removal.
Those of you who are defending their uncontrolled use wake up to yourselves.
As I have said before, the fate of the couple next door to my house at the time that my family moved in was that the wife gambled away all of the couple’s retirement money on poker machines, the husband committed suicide in the garage against our fence, the bank foreclosed on the property and then threw out the wife to a fate that I know nothing about.
There is nothing good about these devices. It is just bone lazy business trumped up as being “good for the community”.
“hc, your guess does not seem better than mine. Mine is accurate, yours is an uninformed ramble”
Well, mine isn’t. I work about 4 meters away from the person who will be evaluating it in Vic (depending on where the chair in my office is and where her chair is), and I don’t see her wandering around saying “this will never work”, “this will never work”, “this will never work”.
This why I’m happy to bet that there will be significant effects on problem gamblers and, also importantly, the number of people becoming problem gamblers. Again, if you’re so sure in your beliefs, then (a) you shouldn’t give a toss about the current reforms; and (b) you should be suggesting that stronger enforcement rules be used unless you think that taking money from vulnerable groups, such as old people with undiagnosed dementia, is a good idea (which is likely outcome if the current rules don’t work incidentally — especially now the issue has gain traction with the general public who will inevitably fall on the side of more authoritarian measures).
the interesting bit was the way it was reported.
if the shoe was on the other foot?
“brilliant political manouvering.” “embattled battlers battling against satanic socialist sorts.” “upset of the century.”etc.
and the other day.
when this “failed”,”dysfunctional”govt pointed out the number of the pieces of legislation passed, the cry went up that the stack of paper would be a meter high.
as if that was somehow pertinent.
the fin might be the most accurate info source, but really, what else there is there?
not a lot.
BilB, either you are opposed to poker machines, or you are for them, but with pre-commitment technology installed. Which is it?
I have stated that the Wilkie reforms will not achieve their purported aims.
Please explain how me pointing that out amounts to “defending their uncontrolled use”? Thinking ain’t always a strong theme in threads on this site. That can make discussion difficult.
especially when you are drunk.
SATP,
Your claiming that precommitment will not work is no form of evaluation or proof at all. If you read back, I asked you for the basis of your judgement. Where is the proof. You fail to deliver.
I have seen the damage these things cause. You had better come to terms with the notion that the real risk here is that the clubs could loose the income from these machines completely.
The argument that the state governments cannot do without the income from these machines is a total crock The fact is that if the money is not put through the poker machines it will still be spent, but through other channels such as grocery stores, clothing stores, and book shops. The states will still receive a portion of that expenditure in increased GST compounded.
Frankly I would be delighted to see the sports clubs become proper businesses rather than the boozy, smokey, dingey gambling dens that they are. Get the point? I hate them, and only go to them under duress, and then only for the food which is totally mediocre to bad.
There is nothing at all about “sporting” clubs that I see that is worth preserving that is based on the revenues of gambling machines.
I doubt any of them are drunk may, unless you speak for yourself? 😉
@Steve at the Pub
“Steve at the Pub”
I guess she thinks you really are at the pub.
p
I really am Peak Oil, I spend my who cursed life here. The point is what?
@Steve at the Pub
oh, nothing. I’m sure it was a slip of the mouse.
p
Hmm, I’ve watched a bit of that show that Julie links to on the Soccer Bikes & Sex channel. It’s daytime, so I’ll get around to the rest of it later.
I’m up to the part where Andrew Wilkie is defining problem gambling as betting more than $1 per spin of a poker machine.
This is flawed methodology.
SATP you have ‘stated’ that the reforms will not work, you have asserted that your views are accurate and others ill informed but you have argued nothing, except your belief of other’s motivations and your belief that the reforms will affect ‘discretionary’ gamblers. But all you have to say about problem gamblers is assertion after assertion that the reforms will not work with no reasons. Are you merely arguing from authority? Is this authority owning a pub? Is this in WA or is your interest self-interest? I’m not sure how the thinkers on the thread are supposed to respond, it sounds like we are just to reflect gratefully upon your glorious assertions. If so, I’d appreciate a little more substance to reflect upon.
Paul of Albury: For starters, the reforms will apply only to poker machines. They will not apply to any other form of gambling.
The reforms require a gambler to register as a gambler (licence to punt as the club industry aptly puts it). This will stop overseas & casual gamblers. It will certainly stop me. Even if I were to be bothered to obtain a punter’s card (which I won’t) I wouldn’t carry it with me 24/7. Thus when I am overtaken with the urge to pop $50 through a poker machine, say interstate & in a post prandial state of mine, I’ll be prevented by not having my punting licence on me.
Problem gamblers (ie, those who are “hooked”) will go to all sorts of lengths to punt, if they have to (see what happened in New Brunswick). However under the Wilkie proposals they won’t have to, all they have to do is pre-commit to, say, a million dollars a day of maximum losses, & bob’s their uncle.
Imagine if you will, how successful would be a law aimed at improving our health & reducing smoke, that limited people to purchasing, say, 20 cigarettes each day.
The Wilkie proposals likewise won’t achieve their stated aim, to stop problem gamblers from doing their dough.
@Steve at the Pub
It’s an interesting point SATP. I think policy makers are assuming though, that most problem gamblers know they have a problem. This means that in the cold light of day they would set low maximum daily bets.
Or imagine a husband with a gambling problem which has severely impacted on the family. His wife can be there with him when he is signing up for the system, and she can insist he set a reasonable limit, say $20 a day. In this way, she applies a familial/social pressure, and that can be enforced when she isn’t at the pub.
All I know is that the people who make money out of poker machines are screaming loudly about this reform, so given their obvious self-interest, I infer that the Wilkie proposals will, in fact, reduce revenues to poker operators, and since a fair slab of that money that they get is from problem gamblers, that suggests that this reform will have some positive effects.
Even if it doesn’t, if it annoys the pokies lobby, that’s good enough for me.
“Problem gamblers (ie, those who are “hooked”)”
It’s not just current problem gamblers, it’s those who would have otherwise become problem gamblers.
“Imagine if you will, how successful would be a law aimed at improving our health & reducing smoke, that limited people to purchasing, say, 20 cigarettes each day.”
There’s no real comparison here. Drugs are easy to sell in a black market. Alternatively, you could get rid of every pokie tomorrow and I doubt there would be any great black market for them.
SATP,
Precommitment works. The proof is all here.
Case A
As an addicted blogger I have submitted myself to the bloggers precommiment beta test programme. I had indicated in my precommitment for this week “happy/casual”. Well we can all see what happened. So my previous response to SATP was thrown into the moderation bin for a day and my further blogging has subsequently been reduced. The benefit has been more time spent with my family. Win, Win.
Precommitment works.
Case B
Steve at the Pub #34 himself says that he mentally precommits before he considers gambling…. “thus when I am overtaken with the urge to pop $50 through a poker machine”…. but believes that he would not carry through with the urge because he would not get a “gambling card”. The fact is that he already has a gambling card if he is a member of a club. The membership card itself is all that is required. Pop the card in a machine to use it…….enter in what he has already decided….that precommitment is logged onto his card or into the club’s tracking system and away he goes. Steve can move from machine to machine and his precommitment goes with him.
Precommitment works.
Or. …..Steve maintains his stance of never getting a gambling card and he saves all of his money and has more available to pay his staff….properly. Win, Win, Win.
Steves staff, being better paid, now have the money to contribute to their childrens weekend sports associations and those associations become better funded as their money has not come to them via the poker machine/club profit/goverment taxation very inefficient pathway. Win again.
It is all good. Get with the programme.
Moderaton again. Wait for it. You will like it.
“[1] The Wilkie proposals will require a lot of capital expenditure by clubs. [2] They reforms will have little impact upon problem gamblers.”
the capital expenditure argument might well be the actual (as opposed to the stated) reason clubs are opposed, but i remain sceptical. obviously implementing the wilkie plans will require some capital expenditure, although whether the expenditure will be “a lot” seems to require my taking on faith the statements of club industry groups who have an exceedingly clear motive for exaggeration.
what i don’t understand is why you seem to think there is some necessary relation between your statements [1] and [2]. the wilkie proposal might actually cost clubs quite a lot of money to implement, i wouldn’t know and i suspect neither do you, but they might also substantially reduce problem gambling. both statements can be true. both statements might be driving club opposition. to many, including me, the cost to the community through the cost imposed on clubs would be a price worth paying.
@Steve at the Pub
Limiting cigarettes to 20 a day would be a desirable reform. It would reinforce other public health initiatives.
Who cares about a few winging gamblers crying over having to carry a card. The benefits to many other families far outweigh such sobbing.
Money that would otherwise be lost down pokie machines and so currently feeds the corporate profits of Woolworths (& etc), will now stay in the pockets of householders and will be available to buffer against increased energy costs as society necessarily adjusts to climate change.
Just a side note – anything to do with g*mbling, and even more with c*sinos, is likely to set off the spam alarms and go into moderation. Not much I can do about this, except to haul it out when I notice it.
It will indeed be interesting. Up to date Gillard has shown herself to be one smart cookie. Up to date she has done a lot of good things, but the detractors can claim it was only because the minority government forced action. If she continues with the reforms no one can claim it wasn’t because she wanted the reform.
I suspect she will continue.
The issue of gambling is going to be a difficult one now that the Labor Party has a little more breathing space. However a PM who already has credibility issues will be reluctant to appear completely untrustworthy by going back on Wilkie’s demands. The other independents would rightly question their agreements with the PM. This would allow room for Rudd to move.
The arguments put forward by SATP show how self serving the opposition is. There is a need to control the addictive machines just as addictive medication can only be bought on prescription.
The funniest piece of mental contortion from Clubs Aust is that they can run voluntary programs but somehow when it legislated it is too expensive. Clubs Australia like to focus on their good works. The problem for the pokie barons however is that too many of us know of families left with nothing because of someone else’s addiction. The argument is really about people preying on others through an addiction which those same people have fostered. People need protection through mechanisms such as are proposed because it is not a level playing field.
Scott #36
“…..if it annoys the pokies lobby, that’s good enough for me.”
So for you it is not about good policy, it is about sticking it to someone, anyone. Gambling isn’t of the slightest concern to you.
Chris Warren #41
“….and so currently feeds the corporate profits of Woolworths (& etc), will now stay in the pockets of householders and will be available to buffer against increased energy costs as society necessarily adjusts to climate change.”
Now we’ve got the picture. You’re against someone making money, and a likely envro-fascist.
Gambling isn’t of the slightest concern to you.
I wonder has anybody got any actual, you know, evidence based concerns that relate to gambling, rather than to the fasicistic urge to implement legislative control over the lives of others?
Living in the UK, one big difference in the pubs is that they’re not infested by poker machines. And pubs seems to function fine without them, at least in Oxford.
Not having poker machines makes pubs more attractive to me, not less, and I can’t believe I’m the only one.
I’m in the fairly unusual position of being with Bilb on this one. I’d prefer the p*kies were banned entirely, but as a second best option, caps on payouts and bet would be an improvement with pre-commitment as the weakest of the worthy options.
All of these will, IMO, moderate the problem.
Danny Yee #45:
If you are in the UK, you will be aware that in the past several years the main topic regarding pubs has been the number of them that have been closing. It is expected that up to 40% of them will have to close. Something for you to reflect upon when claiming “pubs seem to function just fine”.
Fran there are already caps on both payouts & bets. In Qld bets are capped at $5, and payouts at $10,000. To get a payout any higher a machine has to be linked to a statewide jackpot, which only a small percentage are. The $10,000 is achievable on a stand-alone EGM only by doubling up the win, usually doubling it several times, as a win on combinations on a stand-alone rarely is more than circa $3,000
Whatever you are aluding to, SATP, UK pub closures are not about poker machines.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc94706c-16be-11e1-a45d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1erk0WTnx
Perhaps UK pubs need to discover the benefit of micro breweries and onsite beer brewing, as New Zealanders have done. The beer is better with far greater variety, and it is always cold. More to the point it means better profits for the publican.
I am alluding to UK pubs not being financially viable BilB. A diametric reversal of the (hardly scientific) observation @45 that “pubs seem to be functioning just fine”.
Perhaps microbreweries in pubs is a great opportunity for you to move the the UK & show them how it is done. As it is better profits for the publican it will be a great opportunity for you to really clean up financially where those dumb yokel british have failed.