Survey on Problem Gambling: The Results
While it must be noted that this survey is not statistically representative of the Australian public, like a Newspoll or Nielsen Poll, it does match the Australian public in this one important respect: the respondents to the survey aren’t all wowsers.
Around 13.2 per cent of the total respondents said they play poker machines regularly although the definition of ‘regularly’ varies. Only 4.3 per cent of total respondents said they play at least as often as once a week – which is a fair match of the general public. The Productivity Commission notes that around 600,000 Australians or four per cent of the adult population play at least weekly[1]. Of those respondents who said the play poker machines regularly, 75.5 per cent were male. Around 0.3 per cent of respondents said they play poker machines every day.
Click to see full size images
In terms of how much money is lost, a very small percentage of poker machine players (1.6 per cent) lose more than $500 a week, while the vast majority (64.3 per cent) said they lose less than $20 a week. A significant number of them said they lose more money on poker machines than they can afford – 1.6 per cent of total respondents or 12.7 per cent of those who say they play poker machines regularly.
This does not mean these respondents can be classed as problem gamblers. To get an adequate definition of a problem gambler would take an entire survey in itself[2]. But there is a correlation with statistics cited by the Productivity Commission:
“While survey results vary, around 15 per cent of these regular players (95 000) are ‘problem gamblers’. And their share of total spending on machines is estimated to range around 40 per cent.”[3]
In terms of age and sex, the sample was older and more male than the general population. The median age was 52, compared to the Australian median age of 36.9[4], while 66.4 per cent of respondents were male, compared to 49.7 per cent of the population in general. Although questions of age and sex were optional, the vast majority of people answered in good faith. And if nothing else, it was a great way of excluding some respondents – such as alert.but.not.alarmed.of.st.kilda@gmail.com, who has lived to the enviable age of 190.
Importantly, 70.6 per cent of people said they are not satisfied with Federal and State Governments’ regulation of poker machines and 66.1 per cent of people said they support changing the laws on how poker machines can be used in pubs and clubs. Women were slightly more likely to favour changing federal laws than the general response sample, with 68.9 per cent of woman supporting changes.
However, when responses are broken down by people who regularly play poker machines, the ratio of people who said they favoured the Federal Government changing regulation of machines was virtually reversed: only 35.2 per cent of regular poker machine players want Federal law changed.
Results: Policy Positions
Mandatory Pre Commitment
Support for policy changes ranges from a very lukewarm 43.8 per cent (voluntary pre-commitment) to an overwhelming 66.7 per cent ($1 bet limits). Below are the breakdowns for support for the various policy positions along with comments submitted on how people feel about them.
Some of the strongest opposition to mandatory pre-commitment came from people who described themselves as regular poker machine players. While just under 35 per cent of the general population either disagree or strongly disagree with mandatory pre-commitment, almost 67 per cent of regular poker machine players either disagree or strongly disagree with the policy.
“As someone who has occasionally placed a bet, in hindsight I often wished such technology was in place after loosing more than I could afford.”
- William Stoltz, 19, Glen Iris
“It may not solve the problem, but for many it will limit it. It may also allow the problem to be seen rather than hidden within families.”
- Doug Mullett, 61, Werribee
“Let’s regulate effectively in a way that will (eventually) apply to all pokie players – there may not be another opportunity for decades. And let’s take back some power from wealthy greedy lobby groups.”
- Geoffrey Bradshaw, 59, Paddington
“Education and counselling may help- but problem gamblers are often not aware that they have a problem. Pre commitment may be part of a solution.”
- Frances Moore, 71, Bangara
“Mandatory pre-commitment is only one tool to minimise the harm created by problem gambling. Like smoking, problem gambling has a ‘passive’ effect (on families, children etc.). This means society has a right and a responsibility to do all that is possible to reduce the harm. Pubs and clubs are not casinos and their business models should not rely on them being that. Even if some pubs and clubs become unviable (which, given the nature of the proposal, I don’t believe), I can’t imagine that Australians want to artificially prop up these businesses at the expensive of innocent victims.”
- Chris Johnson, 44, Lilyfield
“Problem gambler would probably make a pre-committment of say $1000 so law is non effective.”
- Patricia Rogers, 79, Wattle Hill
“The technology will impose an inconvenience on people, inhibiting their right to entertain themselves as they see fit. The law cannot be justified on liberal principles. Rather, it is a patronising intervention.”
- Tony Casey, 41, Sancrox
“The policy does not deal with the problem, and creates a new problem of economic loss to the sector that hangs off such venues, which are largely community focused. I live in city where one of the big beneficaries of pokies is the Labor Party via its Labor Club and pokies. I find the underlying moralism of the crusade worrying and verging on fanatical. Despite all of this effort I don’t expect much change in problem gambling at all.”
- Martin Gordon, 53, Flynn
“An expensive ineffectual bureaucratic intrusion into private lives. The research quoted above may be accurate in so far as it maps the problem, but is not persuasive as justifying legislative interference, especially by the Commonwealth.”
- Geoffrey Luck, 80, Killara
“Education is the key to any addictions. Those who have a predisposition to an addictive personality need help to overcome their issues – not have Society change to suit a narrow band of people.”
- Helen Barnett, 62, Varsity Lakes
“How people choose to spend their money and live their lives (for example, pokies) should be of no concern of the government. People must be free to do what as they wish!
- Will Duncan, 17, Albert Park
“I am a social gambler and do not wish to be forced to have a licence for a casual punt every now and then. There are self exclusion options already available. Is this not taking the Governments control a little to far? how much do you wish to invade the ‘average joe’s’ daily life? If I wish to put, then I will. If not pokies then ill find another way.”
- Jack Wiley, 22, Crows Nest
Voluntary Pre Commitment
If people know they have a problem they should be helped as much as possible. above this anyone that signs up for it should be offered advice/psychological help to see if there is anything else wrong and teach methods to help them.
- Ben Bartlett, 27, Surry Hills
Voluntary pre-commitment should be coupled with strong education on why and how it is helpful, as well as making the rules clear on what the boundaries and criteria are for voluntary vs mandatory.
- Stuart Glass, 40, Bradfield
Hopefully, problem gamblers will have some insight into their own problem and they should be encouraged to take some responsibilty for their own problems. Counselling should reinforce this.
- Charles Beelaerts, 61, Double Bay
The advantage of voluntary commitment is that the person involved is likely to be aware they have a problem, and are looking for ways to help limit their behaviours, unlike some addicts who lack the insight, and will turn to other more easily accessible sources of addiction behaviour.
- Michael Kerrigan, 52, Meningie
It seems much more research & publicity to the community is needed before we can be reasonably be sure what will help those afflicted by problem gambling. To set loss limits would seem of some help, but review yearly and change of tactics as needed seems very necessary.
- Alex Wood, 84, Higgins
Voluntary precommitment presumes that the gambler is aware of the risks of gambling. It does nothing to change behaviours in desperate or already addicted players.
- Dermot Daley, 60, Carnegie
From experience with employees, I do not believe that those with a serious problem will subscribe to voluntary pre commitment.
- Graeme Wheeler, 74, Albury
My mother was 92 years old when she died earlier this year, when she was 91 she still loved what she called her “flutter on the pokies” she couldn’t see well enough to sign or read a pre-commitment statement, but she loved to sit in front of a machine and play the game and watch the lights. Labour’s proposal would have taken one of her few joys away from her.
- Charles Ryman, 65, Helensvale
I think the voluntary pre-commitment misses most of the serious social costs of genunie problem gamblers rather than occassional overspends of social users
- David Owens, 44, Burnie
There are so many major issues that should be taken up by governments. Future planning, financial stability and positioning Australia for the challenges that lie ahead should take priority. The world is moving forward and while this nation focusses on minor issues we run the real risk of being left behind. Gambling is a problem for some people and they should be assisted but really is that the greatest challenge we face, I think not.
- Greg Miles, 57, Barden Ridge
Limiting Spins to $1
Unlike mandatory pre-commitment, where a clear majority of poker machine players are opposed to the policy, regular players are more likely to support limiting spins to support limiting spins to $1. Only a very slim majority of regular players – 50.1 per cent – are opposed or strongly opposed to limiting spins while 39.9 per cent of regular players either support or strongly support limiting spins to $1.
Rather than mandatory pre-commitment, simply make the maximum bet a nominal amount.(It takes a lot longer to blow your fortnightly social security or wages if you can only bet 50c or $1 at a time.)
- Derek Robinson, 38, Millthorpe
I also support the $1 changes which have been suggested and any other changes that reform poker machine use.
- Kay Rook, 50, Randwick
There are far too many poker machines in clubs and after watching “Insight” I believe that only having $1 bets would help cut down problem gambling.
- Pat Zinn, 81, Bondi Junction
I’m inclined to the view that rather than the complexity of mandatory precommitment, better to use the european (?) model of $1 limits – ban the high-intensity machines and save the legislation and paperwork of precommitment.
- Michael Asten, 60, Hawthorn
Reducing the maximum bet to $1 won’t change much – addicts will still lose the lot. Get rid of incentive to keep using the machine.
- Michael Harrison, 69, Parkdale
Poor people and addicts are propping up sleazy clubs, good cheap meals at clubs could be subsidised by $1 machine idea, outlaw the high roller pokies that are almost unique to Australia and cause 95% of the problem
- Caroline Graham, 73, Douglas Park
This is tricky. We need to protect “problem gamblers” from themselves whilst allowing the rest of us to play the pokie when we want to. I don’t know if $1 max bet will do the job because I usually play on 1c machines with a max bet of about 20c.
- Lex Marshall, Jellat Jellat
More Counselling
Increasing counselling and treatment for problem gamblers is the only policy proposal where the view of regular poker machine players almost identically matched the general response sample. In both cases there were resounding majorities for more counselling (76.8 per cent of all respondents support or strongly support it compared to 74.6 per cent of regular players).
Promotion of Live Odds
Geographical Analysis
Given the relatively strong interest in the survey from my own electorate, the sample of the respondents was dominated by New South Wales, although that may also be explained by the fact pokies are apparently a bigger issue than in other States.
Below is a breakdown of 26 electorates to give an indication of where respondents came from and how their answers varied. My own electorate of Wentworth is accounts for 10.6 per cent of total respondents. However, the views of Wentworth are not markedly different from the whole sample. If you exclude all Wentworth-ites from the survey sample, support for changing Federal laws on poker machines only falls from 66.1 per cent to 65.3 per cent.
Not every respondent nominated an electorate as it was not a required field – only 5570 respondents did, or roughly three-quarters of the total. As you can see, there were more responses from the inner city electorates compared to outer-metro, regional and remote electorates.
[1] Productivity Commission, (2010), “Inquiry Report into Gambling”, p.2
[2] The most commonly used measure is the Canadian Problem Gambling Index, which can be found in Appendix D of the Productivity Commission’s 2010 report.
[3] Productivity Commission, (2010), “Inquiry Report into Gambling”, p.2
[4] ABS, (2010), “Population by Age and Sex”, available online here.
122 Responses to “Survey on Problem Gambling: The Results”
I cannot believe that MPs, who just voted themselves a huge salary increase when they expect everyone else to belt tighten, think that a major part of their job is to control the people who elected them! We do not elect Keepers or Wardens or Teachers who treat us as psychiatric patients, prisoners or school children. We do not pay MPs to make decisions on our behalf on how we should make personal decisions about what we choose to do in our lives. We are enfranchised adults who elect REPRESENTATIVES on the basis of the platform they put before us on election day. Get back to the public sector and stop trying to dictate PERSONAL choices as well. This meddling in personal decision making is taking the place of good government!
Lorraine, in case you missed it, these are the results of a SURVEY of the PEOPLE. It’s an indication of what the PEOPLE think about this issue. OK?
Irrespective of personal opinions relating to salary increases, politicians certainly did not “vote themselves a huge salary increase”. Salaries are determined by an independent tribunal. I also fail to see the logic of your comments about politicians controlling people when we are being provided with an opportunity to be consulted and provide opinions.
It seems we will not get rid of the Nanny State by voting liberal. Sad!
Very sad – I am very right wing myself and believe that true liberalism lies in minimal government intervention in all parts of life.
Lorraine, please see my comment to your namesake above. This is a SURVEY of 7,500 PEOPLE. Unless you think Malcolm’s crime is to have asked the people what they thought. Shocking, I know. We should just ask you.
Frighteningly Orwellian the extent to which governments are trying to control the population. this entire conversation driven by a single independent with serious hypocrite issues, and just to keep a morally bankrupt PM in the lodge! Honestly, does anyone really think any action on pokies will stop true problem gamblers? It may stop them loosing money at clubs but there alternatives, horse racing, dog racing, casinos, and internet, and these are the legal alternatives, all untouched. Moreover, many internet gambling sites are not under Australian jurisdiction and outside of this Orwellian control.
Ken, this was a SURVEY of 7,500 PEOPLE.
Here in WA where, apart from at our one casino, porkies have been banned, we do not have anything approaching the problem gambling disease that exists in the east. We don’t have them and don’t want them. Maybe it is because we do not know what we are missing, but in this case it is a case of blissful ignorance.
Problem gamblers do not create problems just for themselves. They affect other people, especially dependent spouses and children, sometimes in serious ways. They also cost the community in having to provide welfare and other services for them. I do not begrudge this. However, giving additional weight to the opinions of regular gamblers is unfair on those who suffer from their addiction.
Of course, what really sticks in the craw is the easy power that gambling tycoons (blood-suckers that they are) have over politicians.
Show them that you are a real man, Malcolm.
Yes. Less Nanny State and more improving Australia’s competitve advantage. This pokie reform is a stunt, there are so many other ways to loose your earnings or assets.
Ann, this was a SURVEY of the PEOPLE!
Really Andrew you think only people on the internet make up the majority of people. There is one thing you forget the States, how will you get them to comply.
$1 limit bet, most machines only goe to a $2 bet, and the expense of changing this?
You must live in la la land if these poker machine restrictions will do any good for problem gamblers. It won’t.
Changing the bet limit on poker machines is a simple software parameter change that takes exactly 30 seconds per machine. I would say an experienced technician could do an entire club in a few hours. Don’t listen to the rhetoric from the club industry, they are play you all as well as the Murdoch press are.
I note the last comment, I don’t mind MP’s getting a pay rise but I do get upset when public servants such as in Canberra employed by the government within the upper echelon getting big percentage pay increases when they are screwing all the people that do their work for them. Policing is one area, we do all the dirty work while our top boys get higher percentages than us and they don’t have anyone to answer to as the Minister in charge gives it to them without hesitation. However problem gamblers wont tell the truth so our figures maybe out of kilter with the real facts. Plus there is no mention of bringing any laws across the board to casinos, my opinion is that private owners such as pubs and private or public companies should never have been allowed to have pokies unless the profit from them was going outside their pockets into charity. No good wasting money on problem gamblers as they wont stop until they want to, you wont be able to make them stop until they are ready, smoking, drinking in excess all the same, unfortunately Pokies seem to encourage theft etc as they think there is hope with all the glitter and lights encouraging them to encourage their minds to think they will get it all back and be a winner. We know they wont be a winner. When you control the amount you put in the machine you should also control the false glitter of hope and free handouts by casinos. Malcolm I can say more but I am one voice and have and am a sufferer as my wife is in denial as to how much she may lose, but as she uses her own money to gamble I gave up. But in the past she borrowed a lot of it. I have taken it up with ACCC re the way GE money gives money to people without any due diligence the same as money lenders, cash converters etc etc. This is what we also have to stop. It is a big picture not as small as our survey. Talk to you as agreed about this and other issues previously discussed about the waist of our aid.
Good work Malcolm. In order to represent the people it is mandatory to get their opinions based on fact – and not ideology. Those of us without a problem with pokies shouldn’t care less about reform, except that these reforms can and will help others that DO have a real problem. This is good liberal policy.
Whew! Thanks, Russell! Until I read your comment, I thought I was losing my marbles – so many people bleating about government intervention. Did they not read that it was a survey of the people? Good grief! And these people vote!
We expect government to regulate pokies, narcotics, firearms, etc, because it’s in the interests of all of us. Personal responsibility is a great thing, but when people are unable or unwilling to act responsibly, it hurts them, their families, and the wider community.
Dear Malcolm
Thank you for your investigations and your report.
I hope that those opposed to the ‘nanny state’ also support vagrancy, public drunkenness and the building of places of worship of non-Christian religions in their neighbourhoods, not to mention the operations of small-scale travel agents facilitating boat travel between Indonesia and Ashmore Reef.
Commercial transactions that fleece vulnerable people are universally condemned except when they are conducted by licensed clubs, pubs and casinos apparently.
Good luck with it.
I still think there are bigger issues that deserve the governments time than a few gamblers getting into trouble. Every weekend we see alcohol do more damage to the lives of people and their families than gamblers do in one year. Now we mix violence with alcohol and add dangerous weapons and we have a more urgent problem that should be addressed by the government rather than gambling
Andrew, perhaps you haven’t seen the destructive effects on families – no food on the table, Mum or Dad never home, mortgage not paid, endless family fights, crime, discovery, unemployment, shame, court cases dragging on and sometimes imprisonment.
None of this hits the headlines, but it sure hits families and affects children’s lives forever.
Thank you Mr Turnbull on publishing this result. I must say what a lot are saying here that you should be the leader of the Liberal Party. Unfortunately you are a member of the conservative party. I do admire your work, but with Tony Abbott at the helm I could never vote Liberal/Conservative.
It’s very interesting how this comment just spectacularly got published on Malcolm’s website – not suggesting anything I suspect ………
Malcolm, if you want to get into government you’re just going to have to get over the fact that you won’t be prime minister, with all due respect. You can still be effective in portfolios such as telecommunications.
Finally a decent survey which I feel is representative. I am personally opposed to gambling in all forms and I feel that access should be limited. We need less machines and lower limits.
Thanks for running this survey. It confirms yet again why should be the leader of the Liberal Party. Your approach on this matter has provided a valuable way to gauge public opinion based on fact and evidence, rather than determine policy on the basis of prejudice, ideology and crude electoral ambition, as seems to be the case with Tony Abbott.
Can a nation of workers risk it all on one bet?
No.
Thankyou Malcolm for initiating this survey and making the results widely available. Evidence-based policy and decision making, how refreshing!
It is clear that many problem gamblers are loosing much more money than they can afford, that they need our help, and that their families are also are suffering.
It is also clear that you should never have been removed from your position as leader of the opposition!
Naturally Malcolm to this you should be automatically responding to this as a part of the liberal team by saying something like “Thank you for your positive feedback however I am keen to work with Mr Abbott in an elected government – given an opportunity!”
Well done Malcolm. You certainly have got more people talking about this social problem and we can see the wide and different views we have to the solution. Lets have more of these open forums, like the ABCs Q&A
Dear Malcolm,
Thanks for your excellent effort in this research. I do not know what you intend to do with it, but my hope is that you will use it to strengthen the arm of those who seek to assist the people who find themselves in pitiful vulnerability to the behavioural addiction(s) of gambling. Also to the less obvious but hugely beneficial cause of returning our pubs and clubs to hubs of social activity – music, dancing, what have you – rather than mass, mind numbing closure in front of (yet another) a electronic screen.
Why is there no mention of the crucial role of ‘near miss’ programming which is banned in most other first world countries (including I believe Las Vegas) and which – along with the lights and music – is the means by which poker machines work on the player to addict them. The machine is programmed to make the player think that they ‘nearly’ won and that if they keep playing and/or put in more money they will win. Of course the reality is that the results are random (subject to overall legal payout requirements), and the bells and whistles appear AFTER your selection has already been determined in order to convince you that what occurred was NOT random. This is misleading, deceptive, and the ACCC should take action against it. But failing any action there, the government can also legislate specifically to forbid ‘near miss’ programming. At least then we do not have players deceived as to what is happening, and people are less likely to be addicted and put the value of their home through the machine.
I wish to point out that MPs didn’t vote for their pay rises, rather an independent commission made the decision, at the expense of other costly long term benefits. In regards to the gambling reforms, I think its past the time where we decry the nanny state as a bad thing. Just because a person is an adult with the ability to make decisions, does not mean they are able to make the correct decision or control their behaviour. It is in most people’s interests to reduce the amount of problem gambling and if it requires government interventions then so be it. The survey was also a great form of communication, and I wish there were more of its kind. Even though I am not a liberal supporter, the opportunity to contribute my views and in some way influence policy and policy discussion is an opportunity which should be made available more often, especially in an easily accessible online format.
Dear Malcolm,
It is fully within the remit of all Governments to ‘deem’ that poker machine playing will be purely a money
churning exercise benefitting the participants .
The participants might well be prepared
to pay a KNOWN premium to the benefit of junior sports teams or whatever.
What really annoys me about this non-debate is that the true criminals, the ones who take the money are the bastards such
as yourself (no offence intended) who reap the income and then have the audacity to suggest that problem gamblers have a problem.
Governments could solve this problem within 24 hours.
Let the idiots gamble, but only within the
invested funds, with a clearly stated understanding of what they are doing, and
Governments OUT, other than oversight.
It may be hearsay, but I recall that Joe
Bejelky Peterson (best attempt at spelling) managed to fund Queensland hospitals WITHOUT the benefit of poker machines.
In my view there could be little clearer
case than ‘it’s the goverments fault’ and the
facts and statistics, such as being the state with the most poker machines on earth, might one day be commented upon.
Thank you, and very best regards
Mr. Turnbull
Charles Craig
PS. Thank you also for your referral to
Mr. Abbot about my concern.
The only “mandatory” thing about mandatory pre-commitment is the “stop and think” moment. To hear people whine about this being some terrible inconvenience is nauseating. It gives all of us, problem gamblers or not, the opportunity to limit our total spend. If we choose a limit of $10,000, that’s up to us. No nanny state will stop us. But for those folks who have a problem, it could help them rebuild their lives.
I find the public support of this invasion into a person’s freedom of choice somewhat unsettling. This is the thin edge of the wedge, where everything we do will be controlled by someone who has the temerity to believe they know what is best for me! If these misguided meddlers want to do what is best for me, then they might as well bring up my family, do my job, cook my food and eat it for me as well!
Love him, or hate him, Ronald Reagan has a quotation I rather like and think you should all adopt… “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” and I personally couldn’t agree more!
Absolutely agree Jim, I squirm when I THINK that mps are aspiring to gain entry into the running of our communities and the income received by the States. Let Wilkie try it on again? They are not doing this to help problem gamblers, they know quite well it won’t help, what they are doing is taking over control in areas they have no right to interfer, the States, you and me. Get behind me Satan.
It’s like this carbon tax, it won’t do any good, but employ more bureaucrats. The EU Carbon credits just dropped to below 5 Euro. Some confidence in that eh?
Congratulations Malcolm on your initiative to be better informed before making decisions. I don’t have a problem with gambling because I don’t gamble. There is an old saying “A fool and his money are easily parted”. As we know many do and it is a problem for not only them but those around them. Forever we have been trying to protect people from themselves and failed. Australians since the beginning have been gambling on anything and everything from 2up to 2 flies going up a wall. We may save 1 person but there always seems to be someone to take their place. Poker machines are a blight on the community. As a previous respondent correctly quoted of Queensland in the Bjelke Petersen days that we were prosperous, funded all public services and had no debt problems and all done without poker machines. There are only three groups of people who profit out of gambling and sadly the punter isn’t one of them.
The proposed laws are just another example of Federal Labor being out of step with Australian society on the issue of privacy, intervention and how people live their lives. They need to remember their roots and return to some of these basics around civil liberties and stop pandering to the minority on such critical and invasive issues. I do not punt regularly in any form but I believe that all Australians have the right to conduct their lives in the manner they see fit.
Father O’Reilly has it in perspective, the answer lies in intervention and counselling for identified problem gamblers, not mandatory invasion of people’s civil liberties to appease some redneck Politician!
I applaud all involved in putting this together. We are bombarded by fake debate from people who haven’t thought things through. This is a move that helps people get past “fact free” thinking.
On another plane, the nature of the questions limits the conclusions that can be drawn. Participants are limited in their answers. They may intend to give answers “outside the box” (i.e. other than something between strongly agree/diasgree) but that won’t show up.
This is an affliction of how we’re expected to think, so its not fault of the organisers.
If feasible I’d like to suggest that future surveys include answers that better reflect this. Like:
1) It’s none of my business
2) I haven’t decided yet
3) Bad question (maybe with room for details, if the answerer chooses)
4) Not enough information
Interpretation becomes more work, but results are more realistic.
For example you get a fix on those who think that people should be allowed, within limits, to live their own lives. Be reasonably free of the nanny state and “people who want to tell others what to do”.
I agree with limiting spins to $1 but I see no mention of banning the mechanism that takes banknotes,If one can put in banknotes it is very easy to simply play $1 spins very quickly and lose a lot of money.
Traffic lights. Seat belts. School Crossings. Speed limits. Lead petrol. Stop signs etc. All the aforementioned vigorously resisted down all the days. Nees i say more. Thank you for the detailed information.
Personally, I find the results quite encouraging, but that does not extend to many of the more intemperate comments, some seem to assume a complete ban on pokies would result: e.g. “My mother was 92 years old when she died earlier this year, when she was 91 she still loved what she called her “flutter on the pokies” she couldn’t see well enough to sign or read a pre-commitment statement, but she loved to sit in front of a machine and play the game and watch the lights. Labour’s proposal would have taken one of her few joys away from her.” (which proposal exactly?) The most admirable and balanced comment was that made by Chris Johnson, 44, Lilyfield.
Maybe I have missed something – and MPs have to represent the views of their electorate – but please, Malcom, would you articulate your personal view on this topic?
MALCOLM YOU ARE DOING A GOOD JOB IN COMMNICATIONS FOR AUSTRALIA. JUST PUT ALL YOUR EFFORT INTO DOING THIS.
TONY ABBOTT IS THE EXPERIENCED POLITICIAN AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HIM HAVING THE POTENTIAL FOR BEING THE BEST PRIME MINISTER AUSTRALIA HAS EVER HAD.
Chris Johnson, 44 Lilyfield – I too think you’ve nailed the debate in a few sentences.
Oh well we may think that this will assist gambler’s but they must first recognise that they have a problem and only counselling and education will assist behavioural change as they must break their habit.
With all due respect Malcolm when will our politicians start to be transparent about their agendas and the lies being told by Tim Costello about not accepting donations and Senator Nick Xenophon incorrectly quoted figures for his own advantage.
We have online gambling where people can play gaming machines with credit cards and we are rolling out the NBN to ensure that they can lose more than their own money more quickly without an economic or social benefit to the community.
Are we going to close down our retail industry which is already struggling because we have shopaholics or do we call them problem shoppers that already are under financial stress due to credit card bills as that is usually a pre cursor to people turning to gambling.
Unfortunately in a society we will always have a group of people who need and we should fund greater and better education programs for those people.
The global financial crisis is due to governments spending more than the revenues they receive in a simplistic view and that addiction to spend in an effort to grow economiies will cause greater pain when the crash comes in the not too distant future which cretae greater hardship for families.
Governments have tackled smoking and we still have 20% of people who smoke and they are treated like lepers although the product is legal.
We have the hypocrissy of governments supplying drug addicts with methadone which takes them from one illegal substance to another.
We have introduced controls on alcohol with responsible service of alcohol in controlled environments and done nothing to stop the increse in the sale takeaway alcohol as governments continue to allow Woolworths and Coles a monopoly to destroy communities with the anti social behaviour that is created at home or in parks.
We target poker machines which is one form of gambling whilst we allow other forms of gambling to be advertised freely on all sporting events with new groups opening up all the time.
We have enormous white collar crime where financial institutions have gone into liqiudation taking with them a lot of our retirees funds which has caused greater hardship as those retirees were expecting a promised return on their investment.
Poker machines do not promise a return on your investment as most machines are set at between 90 to 92% return to the player and all forms of gambling do not promise a return.
I know of people who lose hundreds on lottos, tattslotto, powerball and scratch lotteries yet they continue to offer enormous jackpots and inducements to get more money from the people addicted to those forms.
Finally and thankyou for conducting this survey but sometimes we cannot protect people from themselves but gaming is a State Government matter and the Federal Government should deal with ensuring that our economy is strong, in budget surplus and stops pandering to individuals like MP Andrew Wilkie who has demanded change that will not see much economic change in his State of Tasmania, however the States of NSW, Vic and Qld we suffer enormously.
Regards
I grow very weary of libertarian arguments. The so called freedom to act as they wish impacts on many more people than those who play the pokies. The immediate impact is on the families budget, followed by the flow on costs of counselling, cost to taxpayer, other programs/projects which deserve more funds are delayed or never implemented. Not unlike the cigarette debate ,if its bad – ban it. There may be a still a problem but at least it is contained to those who decide to go outside the law. The libertarian argument only should hold when no harm can be demonstrated.
addicts are a problem to society whatever form their addiction takes
thats why a sensible govt trys to regulate negative behaviour
tobacco
alcohol
illicit drugs
environmental vandalism
Dear Malcolm,
Well done! Regardless of the negative comments posted here regarding you or your party, this matter has had to be addressed and you alone had the fortitude to follow through and deliver.
Again I say, Well Done Malcolm.
Poker machines are contraptions created to cheat people. They only exist because too many cowardly governments are addicted to the tax revenue. Clubs profit from this fraud – then trot out the “community” service rubbish as justification – followed swiftly by the mindless “nanny state” argument. The survey should be simpler – do poker machines actually serve any useful purpose? No. So, get rid of them. Governments can find other ways of creating/maintaining revenue like imposing a GST or not sending our troops into fraudulent wars. It’s not that hard – you just need a spine.
It’s a pity you didn’t just ask whether they should be banned from clubs/pubs and only allowed in casinos.
If pubs/clubs want to be casinos: then great – they should admit it and adhere to the regulations regarding casino operators.
It is depressing to see so many simplistic & falsely-labelled libertarian positions in the above comments. They are far more represented in the comments than in the survey responses, one wonders whether the clubs and pubs lobby hasn’t been spamming the comments on this site.
Mandatory pre-commitment isn’t a threat to liberty, everyone can continue to gamble as much as they like, but they will be able to decide on how much they are prepared to lose in a rational and considered way. The real objection of the industry lobby is the threat of losing up to the 40% of their revenue that comes from problem gamblers. The industry lobby has stated that it will object just as strongly to the $1 per spin approach, which does seem a lot simpler.
Incidentally, I regard myself as a libertarian in most respects, but still believe that it is in everyone’s interest to drive on the same side of the road. And I don’t regard playing poker machines as gambling: nobody wins at poker machines if they play long enough, and in most cases, one evening is long enough to lose whatever you started with. By far the simplest solution would be to ban them completely because they amount to legalised theft from the gullible. Advertising them as a gambling facility is I believe misleading and deceptive conduct, and a breach of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (formerly s.52 of the Trade Practices Act). No player has an understanding of the egregious odds confronting them when they sit down at a machine. Such non-disclosure by a party with superior bargaining power would invalidate many commercial transactions with consumers.
Totally agree. If it were true gambling, then the odds would be the same for both the player and the Pokie operator. These machines actually have a setting in their parameters that dictates what percentage they return to the player. I’m not sure what the setting is but it is somewhere between 83% an 87%. Thats a guaranteed profit of between 13% and 17% per machine. Doesn’t seem like gambling for the clubs to me.
They should just get people to hand over $100 when they walk in the door and give them back $85 when they walk out. If everyone lost 15% of their wages as opposed to some people losing 100%, it would limit the grief experienced in the community.
I also don’t see why people think this stops them from gambling: if you’re stupid enough to play pokies – you can sign up and set a maximum loss of a million dollars. So there’s no impinging your freedom to be an idiot and lose your money.
Also wonder how many of the people bleating on about “loss of freedom” are also the same mob who think that gay marriage is not to be allowed?
Speaks volumes that right to be scammed trumps rights of a couple to commit to a relationship via marriage ceremony.
Amen…..so much hypocrisy in this world.
this is not about liberal or any philosophy..
nor is about perceived personal liberties..
there is, a clearly definable reality here,
which parallels realities of drivers
effected by alcohol..
the question tho is, who has the ‘balls’
to actually do anything serious
beyond tinkering around the edges..
I think the community are ahead of parliament in wanting thse destructive machines reduced. Look at WA where they do not have the machines and yet still manage to fund all sports and clubs.
I would just like to add one further point to what I said above, if you, Malcolm, really cared about the harm being done to families by excessive gambling you would revoke no fault divorce and make it much harder to get a divorce because THAT does far more damage to families than anything gambling does.
I know, I see the results daily. Single mother families trying to raise their children with no father, dependent on Government welfare.
How brave are you?
Dear Sir,
I still believe it is up to individuals to decide the useage of poker machines; involvement of Governments in private decisions attenuates the fact that to every right there should be a responsibility.
There are too many actions forgiven on the premise that the individual did not know what they were doing even though at the time many signed and agreed to a contract often to make some sort of profit – when they make a loss they need counseling or they go to court as a ‘cop-out’.
The ‘nanny state’ at all levels including Councils, also incurs heavy financial costs and basically some of the massive debts are a direct result of Government involvement in private matters.
Regards,
Henri Richard
I agre we need less Government Nanny State intervention, so understandably wanted by the left.
govts were accused of “nanny state”
ending smoking [ie, narcotic drug use]
in school playgrounds, hospitals, public transpt
etc, ditto for seat belts, drunk driving, etc..
labelling rational responsible responses to
real and serious social/community dangers
as; “nanny state” demonstrates failure
to comprehend these realities..
it isnt the ‘right to smoke’ but victims of
ets pollution, not the ‘right to drink drive’
but busstops full of children being flattened
by drunk drivers [etc] and it is not
‘nanny state’ to respond to an identified
serious social reality involving addiction
and destruction of families and children..
those who choose to rape say, may call
opponents ‘nanny state’, thus making
this point.. we need, management,
incl, rational counter points to
realities such as addiction…
This is not an issue, the real issues that should be addressed are, abuse of alcohol, mental health,homeless, poverty, age care, waiting lists for operations, I could go on, oh also unemployment, as I said the list goes on. Why are we concerned about gambling and gay marriage when the above is all ignored. Get your heads out of the sand mp’s and go out into the streets of Australia. Wake up!!!!!!
Mr. Turnbull, thank you for such a detailed survey report. I live in a suburb where poker machines, tab centres and such are not prevalent, but it is merely a bus ride to them. At the venue my husband and I dine at regularly, I have recognised many from my area in the game room when I arrive or arriving after. Ninety-nine percent of the people in my area are Centrelink recipients and I believe surveys such as yours need to be shown to these people as a means of trying to stop them gambling. I am afraid my $5 once a year will never make any pokie owner rich.
The local club near us provide a lot to the community and it will die if the Wilkie laws come in and then we have nothing for 25 – 30 minutes away.
[...] I recently hosted a survey on my website on problem gambling, which was completed by almost 7,500 respondents. Almost 800 people, or more than 10 per cent of the total, were from Wentworth. A detailed breakdown of the results can be found on my website here. [...]
The report which you published seems to have made up your mind before publishing it. Have you considered the ramifications of this stupid legislation. The registered clubs return a vast amount of money to the community. If this scheme is introduced, most clubs will battle to survive. The cost of adjusting a machine to take a smart card is about $5000 per machine. Closing clubs will put thousands out of work. This is a hair brained scheme as it will not have any effect on the so called problem gamblers. They will simply go on line or to some other gambling venue. Besides I detest Andrew Wilkie and offer him no support at all.
What is all this about Tony Abbott, I believe he has put himself out there with his activities & charity work, getting involved and talking to the ordinary people.He has a family and an understanding of every day problems & costs plus all his previous experience in Government.He will make a very down to earth Leader.Maybe it is because I do not believe in Human induced Climate control. Tell me what other country is talking about rising seas like the councils on north coast NSW. Maybe it is because I was brought up in the country and at 74 have seen all the changes in temperature as just a natural phenomenon. NO CARBON TAX to ruin the jobs of more Australian workers & businesses.