I’m caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one
I’m beyond impatient with the media’s reporting of ‘back flips’ and ‘breaking promises’. I have less than no patience with the antics of some individuals/groups/political parties/Opposition leaders, and their reliance on over-blown rhetoric, ridiculous generalisations and out-and-out misrepresentations (I’d go so far as to say ‘lies’) to oppose things like the carbon tax, and now reforms around problem gambling. ‘Welching on a deal?’ It’s all very easy to condemn Gillard and the government whilst conveniently overlooking the fact that the Opposition wouldn’t have supported the full legislation in any case. Damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. (And no, Christopher Pyne, I don’t think JG is in the same league as Richard III.)
Of course, the fact that this kind of reform is on the agenda at all is a political expedient: the 2010 election had no clear winner, Gillard and Labor did do a deal with the three independents and they were then able to form a minority government. Part of that deal was to bring in mandatory pre-commitment on all poker machines by 2014.
But over the weekend the government announced that - instead - it would be scaling back implementation. There will be a 12 month trial based in the ACT, and that the results of this would be analysed to see if further roll-out was warranted with a view to going national in 2016, and to ensure that the technology needed to run this on a potentially national basis had appropriate development time. There will also be limits on cash withdrawals at ATMS situated at gaming venues. These are, to my mind, sensible actions to take.
I think that Wilkie’s all-encompassing proposal probably didn’t have the support in Parliament, and would have fallen flat. I have no doubts at all that the lack of support was largely due to pressure applied by the various lobby groups, and also to the sensitivities of a number of Labor politicians to the mood in their own electorate...a mood largely cultivated by the kind of media reporting that seems to give greater air-time to those (oh hai Clubs Australia) yelling about untrustworthiness (hello pot, meet kettle) and lack of credibility. I have no doubts at all there have been some somewhat murky political machinations going on back there. But in my opinion, the fact that there are still actions being taken means it isn’t ‘betrayal’. They’re just different, and arguably even more effective, actions.
The magic phrase ‘evidence-based’ is actually quite critical. There’s no point introducing something that may not work, just for the sake of being able to say ‘well, we did what we said we would’. There is a lot of value in testing first to see what the glitches might be and then fixing them, rather than going all out like a steam-roller. So this seems like not just a sound(er) policy approach, but also clever(er) - and actually quite brave - politics. Gillard clearly knows she’s playing with fire here, that her hold on power is more than slightly precarious and she and her government are in for a rocky ride over this. But for whatever reason she has made it, I can’t say it’s a bad decision. I certainly don’t see ‘back flip’ or ‘reneging’ or whatever else epithet the media choose to label it with.
While the charities are disappointed (and, yes, in spite of what I’ve just said, above, I am disappointed too), I was interested to read these comments from the Sydney Uni Gambling Treatment Centre which supports the government’s move. (I have a lot of respect for this team - they were very helpful with M.)
I don’t see this as a ‘win’ for those who didn’t want gambling reform, or, at least, not a complete one. You know, to begin with I was astounded that anyone could actually oppose the proposal to limit spending on machines, particularly on high capacity ones. I mean, seriously, apart from the need to put software on machines, the imposition can’t be that great. If you’re not a problem gambler then you shouldn’t have a problem with saying ‘I’ll just bet so much, for now’. The inconvenience would not be that great, surely, not enough to cause loss of jobs, large-scale shutdowns of clubs, withdrawal of donations to community groups, all those things the lobby groups have been emoting about. Surely the cost of implementing pre-commitment would not be that high, surely their patrons are not that fickle. And the evidence of the damage that gambling like this can wreak is stacked a mile high: the marriage breakdowns, the lost of savings/homes/everything you’ve worked for, the ill health, the suicides. How can all of that be ignored?
But behind every cashed up institution lies an advertising behemoth. And so they produced this, which totally and utterly incensed me.
Suddenly very real and devastating problems are trivialised, potential solutions are misrepresented as ‘a licence to punt’; support for the reforms is labelled ‘unAustralian’. I mean, seriously, give me a break...un-Australian? What are we? Just one big football-loving, meat pie-eating, beer-drinking, ‘having a bit of a flutter’ living, breathing stereotype? That’s not the reality of being Australian at all. The claims made on this website and in the media by representatives of the organisations behind this campaign are not just ludicrous, they are offensive. Wrong on every level. One walk through the poker machine area of your local pub/club is enough to show where that money goes. But if you believe them, all their profits go to making the kiddies happy and playing sport. Gosh, they’re not in the business of exploiting vulnerable people, oh no.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Personally, I’d ban the whole bloody lot. Outright. Starting now. Gambling is not a social activity, never has been and certainly the soul-destroying nature of those machines all lined up, each person playing with an intensity and focus that is mind-numbing, it just sickens me to see it. Poker machine gambling isn’t a community building activity - each participant is completely isolated from the person next to them. Listen to the gamblers themselves who tell how they lose all awareness of their surroundings, lose all thought except ‘maybe this one’, who barely move because they are so focused on the physical movement of inserting the coins and pressing the buttons, seduced by the flashing lights and the irritating carnival sounds. Never mind that I have been directly affected by problem gambling, seeing those manifestations of addictive behaviour is frightening. A bit of fun? How? Might as well stand on the sea shore with a paper bag over your head and throw your money into the ocean one coin at a time. At least you’d be outside in the fresh air.
Of course, the fact that this kind of reform is on the agenda at all is a political expedient: the 2010 election had no clear winner, Gillard and Labor did do a deal with the three independents and they were then able to form a minority government. Part of that deal was to bring in mandatory pre-commitment on all poker machines by 2014.
But over the weekend the government announced that - instead - it would be scaling back implementation. There will be a 12 month trial based in the ACT, and that the results of this would be analysed to see if further roll-out was warranted with a view to going national in 2016, and to ensure that the technology needed to run this on a potentially national basis had appropriate development time. There will also be limits on cash withdrawals at ATMS situated at gaming venues. These are, to my mind, sensible actions to take.
I think that Wilkie’s all-encompassing proposal probably didn’t have the support in Parliament, and would have fallen flat. I have no doubts at all that the lack of support was largely due to pressure applied by the various lobby groups, and also to the sensitivities of a number of Labor politicians to the mood in their own electorate...a mood largely cultivated by the kind of media reporting that seems to give greater air-time to those (oh hai Clubs Australia) yelling about untrustworthiness (hello pot, meet kettle) and lack of credibility. I have no doubts at all there have been some somewhat murky political machinations going on back there. But in my opinion, the fact that there are still actions being taken means it isn’t ‘betrayal’. They’re just different, and arguably even more effective, actions.
The magic phrase ‘evidence-based’ is actually quite critical. There’s no point introducing something that may not work, just for the sake of being able to say ‘well, we did what we said we would’. There is a lot of value in testing first to see what the glitches might be and then fixing them, rather than going all out like a steam-roller. So this seems like not just a sound(er) policy approach, but also clever(er) - and actually quite brave - politics. Gillard clearly knows she’s playing with fire here, that her hold on power is more than slightly precarious and she and her government are in for a rocky ride over this. But for whatever reason she has made it, I can’t say it’s a bad decision. I certainly don’t see ‘back flip’ or ‘reneging’ or whatever else epithet the media choose to label it with.
While the charities are disappointed (and, yes, in spite of what I’ve just said, above, I am disappointed too), I was interested to read these comments from the Sydney Uni Gambling Treatment Centre which supports the government’s move. (I have a lot of respect for this team - they were very helpful with M.)
I don’t see this as a ‘win’ for those who didn’t want gambling reform, or, at least, not a complete one. You know, to begin with I was astounded that anyone could actually oppose the proposal to limit spending on machines, particularly on high capacity ones. I mean, seriously, apart from the need to put software on machines, the imposition can’t be that great. If you’re not a problem gambler then you shouldn’t have a problem with saying ‘I’ll just bet so much, for now’. The inconvenience would not be that great, surely, not enough to cause loss of jobs, large-scale shutdowns of clubs, withdrawal of donations to community groups, all those things the lobby groups have been emoting about. Surely the cost of implementing pre-commitment would not be that high, surely their patrons are not that fickle. And the evidence of the damage that gambling like this can wreak is stacked a mile high: the marriage breakdowns, the lost of savings/homes/everything you’ve worked for, the ill health, the suicides. How can all of that be ignored?
But behind every cashed up institution lies an advertising behemoth. And so they produced this, which totally and utterly incensed me.
Suddenly very real and devastating problems are trivialised, potential solutions are misrepresented as ‘a licence to punt’; support for the reforms is labelled ‘unAustralian’. I mean, seriously, give me a break...un-Australian? What are we? Just one big football-loving, meat pie-eating, beer-drinking, ‘having a bit of a flutter’ living, breathing stereotype? That’s not the reality of being Australian at all. The claims made on this website and in the media by representatives of the organisations behind this campaign are not just ludicrous, they are offensive. Wrong on every level. One walk through the poker machine area of your local pub/club is enough to show where that money goes. But if you believe them, all their profits go to making the kiddies happy and playing sport. Gosh, they’re not in the business of exploiting vulnerable people, oh no.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Personally, I’d ban the whole bloody lot. Outright. Starting now. Gambling is not a social activity, never has been and certainly the soul-destroying nature of those machines all lined up, each person playing with an intensity and focus that is mind-numbing, it just sickens me to see it. Poker machine gambling isn’t a community building activity - each participant is completely isolated from the person next to them. Listen to the gamblers themselves who tell how they lose all awareness of their surroundings, lose all thought except ‘maybe this one’, who barely move because they are so focused on the physical movement of inserting the coins and pressing the buttons, seduced by the flashing lights and the irritating carnival sounds. Never mind that I have been directly affected by problem gambling, seeing those manifestations of addictive behaviour is frightening. A bit of fun? How? Might as well stand on the sea shore with a paper bag over your head and throw your money into the ocean one coin at a time. At least you’d be outside in the fresh air.