Just at the moment here in Australia gambling and poker machines are a big issue. In the negotiations leading to the formation of the Gillard Government, critical support from independent Andrew Wilkie was conditional upon the Government taking action to curb problem gambling on poker machines.
The Government's plans here have become yet another problem for it, with Clubs Australia launching a reported $A20 million dollar advertising blitz against Mr Wilkie's proposals. However, the Government's real problem is not this but a far simpler issue, one that means that independent MP Tony Windsor is highly likely to vote against the legislation and may be joined by others.
Many smaller country communities have seen loss of jobs and services through centralisation. In all cases, the justification has been that lower costs to consumers as a whole or higher profits to firms outweigh the local costs. Many communities complain as well that new structures mean that local savings cannot be invested in local projects.
In many of these communities, the local club has become not only a significant employer but also the main, in some cases the only, source of facilities such as restaurants and sporting facilities as well as donations to community activities. The viability of these clubs has been under pressure for some time as state governments seek to milk the gambling cash cow through taxation, while also imposing controls on clubs that increase costs.
All this acts to reduce local benefits. Now, the new proposals are one step too far. One result has been protest meetings throughout Mr Windsor's electorate. It's fine to argue that the greater good justifies adverse results to the few, but that really doesn't wash if you are one of the few.
In theory, those adverse effects could be remedied by the provision of some form of compensation to those affected or, alternatively, by some quarantining mechanism. Here I have long argued that the costs imposed by decisions should be specifically accounted for and, where appropriate, compensated for. In practice, this is hard to do in part because it is seen as special pleading or subsidisation. There is, in fact, no mechanism available for this type of approach.
In his role as an independent, Mr Windsor has already demonstrated that he is prepared to take a broad view even if it creates local anger. I don't think that he can in this case, because the costs are specific and local. Unless the Commonwealth Government can work out some form of compensation package, Mr Windsor will have to vote no, and the legislation is likely to fail. Mr Wilkie will then have to decide what to do.
I have read or listened at length to the debate on this issue on media. I have also listened to discussion around me here in Sydney. Get real, chaps. As they say in legal documents, chaps included the female gender. If you don't at least recognise and account for adverse results, then you cannot expect your desires to be acceded too where, unusually, those adversely affected actually have some political power.
15 comments:
Good comment Jim
I'm sure I mentioned somewhere yonks ago about my little local club which was basically being supported for years by three problem gamblers. Two deaths and one bankruptcy later it all came undone, and the club is now a subsidiary of a larger club situated in the nearest large town.
But that aside, I've seen just how real the benefits to a community are from a well run community minded club. I used to audit half a dozen many years ago, and they really were/are the centre of many small communities.
So, I think Mr Wilkie should fail in his bid, but perhaps with some sort of specific voluntary mechanism to protect problem gamblers from themselves? Maybe it's a medical process denying them from any access at all? (In fact I thought this was already in place?)
It is a hard one, but the problem individual should not be so over protected as to affect the very real benefits these local institutions provide for their communities. It is a free country after all; so who is to say how one wastes one's money - despite the potential family social costs?
kvd
I think that you did mention that David. Personally, and I have written about this before, I have very mixed feelings on the poker mchine issue.
As a general principle, I am opposed to controls. However,the wholesale spread of the machines in NSW has created a problem.
Jim, there is something to be said about the whole area of revenue raising - wherein you see the governments raising necessary funds by trading on the 'weaknesses' of the population. I find the tax treatment of both alcohol and tobacco both too much encased in "caring" whereas the plain fact is that governments need funds to run the ship.
This pokie fervour is yet another clash of "noble" ideals with the harsh truth that there just isn't enough money to provide for otherwise worthy government expenditure. I sometimes wish the hypocrisy would cease, and somebody would just state the obvious that governments need funds to operate, and these are the easiest targets.
kvd
ha! wv is "shourant" - which is probably what I do too often: shout and rant.
Oh dear, KVD. You musn't say things like that. People may recognise that the emperor has no clothes!
Jim you know what I wish - I wish the government particularly independents who carry far more political clout than they deserve would get out of my pocket, stop telling me what I should or shouldn't do with MY mone and get back to the business of governing. Here's a novel idea why don't they concern themselves with providing public transport, hospitals education and the like.
And while I'm on my soap box Mr Wilkie is a grub. He represents the sort of offering that we get when some one who gets into a leveraged position of power can exert his own personal views and prejudices.
If he gets his way with this nonsense about poker machine control I BET (is it still legal to do this?) that it won't stop there. One wonders what other stuff he has buried in his closet that he will trot out if he gets away with this.
Here we are in the most over-regulated country in the world still looking for ways to control people's lives. Remember Jim that it wasn't that long ago we were being threatened with mass censorship on the internet. When does it stop. I suspect this ploy of his will make Clubs Australia much stronger.
So once again real issues that should be dealt with (such as your New England ideas) are put on hold while clowns like this keep the circus going.
Cheers
Augustus
Them there's savage words, Mr Winston.
There was a segment on counterpoint - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2011/3186053.htm - about the position in the UK that would make you feel quite gloomy.
In an earlier post I tried to make the point that there was a difference between a principles and rules based society. We have indeed gone a long way down the rules track.
Jim - Further to this if you check on the research that Wilkie is using to prop up his argument you will find that where the pre-committment for poker machine limits was implemented (Norway) the problem actually got worse as gamblers left clubs and started gambling on the internet.
Also I think that for some people who currently control their limit a pre-committment would encourage people to pre-committ to the maximum. Why precommitt to $20, you might have a win and want to keep on gambling or you might think hang on I want to put another $5 in but now I can't. So the effect is that someone who wouldn't normally commit to say $250 will now do so.
Anyway that's it for me on this, I am certain that next thing is that internet gambling will be further restricted as these pokenosers thrust their unwanted proboscis into every aspect of our lives.
Cheers
Augustus
I call foul!
Jim, Mr Winston's first comment was 235 words, and went up immediately. As opposed to my measly 193 words which was spammed.
Apart from this egregious insult, I would like to just say:
wot he said!
kvd
KVD, I really don't know why the spam device hates you! Was it something you ate?
AW, I suspect that you are right!
I think I'd probably get through if you'd just tweak down the small blue knob marked "saying the same thing twice, repeatedly over and over again, and more than once". Or maybe it's the one marked "unoriginal thought bubble".
kvd
Grin, KVD. Me, that is, grinning.
Completely off topic, but Jim's blog is nominated in the People's Choice section of the Best Australian Blogs competition.
He probably won't mention it, so I thought I should. You can get to the voting page from the following link:
http://www.sydneywriterscentre.com.au/bloggingcomp/peopleschoice.html
Takes about 2 minutes, which I think is a small price to pay for the effort Jim puts into his work.
So come on all you readers - GET VOTING!
kvd
Mr Wilkie and his mate Mr Xenophon consistently claim that there are 95,000 problem gamblers in Australia who collectively lose $5 billion annually. This equates to more than $52,000 per person per year. It is simply not believable that there are 95,000 Australians out there losing $1,000 each every week of every year, year after year.
Thanks, Anon. I haven't checked your stats, but if you are right it does demonstrate a problem.
Post a Comment