In Sunday’s Sydney Morning Herald, NRL big man Phil Gould mounted his case for poker machines. It was one of the most bungled attempts at assembling an argument that you’ll ever see, like stapling a bunch of fish together and calling it a mermaid.
The drop of revenue that would come with tighter controls on players, he said, would lead to a dramatic end-game just a few shades shy of the apocalypse.
Reforms “will undoubtedly lead to the closing of many clubs, the loss of thousands of jobs in the club industry, the loss of revenue and jobs for those businesses who trade with the club industry and the loss of funding for community programs and junior sports.”
Within five paragraphs he upgraded the job loss to “tens of thousands”. That’s some spike.
It’s worth noting that words like ‘undoubtedly’ when predicting the future are notoriously risky. Even the Magic 8 Ball just said “All signs point to yes.”
Then Gould pulled out the ultimate scare card: “I’m sure the NRL will survive. A few of the Sydney-based clubs might not be so lucky. Your favourite team could be the one to disappear.”
Thing is, it sounded like Gould was singing from a very familiar hymn sheet.
The closer you looked, the more closely his article resembled a neat list of the arguments made by Clubs Australia in their campaign against the new laws.
If you need reminding, Clubs Australia is the innocuous-sounding body representing the nation’s poker machine venues. Their vested interest is absolute.
It did make you wonder what Gould’s relationship with Clubs Australia, or with an individual club, might be.
Then there it was. “I have been involved in the club industry all my working life. I worked directly in the poker machine industry for 12 years.”
Now, I don’t know anything about Gould’s current financial affairs. But when a guy starts talking about “poker machine investment as buying relaxation time or as part of a social entertainment option to share with friends,” you can only assume that he’s still on the industry teat somewhere along the line.
The staggering thing, for an article in a reputable paper, was Gould’s willingness to rely solely on figures from Clubs Australia.
“Even the federal government admits these reforms will reduce expenditure on poker machines by some 30 per cent – Clubs Australia suggests the real figure will be somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent,” he said
And then, “To put all this in perspective, Clubs Australia maintains that there are about 60,000 problem gamblers in Australia and 5 million individuals who play the pokies annually.”
In contrast, the Productivity Commission – an independent, non-party organisation – estimated there were up to 160,000 problem gamblers, and 350,000 at-risk gamblers.
But, we should take the word of the group whose sole vested interest is in playing down those numbers, not the word of an independent body, and not the word of the government pushing for change?
Not to mention that at no point do we hear where the Clubs Australia numbers might come from, and at no point is any genuine evidence invoked.
Gould gives the perfect example in attacking comments by Labor Minister Jenny Macklin.
“The NRL is being funded by ‘family misery’ and ‘pokie addicts.’ What a statement! I don’t need to point out the inaccuracies and totally misinformed nature of these outlandish assertions.”
Amazing argument, Phil. You just have to say that something is not true, and it magically becomes so. Using lots of adjectives seals the deal.
Now for my next trick, I’ll make my life savings disappear.
Unfortunately for Gould, the Productivity Commission estimates that 40 percent of all pokies revenue is lost by problem gamblers. If the NRL is as dependent on clubs as he claims, then mathematically Macklin’s assertion adds up.
The “poorly researched reforms” are based on intensive research by specialists in the field. Naturally, a retired rugby league player who hasn’t even read the report is entirely qualified to dismiss it entirely.
I mean, Andrew Bolt knows more than a globe’s worth of climate scientists, so that’s just standard procedure.
“The problem of this proposed legislation,” said an outraged Gould, “is that it treats every potential poker machine player as a ‘problem gambler’.”
Phil, every potential poker machine player is a potential problem gambler. Every road user is a potential road toll statistic. Hence helmets, seatbelts, speed limits. It’s described in the medical profession as a prophylactic measure.
Just as with warnings and plain packaging on cigarette boxes, it’s not really designed to stop smokers from smoking. They’ve already cast their vote.
It’s designed to stop new smokers from being created.
“The people of Australia need to understand what is going on here,” said Gould in his closing flourish. “We all know the Gillard government is desperate and out of control.”
So, we need to understand what we all already know. Is that right, Phil?
There is no better indication of a rhetorical impostor than phrases like “we all know.” It’s an indicator of no research and no expertise, the dressing up of a personal prejudice with the air of mass acceptance.
This was not an independent article reflecting a considered opinion. It was a Clubs Australia press release with a relevant personality’s name pencilled in at the top.
The Sydney Morning Herald should be embarrassed to have run it.
Follow Geoff Lemon on Twitter: @GeoffLemonSport
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
Boris - Investing wisely in the stock market by purchasing 20 or more shares in different companies has proven long term financial benefits. If you go and heap all of your eggs in the one basket, expecting to hit the jackpot, or by playing the derivatives, then that's when it's a gamble - just like popping your entire paypacket into a pockie. Pokies don't need to be abolished - just limited.
Boris the Mudcrab
Guest
Damien I am not as heartless as to say I dont care about problem gamblers and I believe that the government has to a degree a duty of care. What I was trying to get across in my last post is that where do you draw the line??? Replace the topic of gambling with say alcohol. Now I love a beer (probably too much!) but we all know that this problem effects many more people than problem gambling. Do we ban it?, Do we make people get a licence to purchase it?, Do we wrap it in plain packaging? Restrict trading hours on bottle shops? Replace gambling with investing in the stock market, futures and currency exchange. This is just another form of gambling in which I would imagine has cost more people their homes, retirement nest egg, lives etc. I accept the fact that the idea is to make money on these types of investing, however they are basicly still based on the fact that it takes someone to lose for someone to win. I have a friend who lost basicly everything on the market in the 08 crash I am for the government to try to stem people becoming problem gamblers, but forcing people to become registered to have a punt on the pokies?? Again..........Where do you draw the line?
Damien
Roar Guru
Boris, You still don't get it. Its not about 'if you don't like it don't go" Thats not the point. The point is WHO is responsible for the victims. And do you even care ? Are the victims personally responsible for the problem gamblers habit ? Just answer that question first. Here's what your answer sounds like (feel free to correct me) : Boris : I know that problem gambling is a problem but its all about personal responsibilty. We shouldn't have to register just because you can't control yourself. As for the victims - I really do feel sorry for you but you're on your own. I don't care about what happens to you because we're all responsible for ourselves. Now if you feel that way like I said thats fine. We agree on some things at least. My view is that the government HAS a duty of care to the public. Thats includes the victims of problem gambling. Just like they have a duty of care to the victims of violence, natural disasters etc. The government would rather not look after the victims because its expensive but there's really no other alternative. Its not like they can just let them fend for themselves. We live in a first world not third world country. So the question now is "Whats cheaper ? Prevention or Cure ?
Boris the Mudcrab
Guest
This issue is similar to the carbon tax in that it is not a yes or no answer. In this forum I have read about musicians complaining about the pokies - yet they are probably the biggest benificiarys of the gaming dollar. Close clubs and pubs and they only forum open to them would be coffee shops at $50 a night or try your hand at Australian Idol. I have read about clubs killing off businesses in small towns. Jeez, take the local RSL/Bowling club out of a small town and watch it prosper. I am sure the local fish & chip shop and chinese restaurant will suppy the weekend entertainment/function room for the community and keep the bowling greens & golf club up to scratch. BUT LASTLY the one thing that no one can seem to answer is where do we draw the line with personal responsibility. Not just gambling, but everything in one can harm themselves (and others through association like family) I know people that have had/have problems with alcohol, prostitution, stock market losses (BIG LOSES), borrowing money at ridiculous rates for cars & electrical goods and can go on & on. I still think that if you dont like pubs or clubs DONT GO.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Good comments Dean. I have a pokie problem, the crucial component in my problem is booze. When sober I won't touch a pokie because I know they are rigged against me and that they will take my money. At a certain level of inebriation I start believing I will win and am willing to put every cent that I can withdraw from my bank account into them - the daily limit on my ATM withdrawal becomes my MPC by default - I have many many times maxed my withdrawal before midnight and then eagerly awaited the clock ticking over so I could withdraw more money chasing my losses. My biggest win on a pokie was 6,300 dollars and when I'm p-ssed I think I am going to win at sort of number again so am prepared to go pretty deep into the hole chasing that kind of win. Ultimately the only way I can control myself is to not carry an ATM card - so effectively I set an MPC by only taking a certain amount of money out - when it is gone then I can use a credit card to get home. I believe in personal responsibility and have learnt how to manage my problem (would not have paid off my mortgage if I hadn't) but I would be happier if pokies did not exist.
Damien
Roar Guru
Boris You've missed the entire point of my post. Who is responsible for the victims of problem gamblers ? is my question and point not 'should we even be allowed to gamble". Its all well to say 'if you have a problem with punting don't go to the TAB" but what happens when that gambling addict goes regardless ? I am in FULL AGREEMENT with your 'if you have a problem don't do it" argument. You put it better than I could. Again my question is WHO is responsible for the victims ? Does the government have ANY responsibilty to the victims. I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly but it sounds like you are OK with the victims to fend for themselves. If thats your view thats fine. We'll agree on the personal responsibility part but disagree on the social responsibility part. Thats all I'm asking anyone who cares enough about this (for and against). Does the government have a duty of care for the victims of problem gambling ? Do we even care about them ?
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
Here's a few ways to limit the amount that's put through pokies. All of you who claim to be casual players and whinge that you don't want to be registered should agree with the following policies in place of enlistment. 1. Go back to the system of coins only. Let's see if someone can put $1000 worth of 10 cent pieces into a machine over a few hours. It's also good exercise to manually feed the bandits. 2. Scrap the card and points system where you earn reward points to win a three-pack of tea towels. 3. No outdoor pokies and no smoking at any poker machine. If you want to smoke, go outside, have a break from the bandits and possibly meet someone interesting. 4. No discount meals. The Clubs have wiped out a host of nearby restaurants by offering cheap subsidised meals, that small businesses without gaming revenue cannot compete against. Clubs should be ashamed of themselves for the measures they have taken, and providing few alternatives for families with regards to dining choices - especially in smaller towns.
Boris the Mudcrab
Guest
I am sorry to hear about your family's issues with Pokies, but we will have to agree to disagree.
Steggz
Guest
But you don't get it. Pokies are not the same as the TAB or internet gambling. Gambling addiction is more a drug addiction than alcoholism. They are not all the same, and it is actually unlikely that pokie reform will lead to most finding other gambling methods. It's the lights, the music, the ease of losses etc. As the son of a man who had issues with the pokies, I know he had no problems with the horses, dogs or sports betting. But the pokies, and the environment that goes with it, that was a different story.
Boris the Mudcrab
Guest
Where do you draw the line? You cannot protect people from themselves. How do you stop people from playing the pokies on the net? Those sites accept credit cards. How about alcohol - this destroys familys High powered cars driven by teens - how many tragic family destroying accidents have there been I dont want to sound like I am trivialising problem gambling but if you have a problem with the punt, dont go to the pub,club TAB. If you have a problem with the grog, dont go to the pub,club If you are having a problem with your weight, dont go to Macca's or KFC I enjoy a punt and a drink. I dont want to have to register with anyone to continue to do so. If you dont like clubs - dont bloody go into one. ITS THAT EASY EVERYONE!!!
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
OK Roarers - I'm back from a stint in the bush, so my apologies for not being online over the past week. Who wants to join me in a night at Panthers Leagues Club ???????????? Bring $50 dollars with you. $40 will be for food and beverages. $10 will be for the pokies. I need about 500 people to turn up on a Saturday night to help me in making a statement. We can occupy every single poker machine, and play 1 cent per spin, and press the button about once per minute. The $10 should last most of the night, and it will severely hamper the clubs revenue. Who knows - you might even win $5. Post a reply here - and if I get a few takers, then I will set up a website to organise numbers, times, and tactics.
mick
Guest
I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare the Melbourne cup and pokies. Pokies are significantly more evil and hence this policy can be justified whilst still maintaining the Melbourne cup go on. Pokies by their nature just lend themselves to way more destruction - they are easily accessible, some clubs/casinos being open 24/7, hundreds of little bets per hour, etc. It is just simply far easier to lose track of your finances on the pokies than it is a one off horse bet that comes round once a year.
Damien
Roar Guru
The Barry & Sledgecross. I'm like you both. I don't like people telling me what to do either. Especially when I know that I can still pay the bills after a quick flutter. I totally believe in person responsibility. However the question that needs to be asked is do we believe in social responsibility ? Do we actually give a damn about the people that are affected by problem gamblers ? Who is responsible for the broken families ? Does the government have a duty of care for these people ? Who picks up the pieces after the divorces, the evictions, the suicides, the mental problems that occur because of problem gambling. What happens to the kids now ? Personal responsibility would dictate that they should be left to fend for themselves after all its not OUR fault that the breadwinner in their family just spent all the rent. Wilkie clearly believes in the MPC. He clearly believes in social responsiblity. Will the MPC work ? The PC thinks it would but recommended a trial. As was posted already, no state wanted a bar of it. Now what is Wilkie meant to do "The pokie industry is far too strong. Oh well. At least I tried." Maybe he can come up with another plan. But do we seriously think that the pokie industry would allow a trial of any reform that affects their revenue ? So Wilikie plays hardball. He's putting it all on the line. The MPC willl not cure problem gambling but it is one measure of many that is designed to lessen the impact that problem gamblers have on society. For every problem gambler there are 5 people that are personally affected. The MPC may cause us a little inconvienience when we have a flutter but is it too much to ask considering the issues that arise from problem gambling ?
Dingo
Guest
Sorry to disagree but Hawke was from South Australia, but held the seat of Wills in VICTORIA, during his political career. Gough Whitlam effective? ROFLMAO JVGO
Ken
Guest
That line of argument is similar to that used by that other genius Conroy whenever anyone argued against his internet filtering - 'Think of the children!'' Of course, his plan to install a big secret firewall for Australia would have cost heaps of money and was detrimentable to the innocent majority - absolutely forgivable if the plan had any chance of working, which of course it didn't. This plan might not be as obviously flawed as that one but there's still very little evidence or reasoning that I've seen to make me believe it's anything but an empty political move. I think any reasonable person would agree that new solutions to problem gambling should be looked at. The numbers that Clubs use are probably the most convenient ones for them, statistics are like that and should always be viewed sceptically. I think they have a valid point though, these changes will affect their income - which is agreed by all sides regardless of the numbers they use - wouldn't it be better to confirm that for this cost they actually achieve their aim (via trials, etc) rather than just a knee-jerk implementation?
dasilva
Guest
by the way that is not my suggestion. It is the recommendation from the actual governmental report on gambling and this is what they are recommending the government to do The dot points are cut and paste from that report I happen to agree that this is a good start in regulating gambling
oikee
Guest
So your saying that showing the Melbourne cup in schools to kids under the age of 15 and subjecting them to a horse race that has gambling is not a problem at the heart of our kids going on to become adults turning up on cup day to then be able to gamble and drink and/or whatever else is not looking at the bigger picture. Mate, it would be the first place i looked at solving the gambling problem, at a young age, not when we are adults and can make our own choices. No, it is a cop-out and we all know it. The government wont act because the sport is big bussiness, so it will be brushed, and that is why trying to make pokies a issue will never cut it with me.
Nate Hornblower
Guest
rubbish....DECLARE your interest if your a Clubs Australia spruiker.
Nate Hornblower
Guest
There is more than enough money to go around from $1 billion plus windfall the NRL will get from the next TV rights deal. Think about it, even if the cap was increased to $5 million and the NRL guaranteed that cash X 16 teams, that's $80 million a season for the NRL clubs...seems to be there is PLENTY left over for the grass roots of the game too which should be getting its fair share of the pie. Anyway, the myth that these clubs and pubs are going to fall over due to possible pokie revenue reductions has already been disproved, its a spurious argument based on Clubs Australia propaganda.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Are you serious that you can't see how this adds up GWS ? If the 2% of problem gamblers make up to 20 - 40% of pokie revenue then that leaves 60-80% of their revenue generated by occasional or casual pokie players. It is these players that will be turned off by having to register and divulge how much they intend to spend every time the play the pokies. These by the way are the people who utilise poker machines responsibly. So the pokie addict can walk in set a limit for himself of $1000 (or nothing if he so chooses) and continue on his merry way. The casual punter now has to register and declare how much they intend to spend. Can you see why people would object to doing this ? I can tell you for one that will rarely if ever be doing this (as part of the responsible 60-80%) and everyone I've spoken to (who actually plays pokies and has some idea what they're talking about - unlike your good self) feels the same. If pokie addiction is so insidious (and I'm not saying it's not) are problem gamblers really going to set themselves realistic limits ? Will these measures help more than the tiniest % of problem pokie players ? Having known a few of these characters over the years I can tell you that in my opinion and from my experience it won't. Therefore the bulk of the 20-40% revenue (problem gamblers) is maintained, while the bulk of the 60-80% (responsible players) is turned away. Clubs lose up to 80% of their pokie revenue but not from problem gamblers. It does add up - no one is taking you for a fool...