Tasmania has just had a state election in which the removal of poker machines from pubs and clubs was a major issue. The side of politics promising that change lost the election. That seems to indicate that the opposition to the pokies is not as big an issue as opponents claim.
New South Wales was the first state to legalize pokies and we well remember the bus loads of eager players coming over the borders from Queensland and Victoria to enthusiastically play the machines in our sporting clubs. The taxation input to this state's treasury was such that it was inevitable that this gambling method would spread to other states.
Now there is alarm that the concentration of poker machines is to be found in " working class "suburbs such as Fairfield, where residents bet $8.5 billion last year. There is fear many people are addicted to the machines and this addiction is lowering living standards for their families.
To some degree, the laws in place should see the number of poker machines steadily decrease. Machines can only be transferred by way of sale and for every three machines bought, one must be forfeited. Obviously, the one forfeited is the least productive machine and this provides an incentive to move machines to suburbs delivering the highest gambling turnover. The owners want the bigger return from less machine numbers.
Gambling in its many forms is regarded as a vice and many years ago the only legal bets were those placed with a bookmaker at a race meeting. The public urge to have a bet was satisfied by SP bookmakers operating from the back bar of most pubs and the taxation loss resulted in this state licensing the TAB. Since then gambling has grown to include the state lottery, Casinos, Keno, and of course the Lotto games that are drawn on most days of the week.
Put simply, if we outlawed gambling we would need to pay a lot more tax to achieve the same level of state services, and gambling is an individual choice. Many citizens rarely gamble. Many others gamble moderately, and unfortunately some gamble obsessively to the detriment of the wellbeing of their families. Wherever gambling is banned, it immediately resurrects itself as an underground activity. Crime and gambling go hand in hand.
It also raises the question of personal choice. We once had severe restrictions on when - and where - we could drink alcohol. Today, more relaxed limits apply and we accept that some people abuse that form of freedom, but that is balanced by the mass of people who behave moderately.
The same applies to gambling. If we banned poker machines it is certain that many would find other ways to waste their money, because that is the nature of humankind. Anyone playing a poker machine knows there is a risk factor and the chances are high that the machine will win, but there is also a chance that "luck "will deliver a bonanza.
The best we can do is ensure that the ratio of pays to throughput is honest and ban seductive ploys such as celebratory music and optics when a "win "delivers less than the amount gambled. Then it is up to the individual if that is their choice to lose their money.
No comments:
Post a Comment