Why Gallop is right on this one

[IanG]

Why Gallop is right on this one
Phil Gould
July 10, 2011

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...on-this-one-20110709-1h7s8.html#ixzz1RfRml3Xu


Last week the NRL's chief executive, David Gallop, went public with a very strong warning that the new poker machine legislation being proposed by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the federal government would endanger the future of a number of our NRL clubs - and in so doing, the future of the NRL.

Gallop correctly criticised the proposed poker machine legislation, claiming that these new measures "will not prevent problem gambling but that it will severely damage rugby league and other community sports".

Gallop is 100 per cent right in what he says. However, the impact of these ridiculous reforms will be far greater and affect the lives of more people than he has indicated in his carefully worded statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below

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. However, there are far greater issues at stake here than just the NRL.

I have been involved in the club industry all my working life. I worked directly in the poker machine industry for 12 years. I have a very real understanding of the issues here and how this proposed legislation is not the answer to the problems it professes to solve.

This policy on mandatory pre-commitment for poker machine players is simply another attempt by this Prime Minister to appease minority opinions with the express purpose of securing their support to keep her in power. This is not a policy designed to benefit the Australian people.

I will get to this shortly. First though, let's deal with some of the backlash Gallop received simply because he dared to enter the world of politics and speak the truth.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin accused NRL clubs of being funded by ''family misery'' and ''pokie addicts''. Anti-pokies campaigners Nick Xenophon and Tim Costello accused the NRL of ''perpetuating lies'' and ''shocking'' behaviour.

Let's just examine these comments from government leaders for a moment.

Are these emotional rebukes simply a part of the active debate on such an important issue? Are they designed to inform or educate Australians on the real issues and justify their carefully researched solutions?

Or are they simply another example of the delirious, sensationalised abuse we've become accustomed to from our politicians every time someone dares to challenge one of their proposals and points out the error of their ways?

Are they genuine about finding workable solutions to serious issues or are they blindly agreeing to whatever they can to ensure support from independents to keep themselves in power?

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.

Everyone is mindful of the issues of problem gambling and we would all welcome sensible solutions to help those who live their lives under the terrible affliction of gambling addiction. However, neither the hysterical statements of the honourable minister nor the unreasonable restrictions being proposed as part of this new legislation are going to solve the problems.

In fact, these poorly researched reforms will create greater problems and more family hardships than they are trying to cure.

Mandatory pre-commitment on poker machine players will not prevent the problem gambler from gambling. If the gamblers want to bet they will find a way.

The problem of this proposed legislation is that it treats every potential poker machine player as a "problem gambler".

It treats any person who wishes to withdraw cash from an ATM on licensed premises as a problem gambler. Clearly, this is not the case.

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.

Having to register and effectively license yourself to play poker machines will deter the casual players who simply treat poker machine investment as buying relaxation time or as part of a social entertainment option to share with friends.

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 - but even if we accept the 30 per cent prediction, this will lead to tremendous strain on the club and hospitality industry.

Further to that, if these reforms are accepted, current poker machine installations will become immediately outdated as new technology will have to be introduced to monitor the scheme. The replacement and conversions of current machines will cost in the billions of dollars. Who pays for this?

Not to mention the fact that state and federal governments have always relied heavily on gambling taxes. If revenue from poker machine taxes falls by 30 per cent where will government look to replace this revenue? More taxes on the Australian people, of course.

This mandatory pre-commitment legislation 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.

I'm talking about all junior sports here - not just rugby league. Not to mention the community programs, the charitable donations, the free bus services and the emotional support and community spirit so much a part of the hospitality industry.

Smaller clubs will not survive these restrictions. The club industry provides cheap food, beverages and entertainment to millions of Australians - particularly the elderly who live on meagre means and who rely heavily on their local clubs for support and social activities. Small clubs in many communities are a part of the very fabric of family life. How do we replace this?

If you want it in money terms, then try this on for size.

Clubs in NSW make an annual social contribution of $811 million a year. Nationally, clubs give at least $1.2 billion per year. Recipients include community groups, charities and sporting groups.

With 90,000 club jobs and 188,000 pub jobs nationally, the Gillard policy would see tens of thousands of jobs lost. The impact would be hardest in the bush where there are few alternative jobs and the club is often the biggest employer in town.

If we stop this, clubs in NSW and Queensland will give $300m to rugby league (amateur and NRL) over the next four years. Millions more will be given towards the AFL, aged care, child care, surf lifesaving, veterans' welfare, Anzac Day celebrations, public schools, hospitals and charities. Who will fill the void - the government of the day? I think not.

As for the independents who propose this legislation, we totally understand the good intentions of dealing with problem gambling, but this is not the way to go about it.

The people of Australia need to understand what is going on here. We all know the Gillard government is desperate and out of control. This has to stop.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...on-this-one-20110709-1h7s8.html#ixzz1RfRi9WLG

LINK

The column Gus mentioned on the Roast today

 

[oldmancraigy]

Let's just examine these comments from government leaders for a moment.

Are these emotional rebukes simply a part of the active debate on such an important issue? Are they designed to inform or educate Australians on the real issues and justify their carefully researched solutions?

I love how he just puts this stuff out there, but does not provide any diatribe on the actual policy itself.

Nor does he show exactly WHY this would be bad for clubs nationally, just puts out an 'emotional rebuke'

Honestly, look at the whole issue this way:
if clubs can only provide funding because of pokies, then that's a sad indictment on the clubs themselves.

Having to register and effectively license yourself to play poker machines will deter the casual players who simply treat poker machine investment as buying relaxation time or as part of a social entertainment option to share with friends.

Uh huh - and those casual players bring in SOOOOO much money for the clubs don't they....


Face the facts, of the alleged 5million people who play the pokies, 60,000 (3%) are 'problem gamblers'. I'd love to see a % of how much 'gambling income' that 3% brings in for the clubs. The fact they're up in arms about the debate suggests it'd be a very large slice.

If you've never seen the way families are totally ruined by problem gambling, then you are not in a position to comment on this issue.
Any club that is dependant on sucking the life out of 60 000 families each and every year DESERVES to die. Bunch of disgraceful merkins.
Clubs that aren't dependant on predatory behaviour upon the weak will certainly survive and find new ways to thrive.


End of story.

 

[docbrown]

To be honest some of those Jenny Macklin quotes remind me of - "Won't somebody please think of the children?"

Somebody from our game should just say to the government - "Okay the clubs gave $1.2 billion to the community last year. Will you guarantee that same funding to the same recipients?"

 

[Frailty]

I love how he just puts this stuff out there, but does not provide any diatribe on the actual policy itself.

Nor does he show exactly WHY this would be bad for clubs nationally, just puts out an 'emotional rebuke'

Honestly, look at the whole issue this way:
if clubs can only provide funding because of pokies, then that's a sad indictment on the clubs themselves.




Uh huh - and those casual players bring in SOOOOO much money for the clubs don't they....


Face the facts, of the alleged 5million people who play the pokies, 60,000 (3%) are 'problem gamblers'. I'd love to see a % of how much 'gambling income' that 3% brings in for the clubs. The fact they're up in arms about the debate suggests it'd be a very large slice.

If you've never seen the way families are totally ruined by problem gambling, then you are not in a position to comment on this issue.
Any club that is dependant on sucking the life out of 60 000 families each and every year DESERVES to die. Bunch of disgraceful merkins.
Clubs that aren't dependant on predatory behaviour upon the weak will certainly survive and find new ways to thrive.


End of story.

Funny that you care so much about those 60,000 families, but don't care about all the community sports and charities that would fall apart because a club going under - or the employees of the club... I don't know the exact numbers, but I would suggest that this would be a far greater number than the 60,000 families you are throwing around.

The funny fact is that you mention that 3% of gamblers are problem gamblers but expect them to provide the vast majority of money to clubs - that is absolutely foolish. Problem Gamblers don't need to put millions in to be a problem gambler - they could just put in $1000 a week... Which isn't a whole lot to a clubs income... This will affect the casual punters who put in the majority into the club.

But the focus is that this response will not address problem gambling like they hope it will. And that is the point - why damage a club that provides to the community to put in a system that in all probability won't work at all.

So you are willing to sacrifice all this community work and funds for problem gamblers who have options in front of them already. Did you know registered clubs had to have a self exclusion policy? That is where the gambler can ban themselves from the club. Many clubs are in groups - so places like Parramatta Leagues and Wentworthville Leagues clubs are all supported by Betsafe. This means once they exclude themselves from one club, they are excluded from all in the Betsafe group.

 

[BunniesMan]

I don't like pokies, I've never spent a cent on them. It's the gambling version of cigarettes. A completelly pointless, unattractive, uninteresting, unstimulating waste of money. Having said that, like cigarettes, I don't want pokies banned or even limited. I'm completely against this completely stupid legislation.

If people want to put their life savings down that slot, they have every right to.

And even if you do want to combat problem gambling (and I don't, it's not the government's responsibility), this won't actually solve the problem. It won't stop problem gamblers spending more money than they have. Like the carbon tax, this legislation is something done with the right intentions that will have no real world positive effects whatsoever.

Gallop is actually right for once.

 

[cleary89]

Meh I agree with the reforms, I use to put my whole student allowance in after a $1500 win when I was 17. I rarely touch them now, and often choose to go to places that don't have pokies because I know when I'm drunk I don't trust my self with them.

These new reforms would be massive for people like my self, who would choose at the start of the night not to touch them and it would happen. Tell me to get some self control or what ever, why should everyone else suffer for people like me... People will hardly suffer, sign up for a card, takes 5 minutes.

Clubs don't give much back, saints leagues gave what 2.2 to the football club, but inside is like a f**king casino, there is nothing to do there except play the pokies. Would be the same amount of pokies as tradies, and a friend who works at tradies has told me on some weekends they have a million dollar turn over on them.

Clubs like to justify their poker machine greed by giving back 5 or 10% back to the community, all bs imo.

 

[docbrown]

And even if you do want to combat problem gambling (and I don't, it's not the government's responsibility), this won't actually solve the problem.

This is what I suspect too.

I think problem gamblers will just drift to any of the other multitude of alternatives that they have their disposal, but in the process of introducing this legislation, we will have negatively affected the hospitality industry and community programs in the process.

Here's the question I want answered -

If this law is introduced, how does it stop problem gamblers from going to the TAB... or online gambling sites... or even to the news agents?

Does anyone know of this system being implemented overseas anywhere and actually having a positive effect?

 

[cleary89]

Gambling sites are talking about being restricted via the nbn. Dunno if its going to happen, but all the people i know who play online poker were worried.

 

[docbrown]

Meh I agree with the reforms, I use to put my whole student allowance in after a $1500 win when I was 17. I rarely touch them now, and often choose to go to places that don't have pokies because I know when I'm drunk I don't trust my self with them.

These new reforms would be massive for people like my self, who would choose at the start of the night not to touch them and it would happen.

Did you recognise the symptoms that you may have been a problem gambler at the time when that was occurring though?

 

[cleary89]

Nah, I'd even go as far as saying now that I wasn't a problem gambler, it was only $250 a week right? But writing it all out now its pretty obvious I was.

I'd go to a pub for dinner, put in $5, losing that $5 turned into spending the rest of the 50 I used for dinner. Still happens some times now.

Got my cousin hooked too, but pretty sure he enjoys playing them. I can't stand them, just do $5 hits, either win quick or loose quick. But as I said, this type of thing would be perfect for me, wouldn't ever play them again as every time I walk into a pub I don't want to play, but after dinner or if I'm drunk I might put a little bit in which turns into a lot more.

 

[HevyDevy]

Meh I agree with the reforms, I use to put my whole student allowance in after a $1500 win when I was 17. I rarely touch them now, and often choose to go to places that don't have pokies because I know when I'm drunk I don't trust my self with them.

These new reforms would be massive for people like my self, who would choose at the start of the night not to touch them and it would happen. Tell me to get some self control or what ever, why should everyone else suffer for people like me... People will hardly suffer, sign up for a card, takes 5 minutes.

Clubs don't give much back, saints leagues gave what 2.2 to the football club, but inside is like a f**king casino, there is nothing to do there except play the pokies. Would be the same amount of pokies as tradies, and a friend who works at tradies has told me on some weekends they have a million dollar turn over on them.

Clubs like to justify their poker machine greed by giving back 5 or 10% back to the community, all bs imo.

Well mate, I've had a gambling problem myself in the past (pokies) and I see this legislation as absolutely insane. A gambler will always find a way to gamble. But what about the guy that likes to relax on a Friday afternoon and put $50 in the pokies while having a couple of beers? What about the group of pensioners that gather at the club once a week to socialise and have a flutter? It is these people that contribute the majority of poker machine income and it is these people that will be negatively impacted buy this legislation.

I know for a FACT that the only person that can stop a problem gambler from gambling is themselves. This legislation will impact upon everyone except the people it is supposedly aimed at.

 

[Hooch]

Pokies belong in the casinos, not pubs and clubs. If they can't make a buck without pokies, f**k em, they're broke anyway.

 

[cleary89]

Well mate, I've had a gambling problem myself in the past (pokies) and I see this legislation as absolutely insane. A gambler will always find a way to gamble. But what about the guy that likes to relax on a Friday afternoon and put $50 in the pokies while having a couple of beers? What about the group of pensioners that gather at the club once a week to socialise and have a flutter? It is these people that contribute the majority of poker machine income and it is these people that will be negatively impacted buy this legislation.

I know for a FACT that the only person that can stop a problem gambler from gambling is themselves. This legislation will impact upon everyone except the people it is supposedly aimed at.

Take 30 seconds and get one of the cards... hardly a negative impact on them, none more so by the extra 30 second wait by getting the cigarettes out of cupboard then when they use to be out in the open.

As stated earlier, this would stop me from gambling 100%...

Funny that the only people against it are liberal supporters.

Agree with hooch, I went to a 'casino' in serbia, 5 poker machines. No where else has them like we do, amazing going out in europe and not seeing one at all.

 

[HevyDevy]

Why should I have to get a card? I don't want to be monitored.

Yet again this government introduces legislation that hurts the majority to help (and I use the word 'help' loosely) the minority.

 

[cleary89]

Lol, thats all it is. Not wanting to sign up for a card even if you want to play the pokies while you 'relax'. Anything to trash the government ay?

anyway, should be moved to the politics section because you clearly dislike the person making the policy, not the policy itself.

 

[docbrown]

Why should I have to get a card? I don't want to be monitored.

Yet again this government introduces legislation that hurts the majority to help (and I use the word 'help' loosely) the minority.

I think you can actually play them without the card but you're restricted to how much you can bet and the machine 'goes slower' so to speak to meet a per hour gambling rate.

I think people dislike that alternative because sometimes like to double up etc.

Edit: this is also partly why I think this whole thing is a case of extremism because if you're problem gambler, you can just as easily spend thousands on a slow play machine.

 

[HevyDevy]

Lol, thats all it is. Not wanting to sign up for a card even if you want to play the pokies while you 'relax'. Anything to trash the government ay?

anyway, should be moved to the politics section because you clearly dislike the person making the policy, not the policy itself.

I would suggest that it's easier for you accuse me of disliking the person than actually debating the topic at hand. Is that how you defend policy is it?

The simple fact is that this policy will not achieve what it is supposedly there to achieve. That's quite damning.

 

[HevyDevy]

And for the record Cleary, I will never support any policy that impinges upon personal liberties no matter who proposes it.

 

[cleary89]

I would suggest that it's easier for you accuse me of disliking the person than actually debating the topic at hand. Is that how you defend policy is it?

The simple fact is that this policy will not achieve what it is supposedly there to achieve. That's quite damning.

I disagree, as it will definitely help me and others like me, as previously stated. This is what it was meant to achieve.

 

[HevyDevy]

I disagree, as it will definitely help me and others like me, as previously stated. This is what it was meant to achieve.

Mate if you were really a problem gambler it wouldn't help you in the slightest.