No more pokie reforms? (1 Viewer)

[Garygaz]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-retreats-on-pokie-reforms-20120117-1q4sw.html

JULIA GILLARD is understood to have backed away from her promise to introduce a mandatory pre-commitment scheme for using poker machines.The Prime Minister has told the anti-pokies independent, Andrew Wilkie, she will not support an alternative proposal, backed by the senator Nick Xenophon, for maximum bet limits of $1.Sources close to Mr Wilkie told the Herald Ms Gillard revealed the backdown in a meeting on Sunday. He is said to be ''stunned'' by her decision and is considering whether to continue to support the government.Advertisement: Story continues below​

Julia Gillard … at the Ford plant yesterday. Photo: Jason South​

​

Mr Wilkie had pledged to withdraw support for Ms Gillard's minority government if it did not legislate by May to introduce a system that compelled poker machine players to nominate a cap on their losses.But the government's parliamentary numbers were strengthened in November when the Liberal MP Peter Slipper agreed to be the Speaker, giving the government an extra vote in the lower house. This has allowed Ms Gillard to withdraw her offer to Mr Wilkie, knowing she should be able to continue in power.Sources said Ms Gillard had told Mr Wilkie a trial of mandatory pre-commitment in a single state or territory was possible in the future.Her office declined to comment last night. Mr Wilkie also would not comment.Earlier yesterday, Mr Wilkie had denied the reforms were dead but indicated there was room to change the nature of pre-commitment. ''The agreement is only a few sentences and it's perfectly understandable that we're now having this period of quite intense discussion,'' he told reporters.''I'd characterise it more as a collegiate discussion than a hard-headed negotiation because the government wants reform, I want reform,'' he said.''I make no apology for trying to bring about reform as quickly as we humanly can. If we can do it a couple of years quicker, then we should. But … it takes time. And we need to do it right.''Visiting a Ford factory in Melbourne yesterday, Ms Gillard said: ''I've had some discussions with Andrew Wilkie. We will have some more discussions in the future and it's not my intention to engage in running commentary in any way while those discussions are happening.''Her backdown would mean, in effect, that the campaign by club and pub owners and management would have achieved its purpose. Clubs Australia and Clubs NSW have targeted Labor MPs in marginal seats over the policy. They have pushed as an alternative a voluntary pre-commitment system with a trial of mandatory pre-commitment.But anti-pokie campaigners have said gamblers would ignore a voluntary system, which would make it ineffective.Meanwhile, pro-reform campaigners have recruited the advertising man behind the successful Kevin 07 Labor election campaign to help counter the clubs' opposition to the reforms.Neil Lawrence will team up with the publicist Sue Cato on a pro-reform campaign that is likely to target marginal seats.They will reportedly work pro bono and have had talks with the chief of World Vision, Tim Costello, on how to fund the ad blitz.Last night the acting Opposition Leader, Warren Truss, said: "Julia Gillard has betrayed Andrew Wilkie just as she betrayed the Australian people before the last election. She has gone back on another deal and simply cannot be trusted by anybody.''She broke her promise to the Australian people to not introduce a carbon tax, now she is abandoning her commitment to Wilkie. Her much-touted convictions amount to nought in the face of political expediency."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I hate idealists who will propose something and accuse anyone who disagrees with them their enemy. As someone who knows a couple of people with pokie problems this would 100% not have worked. The only net effect would be a reduction in casual gamblers who couldn't be bothered to register for the pre-commitment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fuck independents [/FONT]​

 

[hayabusaboston]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

I hate idealists who will propose something and accuse anyone who disagrees with them their enemy. As someone who knows a couple of people with pokie problems this would 100% not have worked. The only net effect would be a reduction in casual gamblers who couldn't be bothered to register for the pre-commitment.

fuck independents [/LEFT]

lol; whats with your sig? Some people hate you hahaha.

 

[Lentern]

In the first instance it was the Independents sans Wilkie that killed it.

Also if it wouldn't work then clubs Australia have nothing to worry about.

Finally the public service inquiry into problem gambling recommended it, not Andrew Wilkie or Nick Xenophon.

 

[Garygaz]

the clubs do have to worry about it because it would reduce the amount of non-problem gamblers and most likely have a negligible effect on those who it is targeting.

 

[Lentern]

the clubs do have to worry about it because it would reduce the amount of non-problem gamblers and most likely have a negligible effect on those who it is targeting.

And you're basing that on your own anecdotal evidence and the words of the clubs themselves?

 

[hayabusaboston]

And you're basing that on your own anecdotal evidence and the words of the clubs themselves?

And excuse me, but you're a f*cking expert are you?

 

[Garygaz]

And you're basing that on your own anecdotal evidence and the words of the clubs themselves?

well i don't think you need a psychology degree to understand the basic urges of a problem gambler. i mean, you've got a person who is willing to suspend their disbelief, knowing full well that they are playing a system that by definition is designed to make them lose money. you've got people who steal from their friends, who get 2nd mortgages and do shitty things to feed their addiction. do you think the bullet to the head for this problem is for them to commit each night to a maximum loss? i'm very sure that they're just going to pick the uppermost limit (much more than they have) so it never becomes an issue for them.

this so called solution seems like something you would do once you've addressed you have a problem and are looking to come off gambling by controlling yourself. it is not the way to get these people to realize their problems.

 

[Lentern]

And excuse me, but you're a f*cking expert are you?

No but the public servants who wrote the report would be.

 

[Lentern]

well i don't think you need a psychology degree to understand the basic urges of a problem gambler. i mean, you've got a person who is willing to suspend their disbelief, knowing full well that they are playing a system that by definition is designed to make them lose money. you've got people who steal from their friends, who get 2nd mortgages and do shitty things to feed their addiction. do you think the bullet to the head for this problem is for them to commit each night to a maximum loss? i'm very sure that they're just going to pick the uppermost limit (much more than they have) so it never becomes an issue for them.

this so called solution seems like something you would do once you've addressed you have a problem and are looking to come off gambling by controlling yourself. it is not the way to get these people to realize their problems.

So it's an eloquently worded yes? Am I appealing to authority rather than arguing the merits, yes I am, I dislike gambling generally,if these businesses can't survive without their pokie money perhaps they should examine more ethical ways of raising revenue.

 

[funkshen]

would precommitments be recorded? they could be used as evidence in cases of marriage dissolution, domestic abuse etc.

also garygaz the armchair psychology isn't really necessary. surely we can all agree that the technology should be given a robust trial (the clubs ACT boss has offered to do so) to see how it goes.

 

[Garygaz]

didn't the clubs agree to a trial at one point but wilkie refused?

 

[Chemical Ali]

i really hate julia gillard and the labor party and their stupid talking points

few months ago: "I remain absolutely committed to poker machine reform"
today: "I refuse to engage in commentary on this issue" (said like 15+ times)

so absolutely committed = nothing whatsoever

 

[funkshen]

i really hate julia gillard and the labor party and their stupid talking points

few months ago: "I remain absolutely committed to poker machine reform"
today: "I refuse to engage in commentary on this issue" (said like 15+ times)

so absolutely committed = nothing whatsoever

jolia gizzard is also famous for other commitments such as there will not be car ban tacks under moi government

 

[Chemical Ali]

jolia gizzard is also famous for other commitments such as there will not be car ban tacks under moi government

well at least in that case there was a clear change in circumstances in the minority government, in this case it's just "well the poll numbers aren't so good so we'll change that one again"

 

[funkshen]

well at least in that case there was a clear change in circumstances in the minority government, in this case it's just "well the poll numbers aren't so good so we'll change that one again"

there has been a clear change in circumstances in the minority government again though (peter slipper)

 

[Blastus]

i really hate julia gillard and the labor party and their stupid talking points

few months ago: "I remain absolutely committed to poker machine reform"
today: "I refuse to engage in commentary on this issue" (said like 15+ times)

so absolutely committed = nothing whatsoever

she is a liar

 

[Arcorn]

At least she is starting to get some balls and go against the retards who don't understand the basic concepts of freedom.

 

[a c]

$1 bet limits would effectively reduce the impact of problem gambling; is everyone's preferred policy (except the clubs)

 

[funkshen]

$1000 minimum bets would effectively reduce the impact of problem gambling

 

[SylviaB]

At least she is starting to get some balls and go against the retards who don't understand the basic concepts of freedom.

yeah no she's definitely doing this out of some profound respect for individual autonomy

absolutely nothing to do with politics