Victorians lose $2.6bn on poker machines

Interesting piece by Stephen Mayne in Crikey about gambling in Victoria. He links to stories in The Age ( "Victorians lose $2.6 bn on poker machines") and The Herald Sun ("Victoria's most popular suburbs for poker machines"). The latter has a link to a table of Victorian gaming expenditure data for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 .

Mayne pays special attention to the Woolworths involvement in the gambling industry ("extreme capitalism" is his term):

We know that Woolworths is the 22nd biggest retailer in the world and has mastered the art of cornering key segments of the Australian market, whether it be groceries, grog, petrol, fresh fruit, tobacco or pokies.

But who would ever have thought it would be so efficient at exploiting Victorian pokies addicts in working class suburbs? The figures revealed the 20 most lucrative Victorian pokies venues ripped $926 million out of pokies players in the three years to 30 June, 2008, and Woolworths snaffled a staggering $736 million or 79.5%.

He also criticises The Age and The Herald Sun, both of whom derive much advertising revenue from Woolworths, for their reluctance to mention the company (the former's story doesn't name it, the latter's does so but once).

Mayne doesn't mention the ABC, which has no advertising revenue to lose: it seems not to have reported the story, though the ABC News gambling tag links to several other stories from Victoria and elsewhere. I've done a quick Google search and can't find any other media reports, which reflects how newsworthy those who shape our media, and perhaps their readers and viewers, see it.

That said, it would be good to see comparative statistics from other states and territories.

Changing realities?

Nicholson's cartoon in The Weekend Australian, commenting on a report that the federal government plans to cut a $500 dollar a head payment to over 65s speaks for itself:

Australia Day

Australia Day fell on Saturday, when it was commemorated in many ways and in many places throughout the country. Monday was a public holiday, a second bite of the Australia Day cherry without many of the formalities.

I was at the Test on Saturday (in fact on all five days) and was interested to see that a public citizenship ceremony was conducted during the cricket lunch interval. The MC was Mr Tom Georganas, Federal ALP MP for Hindmarsh; also present were Ms Kate Ellis, Federal Minister for Youth and Sport, and Dr Jane Lomax Smith, State Education Minister. After the singing of the national anthem (for the second time in three days, this time by a young woman who pronounced the first word of the title "Advarnce " which we in SA prefer to the Eastern staters' short a-ed "Advants"), the citizenship ceremony took place.

Then Mr Georganas invited those Australians present (by no means all the crowd, as many were lunching elsewhere) to participate in a "voluntary" re-affirmation of their loyalty to Australia. He explained that doing so would have no legal effect, but I wondered whether this is setting a precedent for future sporting and other events.

In the Fin Review last weekend Mark Latham's piece "Aussie Aussie Aussie - shush, shush, shush" (p 90, not online but summarised here) lamented "the squeezing the fun and irreverence out of the Australian way of life":

A day at the cricket, one of our great national sporting institutions, is indicative of this process. There are now more than 230 security cameras at the SCG targeting large groups of spectators and people in "unusual costumes". Even the security officers have admitted that it resembles a scene from Big Brother. They are relentless in their surveillance, looking for "anyone turning their heads from the game - they are usually guilty of something."

Will it be long before the security cameras begin identifying those who turn their heads away from official ceremonies, or perhaps even don't join in with sufficient gusto? I pondered this as I continued to eat my lunch during the reaffirmation. Most of those around me did likewise but, as Latham and Rex Jory, writing in similar vein in The Advertiser/Adelaide Now on Tuesday, implied, who knows how this might develop? At least I know Don Bradman's average.





,

The changing face of Australia

On last night's 7.30 Report , Hugh Mackay, the veteran (by his own admission) social researcher was interviewed by Kerry O'Brien. The transcript, with links to an extended version, is here.

Mackay 's body and opinions have aged gracefully: "mellowed" isn't quite the right word, because while he admits to being optimistic about the future of our society he hasn't adopted a Panglossian view. Food for thought, especially for those who, like him and me, have seen many changes in our journey through life.

Caring for the elderly

Today's Australian lead editorial quite properly discusses the mass shooting at Virginia Tech (and draws some interesting parallels between US and Australian attitudes to gun control).

The second lead: "Care for the elderly: the aged deserve the best we can offer" is also important because it states (perhaps restates, but it seems to have been a long time between statements) some fundamental principles about why and how elderly people are entitled to be looked after:

When the citizens of this country reach the end of their lives they deserve as much care and support as we can give them. After a lifetime of work, raising families, paying taxes and supporting the community, the elderly should not be shuffled off into a nursing home somewhere - out of sight and mind - to become someone else's problem. And those who do find themselves in nursing homes should not be stripped of their dignity and have their lives treated as not being worth bothering about over a holiday weekend or if they stand in the way of a business deal.

The editorial continues by discussing some of the recent scandals about aged care (the deaths at the Broughton Hall nursing home and the attempt to dispossess 400 nursing home residents in four states because of a property deal) and concludes with a succinct and valid reason why we should treat the elderly with dignity: "They helped to build the society we now enjoy".

Advertiser takes strong stand against pokies

Yesterday's Advertiser came out with a strong editorial against poker machines: "The pokies gamble has failed SA"

For more than a decade, poker machines in hotels and clubs have been the antithesis of Robin Hood – taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The major losers are people in lower socio-economic areas of the metropolitan area and country districts where, coincidentally, the largest number of poker machine hotels and clubs are concentrated. The winners are a select group of multiple-hotel owners – individuals and corporations – and the State Government.

Gambling Minister Paul Caica must begin a serious program of initially reducing the number of poker machines in hotels, and ultimately phasing them out. If the Government fears that people will flood across state borders to feed their craving to gamble or that bans will trigger compensation claims, then perhaps the Federal Government should take national control of poker machines in the same way it is seeking to control the Murray-Darling river system.

.....

Figures obtained by The Advertiser this week suggest that in the current financial year, South Australians will lose more than $800 million on poker machines. The State Government's tax take is likely to exceed $300 million for the first time, while poker machine operators will pocket almost $500 million. These are shameful, reprehensible figures. In a community which has unacceptable levels of poverty, deprivation and homelessness, they are unconscionable...As a community, we have a clear choice – live with the appalling social and economic damage caused by poker machines, or take radical and perhaps politically painful steps to eliminate them. In the end, there is no choice.

These are strong words, with which it's tempting for me to concur as I don't patronise pokies. However, I'm not in favour of removing all pokies unless it can be proven to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that such a step is necessary to reduce problem gambling. There's also the likelihood that reducing gambling outlets will drive the problem, like others, outside the law and thus create another set of problems and consequent need for resource allocation . I'm old enough to remember the days when SP bookies were common.: they were generally considered to be harmless, but the spotlight in those days was rarely turned upon the consequences of their activities.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see if there's much of a debate on the topic. The winners mentioned in the editorial would be a formidable collective adversary to significant attempt at reform.