Pokies de-regulation

[jimmyc1985]

A cynic like me looks at what was announced on Thursday and says 'Mr Brumby, you're a fraud'. As far as i can tell, the government has concocted a devious scheme whereby:

1) They've purported to avoid the $1.2bn liability owing to the existing gaming machine operators (Tatts & Tabcorp) on a technicality;
2) After the changes proceed in 2012, there will still be exactly the same amount of slot machines in gaming venues in Victoria, therefore the serious issue of problem gaming is not in any way mitigated by this policy;
3) The auctioning of licences to pub owners rather than gaming operators has the potential to increase the revenue from auctioning the licences as there will be more competitive tension on a machine-by-machine basis rather than bulk operator basis;
4) Worst of all, the government has sought to dress this up as "empowering the community" to deal with the issue of problem gambling, which is a disgrace when it's considered that:
a) The state government has said that it thinks it will receive the same revenue after these changes are brought in as they currently do, thus they have no right to deflect responsibility for dealing with problem gambling onto "the community"; and
b) Big pub owners, such as ALH/Bruce Mathison/Woolworths, will still dominate the gaming market and they don't give a shit about problem gambling.

Am i missing something?

[dodgey]

A cynic like me looks at what was announced on Thursday and says 'Mr Brumby, you're a fraud'. As far as i can tell, the government has concocted a devious scheme whereby:

1) They've purported to avoid the $1.2bn liability owing to the existing gaming machine operators (Tatts & Tabcorp) on a technicality;
2) After the changes proceed in 2012, there will still be exactly the same amount of slot machines in gaming venues in Victoria, therefore the serious issue of problem gaming is not in any way mitigated by this policy;
3) The auctioning of licences to pub owners rather than gaming operators has the potential to increase the revenue from auctioning the licences as there will be more competitive tension on a machine-by-machine basis rather than bulk operator basis;
4) Worst of all, the government has sought to dress this up as "empowering the community" to deal with the issue of problem gambling, which is a disgrace when it's considered that:
a) The state government has said that it thinks it will receive the same revenue after these changes are brought in as they currently do, thus they have no right to deflect responsibility for dealing with problem gambling onto "the community"; and
b) Big pub owners, such as ALH/Bruce Mathison/Woolworths, will still dominate the gaming market and they don't give a shit about problem gambling.

Am i missing something?

No pretty much spot on...


Brumby IS a fraud that even the Labour party didn't want in charge years ago...

[dom_105]

There should be a reduction in the number of licenses handed out. Baillieu was on the right track last election when he pledged to cut the number of machines in half.

Anything less than this move and you can't take seriously the notion that the State Government gives a shit about problem gamblers.

[jimmyc1985]

Geez, earth-shattering stuff there from the Australian. A letter from a former state treasurer confirming that state governments are supreme and have plenary power to change laws whenever they feel like it.

Must be a slow news day.

[Brumaz]

I live in WA.

We dont have pokies, besides crappy style ones at the Casino. We don't need them. We don't have a state govt. addicted to their revenue.
Hopefully we never will

[dodgey]

but does the Govt. simply expect Tatts and Tabcorp to "hand Over" all the infrastructure and technology that they have developed over the years to them in 2012 ????