Clubs NSW is waging a vigorous campaign to ward off poker machine reforms that would reduce problem gambling and return control to ‘players’. These reforms, known as 'mandatory pre-commitment' would require gamblers to pre-set what they are prepared to lose. It sounds quite benign. So what is causing all the fuss?

 

The reality is that the majority of profits from current machines come from problem gambling. So if there is less problem gambling, profits will go down;  that is without a change to a more ethical business model that is less dependent on harmful gambling. Of course, such a change is long over due.

 

The Productivity Commission found that a staggering 60 per cent of total losses from poker machines come from problem and at risk gamblers and that 30 per cent of regular poker machine users are problem or at risk gamblers. These are conservative figures as it also found that gambling problems are grossly under-reported in gambling surveys. The Commission also explained that harm from the machines stretches far beyond a mere tally of those defined as problem gamblers.

 

As a small illustration of this point, when assessing harm from alcohol on our roads we do not just add up those who can be diagnosed as ‘alcoholics’ using formal clinical measures. We would include all cases where alcohol has been a factor in accidents; and we would also consider the harm for partners, families and communities, not just for the drinker. In other words, problem gamblers at the pointy end of a clinical scale describes only part of the harm caused by pokies in our communities. In reality, the problems include financial ruin, poverty, depression, relationship breakdown, divorce, child neglect and even suicide. Local businesses are also harmed, as the discretionary dollar is sucked up by the machines. 

 

While pokies bring in mega profits to larger clubs, we all pick up the tab for the social and economic costs. One vivid example I recall was a drop-in centre providing meals and shelter for disadvantaged patrons who would regularly lose their whole Centrelink payment to the pokies on the day they received it. Talking to such community services, this is not uncommon.

 

So shame on Clubs NSW for hiding behind communities to protect this lucrative revenue stream. The truth is that poker machines, as currently designed and supplied, are hugely profitable just because they lead regular patrons to lose control and gamble more than they intended. This has been well established in the research literature for some time now.

 

Unfortunately some of the larger clubs in NSW have experienced a bad case of 'mission drift' from their original purpose of social and community benefit to a focus on commercial expansion, market share and ever increasing profits – hence the current campaign to oppose reform. Nerilee Hing from Southern Cross University came to such a conclusion in her history of machine gambling in the NSW club industry. 

 

People and groups speaking up to the power of larger commercial clubs to press for safer pokies are by no means ‘anti club’. But there is a difference between small local clubs that serve their own communities at a grass roots level and mega pokie barns hiding behind their club credentials.

 

For my own part I am forever grateful to the local sporting club that helped me raise my child and provided him with wonderful mentors as he was growing up. This was a true community club and certainly had no need of millions of dollars wrought from devastation to gamblers and their partners and families.

 

But rather than advocate for the community, Clubs NSW uses the old argument ‘we need more evidence’ to oppose reforms to make pokies safer. Such an argument was long used by the tobacco industry, to its eventual discredit. But we don’t need more evidence that current machines are inherently harmful and they habitually ensnare innocent players into gambling careers of misery.

 

We do know that loss of control is a central problem for regular players as they disappear into ‘the zone’ of the machines. Furthermore, we have evidence that ‘mandatory pre-commitment’ would assist gamblers to maintain their control and reduce the likelihood of problem gambling, which is why this measure was recommended by the Productivity Commission. There is also good evidence that one dollar bet limits would reduce harm, however Clubs NSW opposes both measures.

 

Addressing the issue of evidence, the Productivity Commission argued for the ‘Precautionary Approach’ in forming gambling policy. It argued that we cannot always know in advance the full effects of a policy before it is enacted and reliance on an excessively high standard of proof would cause 'policy paralysis' in an area where the community costs of inaction are unacceptably high.

 

Of course policy paralysis may be just what some pokie businesses want in this instance. Importantly, the Precautionary Approach requires that we decide and act in the public interest when the evidence is being contested. This point should give us pause as where was the evidence of public safety when the new computerised pokies were being introduced? Not surprisingly, we heard little call for such evidence from Clubs NSW.

 

In short, we have the evidence that the pokies are an extremely dangerous product and we should introduce measures to make them safer for gamblers and communities as a matter of public urgency. The Federal Government should be supported in its proposed reforms.