Spot on! For the life of me I cannot see how pre-commitment is going to deter the compulsive gambler not to mention the cost of the technlogy to limit machines and punters.
When Papua New guinea introduced pokies the potential for social disruption was obvious so the government limited the single bet to a maximum ,the equivalent ,of ten cents and it seems to have worked.
In some other jurisdictions opening hours of gambling lounges (other than bona fide casinos) are limited to a number of hours within a 24 hour period (ten hours being common) with some flexibility on which hours being left to the discretion of the operators; so it may be 4pm to 10pm or perhaps 6 to midnight and so on.
We need to put some trials in place and not be dogmatic on pre-commitment as the only way to go.

It's just another example of the government getting involved in an area which it can't police - and which it shouldn't police.

I feel sorry for people who gamble. But I also have trouble working out why the Fed Gov has picked on this issue when there are 100s of people hooked on heroin or wh0, if they're pensioners, are battling to buy food every week. That's life and death stuff.

This is nanny state stuff at its worst. It's generated by Senator Xenophon who gets incredible publicity in his home state of SA but who for the life of me, has done absolutely nothing.

The Nanny state rides again.

While I have sympathy for those addicted, I am always concerned when some sanctimonious twit feels that in order to save the few, restrictions and costs need to be imposed on the many.

What makes this regulation particularly odious is that it only addresses one particular aspect of the gambling issue. While pokies may be the drug of choice for many problem gamblers, gambling addiction existed long before pokies, and there is little doubt that while a small handful might be discouraged, the vast majority will switch to horse racing, online gambling etc.

Whilst gambling money is flowing overseas, the main losers will be the states, the clubs and the taxpayers.

A far more cost effective method would to spend the money on identifying problem gamblers and intervening with them.

When casinos were first mooted in Queensland in the '50's, it was by Joh Bjelke Petersen, a claimed “dedicated Lutheran” and the casino in Tasmania was pointed out as a model. At that time, I think it was in Nevada US that was shown as a casino in a movie, and it seemed to be in a desert, and I thought that having “it” in the middle of a desert would be a relatively good thing, as they would have to build a road, supply water and accommodation etc to encourage anybody to go there. Unfortunately, no member of parliamentary parties are really intelligent, and such an idea would never enter their head, and so a casino or two, three or more are built in the cities and towns close to places of entertainment and places of employment to ensure they are handy to wage earners and money. The federal government does its bit and ensures the people are so cash strapped that they will take a chance to earn more – a lot more if they can, and get trapped with the kind help of both the state and federal governments. The trouble is now that even if we got a decent government in either State or Commonwealth now, the players are hooked and will keep trying for that mythical fortune, and we don't ever look like ever getting a decent government in either by the look at the present and future members.

As Cheryl remarks, the Governments get involved in a situation - not can't police, but organise situations where they should police but those who are supposed to police this, don't. Here I am talking about the liquor licensing department of the State governments, who are supposed to take action against those holding the license if they allow selling alcohol to a person already under the influence. Too many times people have been assaulted by belligerent drinkers inside or outside of a venue, and no action taken against the vendor for continuing to supplying when the signs are apparent. The government have shown that they will not take action against those whose wealth indicates they be a source of good entertainment for the members of their party. I still don't like the idea of workers doing their pay when their wife and family are waiting for the cash to pay the rent or buy food or clothing. Our country is still just clear of a recession, and our politicians know how to get us into it, but don't have a clue how to avoid one, they know how to destroy our industries and our economy and expect to get a pat on the back for it, they know how to make the workers lose their homes and millionaires become multimillionaires, and think they are great by just going to church.

*if they're pensioners, are battling to buy food every week. That's life and death stuff.*

No wonder they can't buy food Cheryl, if they are pushing many
billions down the pokies! 10 billion a year, or whatever it is,
is not to be sneezed at.

Again! The answer is simple. All gambling out-lets will have a $100 pre-payed card, that will be provided with your membership-card or as in guess/over-seeing...will put a $100 limit in every 24 hour period.

Now! how fair do you want it?...........do the maths.

LEAP

Why lock up Tony Mokbel? He is not a Politician. He is a doer not a charlatan.

He could be put in charge of the distribution of alcohol and of any other drug via the chemist’s shops.

That would be a scoop for Australia. To anybody his fill until they come to know how destructive alcohol and any other substance not essential to life can be.

What’s wrong with gambling? It is only a waste of time. Politicians not only waste our time, they waste our lives when it is convenient to them.

Just take all the gains from the ones who make of drug and gambling their business, leave them just enough to survive.

All that money into the community coffers would take care that no one will starve, not even the loosing gamblers.

That is what I and Tony Mokbel would do, if I had my way.

Sorry! meant poker-machines only:)

LEAP

Yes.Yabby! It would be bad to be fair.

Australians are watching you all:)

I hope you all can sleep at nights..........which in knowing some........."a nights sleep".......will be No problem:

And you call yourselves human!..With Religious love.......Dont use words...you dont understand.

QL

Self-limiting seems awkward to me - I've always wondered why they poker machines aren't just slowed down - we have the fastest in the world - and programmed to shut down for 10 minutes every hour, which would break the momentum for problem gamblers. Something needs to be done, as 30 percent of pokie players are problem gamblers. We need to wean ourselves off having our meals and entertainment subsidised by people who are ill. Which is why I don't go to the local RSL for a cheap feed.

Remove the $1 and $2 machines, remove the 'notes' options on machines and replace all machines by law with 5 and 10 cent coins like the good old days? It should reduce the amounts wasted via the time taken to insert the 5 and 10 cent pieces after purchasing.

I support a lot of what was said in the article, especially the link between pokies and bar hours that brings added social problems. The biggest anti-social behavior may exist in the pokies rooms however as people stare, transfixed, dissociated in front of poker machines at 3am in the morning? Studies show that overnight, the 'problem gambler rate' of venue patrons hits 90%...way too harmful.

Nevertheless I do not agree that the issue is only seen as a 'problem gambling' issue by Wilkie. Mr Wilkie has always said that pokies over spending must be reduced, much to save innocent others eg families from unfair loss and hardship. Also the reforms relate to consumer safety generally. They recognize that the gambling industry's pokies do not currently meet the demands of our new consumer laws. Mr Wilkie called for registration to manage the provision of a spending record for consumers as well as pre-commitment technology, to assist all pokies gamblers to monitor spending. When over half the pokies gamblers surveyed admitted to regularly over-spending on pokies, a pre-commit tool would seem helpful for all responsible pokies consumers. Problem gamblers are not the only people to be covered, on Mr Wilkie's reform agenda.

The biggest loss incurred by poker machine players is due to the low percentage payouts which, in turn, is mainly due to the exorbitant tax impositions. Lower taxes would would result in greater returns/less losses to players. I would like to make these points:-
a) The smaller social/bowls/golf clubs return the profits to their members for the facilities, the members enjoyment and also support local community activities.
b) While hotels DO support local activities, the MAJOR portion of their profits go into their pockets (why else would they have them?)
c) Why should those people who choose to join and use their club pay more tax than those who choose NOT to belong to a club?
As a footnote, I do NOT support the principle of larger clubs paying millions of dollars to professional sportsmen. Their worth should be calculated by what they draw through the gate.
LOWER TAXES - BETTER RETURNS - LESS LOSSES........briandee

Sorry Briandee but I do not agree that the biggest consumer loss is related to taxing of pokies. The return % need only occur once during a decade's lifetime for a poker machine. It is meaningless in terms of individual user losses...that mostly do occur. The biggest consumer loss is related to using the addictively hypnotic, deceptive 'cheating devices' that pokies are, to render them unsafe, misleading consumer products.

Our consumer laws are broken daily by ALL poker machines unless they produce a spending record for consumers...a transaction record that our new Australian Consumer Law demands that ALL consumers MUST be able to receive. (ACL 2010 Ch3,Subdiv. 4,Secs 100-101)

Also your other comments beg the question...No matter what body supplies money to a community...should that be 'misery money' that was extracted from the community unsafely via addiction and overspending that SHOULD have been reduced or COULD have been more avoided?

NO pokie recreation supplier should even be in the position of 'donating' to even look like a philanthropic body...a position that was only ever demanded to keep clubs' noses clean. The whole system is a damnable blight on our 'charity-giving' mechanisms.

SO WHY does Jeff Kennett get BeyongBlue to donate to gambling research....while he also runs a footy club that wreaks havoc at commuity level via a huge source of depression-causing pokies....to then have that footy club donate and partner with BeyondBlue? All this while Kennett profits personally from Amtech...a pokies maintenance business? How SICK is that? Nothing to DO with TAXES...

The whole 'donating' system is a sick ruse...to engender support for a very sick set of policies made between a group of sick people who seek 'misery money'...to make our communities even SICKER!

I believe the only way you can get near a pokie in WA is to visit the casino in Perth....so it's not part of our culture over here in general. We just don't have "em.

I don't think the majority of Western Australians feel as if we're being molly-coddled by our state government. It's merely a problem that we don't have to deal with.
Obviously, successive state governments have decided the social problems generated by pokies are so detrimental to society that they just aren't worth their implementation.