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.