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.