<Nasel twang> "Now I like a punt as much as the next bloke, but..."
In reality I'm pretty indifferent to gambling. I do like a punt on the Melbourne Cup once a year, just as I used to on the Grand National in the UK, but I'm not much good at it. While I've picked the winner more times than not, I've often bet on so many other horses through indecision that I rarely come out on top. But its not really about the money, I like to join in with "the race that stops the nation" and I like the sport. I've also got a lot of time for a game of Two-up on ANZAC day for precisely the same reasons. I'm not very good at it and so I've never been adicted to it.
So when it comes to Pokies - those foul, noisy and ugly machines that spoil most pubs in Australia - I really don't understand the attraction. It's a bad look and a very private experience - so there's no aspect of joining in, but more importantly, there's no sport. They are mathematically programmed to win 8 or 9 times out of ten. Where's the sport there?
I found this comment quite stark from a detailed examination of the mathematics of pokies:
"On of the most important points to note is that there are no pokies with a pay back set to over 100%. This means that the longer you play the more you are likely to lose. There is no way to consistently win on the pokies."
So, I don't understand it, and to be honest I don't understand the mathematical equation on which they operate either, being almost completely inumerate! So perhaps I shouldn't get on my soapbox about something I understand so little about? But what I do get is that a lot of organisations - pubs and clubs - make a huge amount of money out of sending some people bankrupt and destroying their families. That so much of Australian society is organised around this principle - exploitation of the stupid, the desperate and the weak-willed - is something I find quite abhorent and distasteful about life down-under.
Here's some stark facts: In 2008 Australians lost $12 billion dollars on the pokies - 40% of which lost by those with a gambling problem, i.e. they couldn't afford to lose that money. Furthermore, it is horrifying to note that Australia - a population of 20 million, has more than five times the number of machines as in the United States, a nation with a population of over 300 million! One quarter of ALL the world's poker machines are in New South Wales.
So even though I've only a limited amount of time for Andrew Wilkie, whom I find to be more than just a little self-righteous and sanctimonious, I do applaud his bill to impose a license-system on those using the pokies. Having to set your own limit is really rule one for the sensible gambler and if people can't figure out on the fly when it is time to stop than I'm all for helping them to do it. Problem gambling is a horribly sad state of affairs and that a family member might make the rest of their family homeless by a simple inability to get across the maths and know when to say "that's enough", then perhaps society should step in to assist - ESPECIALLY when the rest of society is benefiting so very well from their addiction!
Society is taking a role in helping to reduce the amount people smoke and drink and through another license system, ensures that when driving, people are responsible and sober. I see no difference. (I just wish I think that this crusade - if successful - be attributed to Nick Xenophon, the independent Senator, who's been waging this campaign far longer and far more sensibly and without narcicism.)
In all honesty I'd like to see Pokies banned.
I do like Malcolm Farr's comments on Insiders this week, "When someone says something is 'Un-Australian', that's a clear sign they've run out of coherent argument." How can a country so obsessed with mateship, think it is Australian to fund whole aspects of society from the misery and degradation of a vulnerable few?