The Dompost has its annual story on pokie operator rip offs.
There are a couple of real issues in this area. One is the number of pokie machines. Legislation has driven their numbers down over recent years. And an increasing proportion are being run by mainly reputable groups. But remember they cause misery, especially in poorer communities, because they are very addictive, and were introduced through a loophole in the law.
Then there are the operators that skim the system in a variety of ways. Some pretty directly by overstating expenses. Others by linking grants to drinking at the hosts pub, or buying wholesale beer at retail prices,
The classic approach – probably not as common now, was to tie a sports club applying for grants to buying its beer and also to kick up to 50% of the pokie “community grant” back to the publican.
The real problem is that quite a proportion of pubs now rely on pokies to be viable. So both the pubs and their patrons are addicts.
One one hand, its great that the’re cracking down on it, but on the other its sad that they have to.
The community return funds legislation was, and is great, letting the community get something back, and not just the owners.
The vast amounts going to professional sports, including racing clubs is scandalous. Its obvious recently that some charities or venues had become special purpose to feed a particular sport.
I don’t know that it is fair or accurate to imply, by “quite a proportion”, of pubs rely on pokies to remain viable. If this is the case, then it is the law that is failing.
The DIA is required to audit and assess every license holder and pokies cannot be the main source of revenue, nor can it be the primary purpose of the operation. If the figures bear out that the pokies are generating the greater proportion of the income, then those licenses should be reviewed.
However, like smoking, drinking or driving a high powered car at the age of 17, none of this activity is illegal. There is a choice to be made and the authority is vested with TLAs to make decisions about the number of licensed premises in their districts. I think both Canterbury and East Coast both have sinking lids on the number of licensed premises? I’m not sure.
A crack-down from DIA is toothless or it would have achieved its mandate already, so more hot air. The issue is the law, strengthen it and require greater accountability and give DIA greater scope for audit and review of licensing. Otherwise, it’s pointless.
I’d note that the Lotteries Commission continues to be allowed to operate an online service for the purchase of lotto tickets which was allowed in the establishing legislation. This too should have been stopped. We preach restraint in gambling and about its harmful impacts on low income families especially – yet lotto loosens up? It’s not the value of the expenditure, it’s the proportion of it compared to income, the regularity with which you can participate and the ease of access to it. You want to fix the sector? sort that issue too.
GWWNZ – actually that’s a good point. Isn’t it the case that the racing industry continues to receive the profits from its pokie operations as a subsidy for the industry?
Kaine,
Currently over $20 million a year of pokie funding (intended for charities) goes to fund horse racing prize money.
Of the $900+ million a year lost on pokies around 1/3 goes to the Government in tax, around 1/3 goes back to the community (charities), and 1/3 goes to pubs and the trusts. The rort there is that around $150 million is going to pokie trusts in admin costs so that they can give out the $300 million to charities. Why not just use lotteries?
TLA’s have the power to stop *new* venues/machines (Christchurch, Manakau, Waitakere, Auckland City (currently, but Banks wants to change this, Whanganui, Palmerston North, Napier, Horowhenua, Rotorua, Thames, Gisborne, Whangarei and Kaipara all have “sinking lids”). BUT, TLA’s or communities don’t have the power to get rid of existing machines if they want – which still number over 20,000.
NB: I work for The Problem Gambling Foundation but all my comments on this blog are my own.
Hey Tony,
Yeah, that’s what I meant about the sinking lid, I think that at least is a good starting point? Community consultation in the last round of licensing was pretty good in Canterbury I recall or no? I think this is reasonable… communities make decisions at the time, they run for a while and the next time theyre up for consideration, the community then gets to make another decision on whether they feel it works for them or not yeah?
The racing industry… well… not so impressed with that. That just takes the p*ss, has, is and will likely continue to.
Thoughts on the availability of lotto purchase on line? Pretty soft spin around the benefits such as tracking expenditure etc.. I’ve never bought into that.
“So both the pubs and their patrons are addicts.” That’s sad.
“TLAs to make decisions about the number of licensed premises in their districts. I think both Canterbury and East Coast both have sinking lids on the number of licensed premises” I hope not
No drinking isn’t illegal thank goodness. If they are doing that then they’re only driving the drinking else where. Cough, serves them right, cough.
I have noticed that quite a few pokie rooms are lit in this greeny light. Does this have an effect on the brain to make people gamble or is it just someone’s appalling idea of decor?
I have noticed that
Spud – I mean licenses for the ability to have, and numbers of, pokie machines. Not the liquor licence.
Kaine,
Yeah, PGF are big supporters of communities being able to have a say on gambling policies (which the Gambling Act the Labour-led Government passed in 2003 enabled). The latest research out of Australia (600 Page Government Commissioned (Productivity Commission) report) suggests 80% of people want to have fewer machines, not more. Which backs up DIA research on public attitudes to gambling in NZ.
But an area for reform in the future (although there are some fish hooks to work through) would be giving communities the power to get rid of machines from particular areas (i.e poor neighourhoods) if that is what they want, or whole towns if that is what they want. Communities don’t currently have that power. In my view that would be a good middle-ground between excessive liberalisation (which we currently have) and a complete ban (which a growing number of people want).
Money going to charities was the social contract of allowing these damaging machines (but that has been currupted by rorts from venues and trusts).
Spud – you will have probably also noticed (no clocks no the walls, no natural lighting, room hidden away). Means people 1) easily lose track of time (i.e spend longer/more money) than they think/want and and 2) can maintain the secrecy/privacy that comes with problem gambling.
Only 9% of people in NZ play pokies regularly and 1 in 4 will develop a serious gambling problem.
3% of adult population are problem gamblers who account for 24% of expenditure on gambling (i.e 3% lose $500m).
@Kaine T, sorry knee jerk reaction.
@Tony – Yeah, maybe pokies should only be allowed if they don’t make a sound.
So reform would be required akin to proposals earlier this year for a change in liquor licensing where factors such as product density could be a consideration in a licensing application?
This would make sense, but why can communities not undertake a plan change? Is it too expensive?
Also, if a Casino has operating restrictions such as the number of games on the floor, game proximity, the need for host responsibility – despite a moratorium (sp?) why don’t slot machine operators have those same restrictions as part of the local licensing measures?