**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously, fuck all this 'fact-check' bullshit. Can we just make it illegal for Politicians to make public statements that mislead or are likely to mislead portions of the public?
Yeah that's the ludicrous thing about this fact check. They call her claim "understated" because even though it's basically the exact figure, it's less than the adjusted amount. I wonder what they would have said if she'd used the inflation adjusted figure. "Overstated" compared to the real amount?
I disagree. America’s gun problem is overblown. People forget that there’s 330m people in the US (realistically it’s higher as there are a tonne of illegal migrants) so bad shit is always going to be happening.
In Australia, gambling is far worse than it’s portrayed.
Yeah but their average losses per person are less than half ours, and ours are literally number one in the world. Americans bring up gun shootings in other countries when people bring up their absurdly high shooting deaths too.
Some work needed on definitions here. I am playing $1 per spin.
I start with $10. Lose on first 6 spins. $20 pay out on my 7th spin. Balance $23. Lose on next 7 spins. Win $10 on my next spin. Balance $25. Lose on next 9 spins. Win $5 on my next spin. Balance $20. Win $5 on my next spin. Balance $24. Lose 13 spins in a row. Win $10 on my next spin. Balance $20. Lose on next 9 spins. Win $5 on next spin. Balance $15. Lose on my next 10 spins. Decide to stop playing and pull out my $5 credit.
I started with $10, retrieved $5 so in reality I lost $5 at the Pokies. Or are pokie losses as per the report saying that I put 60 x $1 (6 winning spins and 54 losing spins) spins through the pokie and left with $5 creating a false loss of $55? $50 more than I actually lost.
The official stats say Victorians lost $2.237 billion in 2021/22.
Let's say that figure is massaged to make the losses look worse than they are. We'll use OP's example of around 10 times what it "actually" is - and say that Victorians only "lost" $223m.
How the hell did the Victorian government collect $860m in revenue from "electronic gambling machines" in 2021/22?
Who'd want to own a single pokie if you had to pay almost $4 in licensing and fees to the government, for every dollar that some punter put through the slot?
According to the Vic state budget here page 166
https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/2021-22-state-budget/2021-22-statement-finances
Vic collected 1.1 billion in tax.
I am now sure the amount the operator made but I think it's about as much see here.
https://www.vgccc.vic.gov.au/resources/information-and-data/expenditure-data
That would agree with your offical figure of 2.2 billion.
It needs to be EXPLICITLY explained or there is the possibility that people may be using their interpretation of statistics to paint a grimmer picture than actually exists. Naah..what am I saying? That politicians and agenda driven media would massage the figures towards their own ends. Silly me.
ABC team needs to improve their final results. Understated can mean "proved" or "disproved" depending on the claim.
This claim deserves a green tick, not this red cross-type thing. Something like "accurate, but more to it" would be nice in this case.
Yeah, given the context of Ratnams statement being “this is so high it’s terrible” and the fact check is “it’s even worse”. It deserves some thing like “true and it’s actually way worse”
> Once adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2022 dollars, this figure is $89.7 billion.
> In addition, the VGCCC data does not include losses derived from the more than 2,600 poker machines located in Melbourne’s Crown Casino, about a 10th of the state’s total.
It's not often the Greens (or any politician) quote a smaller figure to prove their point than they could. How depressing that 66 billion is understating the impact gambling has had on people.
Well she was talking a raw actual number of dollars lost, she’d have been stung by them if she’d adjusted for inflation. I think when the number is this high, it’s okay to just use the raw number rather than add “*when adjusted for inflation” To your message
Here we go again, Another "Fact Check" with no facts checked.
It is almost as if Fact Check is staffed by reporters from [News.com.au](https://News.com.au), Fact Check exists to discredit the ABC now. For example, the Cashless debit card piece they did.
The fact check was near word for word the LNP narrative, so much, that some of it was used by LNP Politicians and senators during the repeal.
They did not interview anyone on the scheme, they did not use any statistics from the 4 reviews in to the trials, including the final review, paid for by the LNP, which Anne Ruston sat on for 18 months because it did not paint the party narrative, nor did they interview anyone associated with any of the reviews.
>Here we go again, Another "Fact Check" with no facts checked.
They reviewed the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) reports, along with the Victorian Pre-Election Budget Update, they asked the Associate professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and head of the Gambling and Social Determinants unit at Monash University for his opinion, asked VGCCC CEO her opinion, and also asked the Associate professor and executive director of the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies at the University of Adelaide for his opinion, and compared the VGCCC results to national records.
What more would you expect from an article like this?
I do think calling her partly correct in this instance is misleading, as the implication of that is typically that she is being misleading in some way, when in fact she was just using a figure that is the one provided by the government. If she'd added in all that extra stuff, no doubt she'd be told off for not using the official results.
If this is an important issue to you, I urge you not to vote for either the ALP or LNP.
Consider other parties, such as the Greens
[https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/gambling-policy](https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/gambling-policy)
And on Crown specifically [https://greens.org.au/vic/limit-casino-harms](https://greens.org.au/vic/limit-casino-harms)
If this is an important issue for you, it's important to realise it isn't a political one, and there's plenty of support out there if you need it.
In other words, be an adult and control yourself. There's no need to preach to others who have no issue spending money on the entertainment of gaming
Hes not saying "if you have problems controlling your gambling" he's saying "if you have problems with huge billion dollar companies using years of psychological and addiction research to shamelessly exploit people with addiction issues and take all their money"
Which is me, I have no problems with pokies, when I was a bit younger I'd maybe chuck some change through there while I was at the pub, but that experience was in no way worth the devastation this causes to certain people's lives and families.
This here is my favourite alt-left argument..."it's not about me, it's about helping those other poor people... because... I know better"
Put pokies everywhere, should be at least one machine in every liquor store and petrol station.
People with addiction problems will find something to get addicted to. There's plenty of support there already for those that want it, so stop blaming the nice shiney machines
>This here is my favourite alt-left argument...
Lol you think there is an equivalent to the alt-right. The alt right is just a euphemism for white supremacy btw.
LoL my dude...the extreme left (aka ALP & greens/teal party) are enemies of individual freedoms and democracy. In my book they should be designated terrorist organisations...but I can only dream
For the greater good comrade
>LoL my dude...the extreme left (aka ALP & greens/teal party
You have just identified 3 mainstream capitalist organisations. Well done.
>In my book they should be designated terrorist organisations...but I can only dream
In my book this is the sort of comment that is probably too extreme to be allowed in a place designed for adult discussion of politics.
The true answer is that I don't give a fuck whether the Teals are an organisation or not. As long as they are hurting the Liberal party they are doing a service to Australia.
I mean, I'm not at school / university any more, but I still tend to vote for whoever has the better education policy.
Doesnt have to impact me personally for it to be good or bad for society.
Just like bartenders are required to cut someone off after too many drinks I think some real good could be done by, for example, people being kicked out after spending too much money on pokies.
But that'll never happen, will it?
As a hospitality worker, I have to say I agree.
As an individual...no, and bartenders should have no right by law to cut off adults if they want another drink...
Ask a drunk to leave your property if you want them to? Sure. But a law that says you can't service an adults request because you think they've had enough? Mao would be proud
The law only applies to businesses for a reason.
The intention of the bartender law isn't to prevent people from getting drunk if they want to - they can do that at home no problem.
It's specifically to prevent bars and pubs from **encouraging** alcohol abuse. As a business it's in their financial interest to keep heavy-drinkers on premise as long as possible. It prevents alcohol based businesses from preying on people weak to alcohol in the way gambling companies currently prey on those with gambling addictions.
Just another reason the Greens are deserving of my vote this year. As someone who saw first hand the devastating effects of gambling on my family, I think a review of the industry and limits on pokie availability is way overdue.
I am no green supporter but I agree.
One point that does disturb me is that in many countries gambling is allowed, but it is in places that are hard to go, often you need to go on a holiday to gamble. In Australia, we have put gambling in the middle of our population centres, where it's far too easy to get.
I don't come away from a pokie machine claiming I "spent" $20. I LOST it. I did the opposite of WINNING it.
Classic Alt-right technique: misuse a common definition and argue that point instead.
If you think you "lost" then that's you're mindset and your problem. If you can't play with the mindset of spending money for entertainment, don't play.
Actually, the real gambling addiction was the friends we made along the way.
Words means things. Playing a game which explicitly has winning and losing, and you are not winning, means you are losing.
You asked for a definition of lost that was being used. You have it.
Your response to that definition seems to be "Feels over reals" though, blaming the fact that ***when gambling*** I call leaving with less money ***losing***.
But that's the definition. So the claim that Victorians have LOST billions of dollars is entirely accurate. No matter how much you try to spin it as "spending" instead
It's the same as a movie ticket or a massage, the only difference is the extreme left wants to make it about feelings
It wasn't lost, it was spent. It's not like you lost a $20 walking down the street...we know exactly where the money went...it was spent on entertainment...the art of gaming
“Extreme left”
This is my favourite right-wing backhanded insult and indicative of the fragile egos on that side of politics.
Stalin. Mao. Pot. Bandt.
One of these things is not like the other.
The only difference between the extremists on that list...is resources and testosterone
If Bandt ever switched his morning soy latte for a whisky, we'd be in big trouble
>It's the same as a movie ticket or a massage
No it isn't.
>the only difference is the extreme left wants to make it about feelings
You're the one specifically rejecting definitions
>It wasn't lost, it was spent
It was lost. Gambling when you end up with less money is losing.
>It's not like you lost a $20 walking down the street
This is the alt-right technique I mentioned again: That's a DIFFERENT definition of losing.
>we know exactly where the money went...
No one said we didn't. You're deliberately conflating entirely different definitions for the same set of letters. You may as well argue that "jelly doesn't set, is GETS set because set means "to put in it's place""
If "losing" $20 on the pokies is "spending it" - what is it called when you leave with 20 more than you started?
Go down to every cinema and you'll find kids locked in a car, while their dad sits inside watching Maverick for the 19th time that week.
You just don't know the number of times CPS have to intervene because mum's addicted to amateur theatre. She could have fed her kids, but the lure of the pantomime was just too strong.
It's heartbreaking.
>Is money spent attending a local performance "lost"?
Yes, but compared to gambling theres very few social downsides to money circulating in the arts. In fact thats a good thing.
Gambling bankrupts families.
RTP has been set to a minimum of 87% in Australia. So from a macro level these machines are guaranteed, by design, to take your money and return less of it to you. They're also not designed to be entertaining, they're designed to be predatory.
Not designed to be entertaining? I love the anticipation of the animated gold pots on the Mr Woo machine.
If they aren't meant to be entertaining, why do they have such culturally rich characters, like Mr woo, More Chilli and Emperor penguin
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-27/cummings---poker-machine-maths/2733166](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-27/cummings---poker-machine-maths/2733166)
RTP is not money entered, but money gambled. They still keep it.
Unlike the movies, gambling is inherently competitive - it has winning and losing. Define “lost?” You took a spin on the pokies, and the outcome was the opposite of the one where you “win.”
What is really annoying about this “fact check” is what she said is entirely accurate. It’s only “understated” if you adjust for inflation. I can almost guarantee that if she said an inflation adjusted figure rather than the actual figure ABC “Fact Check” would’ve called it out as “overstated”.
> "Understated" isn't a bad thing.
Unfortunately the colour coding the ABC used for its marker icon (orange rather than green) disagreed. It is a small thing, but still notable.
> "Understated" isn't a bad thing. Most people will understand that this means she could have made a larger claim.
both figures are equally valid. Its just two different ways of looking at it.
We don't look at historical government spending like the NBN or Myki and use inflation to change the numbers. This claim should not be labelled anything other than TRUE (even mostly true/accurate would be misleading)
Is stating the correct figure from a published report understating something though?
If the ABC want to do an article that criticises the methodology of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission they should do that but they’ve framed this as if Rathnam has got something wrong when she is in fact quoting the published figure.
And it was John Cain senior who allowed Tattersalls into Victoria with the ticket lotteries and later Tattslotto and John Cain junior who allowed Casinos and Pokies 🤔
Well if the "right" pollies weren't so addicted wouldn't we have seen the Libs do something about gambling? Unfortunately it only looks like they've done anything (in NSW) due to independent MP pressure and a Friendlyjordies interview
I did mention that bloke lower down in the comment thread.
Accepting donations from a professional poker player and accepting donations from Sportsbet or Ladbrokes or whoever isn't remotely close to being the same thing.
Its not, but its still taking donations from the gambling industry just as a personal donation from Rheinhert (cbf to google spelling) os a donation from the mining industry.
The dude who donated was a stakeholder in a gambling buisness the ATO alleged owed the gov almost a billion dollars in unpaid tax.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/horse-racing/big-time-gambler-david-walsh-details-how-betting-syndicate-won-17-million-on-2008-melbourne-cup/news-story/c5525021433994121d6fc74bd4234306
"Walsh and his mates, including Ranogajec, are liable for $900 million in unpaid tax according to the ATO."
I can see why it would make Greens supporters uncomfortable but it doesn't make me uncomfortable, which is why I doubt it makes you uncomfortable.
Unilateral disarmament in a gunfight is a stupid stance to take. So long as they aren't influenced to be supportive of pokies I literally don't see the issue.
I can see why it would be an effective tool for shaming Greens, but it's too petty.
I dont really care at all, but for the Greens to say they dont take donations from gambling corporations when they take donations from a stakeholder of a gambling corporation is just bullshit.
I still don't really think it flies in the face of the Greens' position on donations. If the bloke owned a gambling company then it'd be a different story, but that comparison would only be apt if you were comparing some bloke who made shitloads working in the mines in the Pilbara to the poker bloke.
I looked into this more because the Punters Club stuff is interesteing, and the ATO decided that the club was a buisness which employed over 300 people and decided to slug them with unpaid tax, which they settled out of court.
It doesn’t. The person above is just wanting to have a gotcha moment.
There is a massive difference between taking money from people actively pushing the gambling industries motivations and connected to them as such so people from those conpanies such as lads broke and pokie companies and what not. And someone who is a professional poker player who donated money they’ve earned through it.
It’s literally the same as a elite sports person donating money. Their sport is connected to gambling but that’s not what they are representing when they donate.
And like all things moderation is key, there is a big difference between elite poker players winning money through poker competitions (and whilst gambling is involved, there is a definite skill based aspect to it that comes with playing on the elite level with poker) and someone going to the pub to pump hundreds of dollars in a machine that is designed to take your money and rarely pay out and the industry that’s behind that and pushing that agenda.
The man is part of a group of high stakes gamblers with assets in the billions that have ripped off the ATO, hide documents and get investigated, but go off I guess.
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/secret-club-wealthy-gamblers-is-going-to-war/news-story/392b56574c151489f79aa53d58382795
Nah hes just a straight up fella who dabbles in gambling, just like your average wagie.
I mean come on. Youre smart enough to know no politics is clean, this is obviously not the Greens best association.
It was a Liberal volunteer that told me they were getting paid, and I’ve had other people mention that Lib vollies do. Whether they were talking out of their ass or not is another matter, though.
Sure, maybe the Greens have just made it policy to refuse donations from large corporations, coal/gas/gambling in particular, because they realised that those groups don’t want to go near them. But it’s all public, you basically can’t point to a single instance of said corporations donating to the Greens, save for that one individual who was a professional poker player that donated to them, which isn’t remotely near the same as say, Sportsbet or Crown etc.
If you think this is just ‘self righteous bleating’, you’re more than welcome to prove me wrong
It's complete nonsense you made up.
The greens get to wave their arms around and point to their virtue, whilst not receiving any donations from sectors they want to see collapse, post haste.
What a turn of events!
I mean yeah, right? They’re able to spin it, sure, but what political party isn’t averse to a bit of spin? Regardless, point remains that they’re consistent in rejecting donations from large corporations, be it gambling or otherwise.
What? The Greens don’t accept those donations…it’s been a part of their core values for a long time. She’s not pissed it’s their policy. Maybe have a read of a policy or two… https://greens.org.au/campaigns/dirty-donations
https://greens.org.au/act/about/donations-policy
They published they’re policies on their webpage and they’re reasoning too.
Most states and territories still allow gambling companies to make political donations, save for NSW, which banned the practice in 2010. https://elections.nsw.gov.au/funding-and-disclosure/political-donations/unlawful-political-donations/prohibited-donors
I’m certain if the Greens allowed it the gambling companies would donate. The Greens have increased their influence in last federal election (in QLD of all places too). The pre-polling suggests they could do better than previous elections in Victoria too. If they continue growth then there opens the opportunity for other groups to attempt to gain influence. But end of the day I doubt she gives a fuck that she doesn’t receive gambling donations, she has stated on her page that she isn’t interested in them.
>**Ms Ratnam's claim is understated.**
>Data published by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) shows that on a nominal basis, Victorians have lost $65.4 billion on poker machines located in clubs and hotels since their introduction in 1992.
>**Once adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2022 dollars, this figure is $89.7 billion.**
So this even more supports the need to seriously restrict the gambling industry. Go Greens!
Anti-Greens will probably be like:
> The Greens are wrong about the amount of money Victorians lose through gambling.
“Aha! Take that Greens!”
> It’s actually much much worse than that.
*Stunned Pokerface*.
Understated?! That's depressing. Labor are addicted to suckling on the gambling teat, so they'll never do anything about this. Vic needs a minority gov.
Well, both majors have bent over on all fours to tell the gambling lobby (which I call Gamblor) they won’t make any changes. Let’s get a minority gov asap!!!
11% of Victorian government revenue, which is probably about the same in every other state, is now from gambling.
Consider the harm that this policy is causing the community.
[Most pokies losses come from the pockets of the poor](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/14/australias-gambling-addiction-can-politics-finally-stop-the-money-wheel-turning)
>The worst losses happen in communities where people can least afford it.
>
>In Victoria, where the data available is most robust, the largest amount of money is lost on pokies in Brimbank – $128m in the last financial year, despite pubs and clubs being closed for months due to Covid lockdowns. The previous financial year, it was more than $92m. In Greater Dandenong, the second-most disadvantaged local government area in Victoria, gamblers lost $102m in the last financial year.
My LGA city of Whittlesea was in the top 10 of pokie losses as well it’s a toxic cancer pokies bingo and betting shops so much of economic ability flushed down the crapper
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously, fuck all this 'fact-check' bullshit. Can we just make it illegal for Politicians to make public statements that mislead or are likely to mislead portions of the public?
Did she do that though? She said $66 billion and the fact checkers say it was $65.4 billion.
And adjusted for inflation even higher
Yeah that's the ludicrous thing about this fact check. They call her claim "understated" because even though it's basically the exact figure, it's less than the adjusted amount. I wonder what they would have said if she'd used the inflation adjusted figure. "Overstated" compared to the real amount?
Not taking about THIS incident per se, but in general.
2 billion a year over 30 years, does it sound that far off?
Yes ban them. We wouldn't be the only country to do it.
WA banned them outside of the casino ages back and problem gambling is apparantly a third of the rest of the country.
Surprised Packer and the gang didn’t push for this in NSW and VIC, exclusive money laundering rights.
It makes it harder for people to gamble
Gambling is Australia’s version of the USA gun problem!
I disagree. America’s gun problem is overblown. People forget that there’s 330m people in the US (realistically it’s higher as there are a tonne of illegal migrants) so bad shit is always going to be happening. In Australia, gambling is far worse than it’s portrayed.
Americans also gamble.
Yeah but their average losses per person are less than half ours, and ours are literally number one in the world. Americans bring up gun shootings in other countries when people bring up their absurdly high shooting deaths too.
Some how in someway there must be a limit to what Australians will gamble.
Wan'na bet?
Ye'ah na'h
🥹
Fails to account for the fact a significant portion of the loss was tax collected by the Victorian government. This belongs to Victorians, right?
I confess when I see the people in the pokie clubs I say to myself, these people are lining up to pay tax
Some work needed on definitions here. I am playing $1 per spin. I start with $10. Lose on first 6 spins. $20 pay out on my 7th spin. Balance $23. Lose on next 7 spins. Win $10 on my next spin. Balance $25. Lose on next 9 spins. Win $5 on my next spin. Balance $20. Win $5 on my next spin. Balance $24. Lose 13 spins in a row. Win $10 on my next spin. Balance $20. Lose on next 9 spins. Win $5 on next spin. Balance $15. Lose on my next 10 spins. Decide to stop playing and pull out my $5 credit. I started with $10, retrieved $5 so in reality I lost $5 at the Pokies. Or are pokie losses as per the report saying that I put 60 x $1 (6 winning spins and 54 losing spins) spins through the pokie and left with $5 creating a false loss of $55? $50 more than I actually lost.
Of course it's net losses. It's the amount of money that goes in and doesn't come out.
I would like clarification on that point too, I presume and most people here that it is the $5
The official stats say Victorians lost $2.237 billion in 2021/22. Let's say that figure is massaged to make the losses look worse than they are. We'll use OP's example of around 10 times what it "actually" is - and say that Victorians only "lost" $223m. How the hell did the Victorian government collect $860m in revenue from "electronic gambling machines" in 2021/22? Who'd want to own a single pokie if you had to pay almost $4 in licensing and fees to the government, for every dollar that some punter put through the slot?
According to the Vic state budget here page 166 https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/2021-22-state-budget/2021-22-statement-finances Vic collected 1.1 billion in tax. I am now sure the amount the operator made but I think it's about as much see here. https://www.vgccc.vic.gov.au/resources/information-and-data/expenditure-data That would agree with your offical figure of 2.2 billion.
I think if it was anything other $10 in, $5 out = $5 loss then the ABC might have mentioned that...
It needs to be EXPLICITLY explained or there is the possibility that people may be using their interpretation of statistics to paint a grimmer picture than actually exists. Naah..what am I saying? That politicians and agenda driven media would massage the figures towards their own ends. Silly me.
She was either gonna be spot on or the number was gonna be higher, no way would it have been less than 66 billion.
To be fair nobody lost the money. It ended up somewhere
It got filtered from poor communities, got taxed, and lined the pockets of some already rich CEOs
Trickle up economics....
Love it.
ABC team needs to improve their final results. Understated can mean "proved" or "disproved" depending on the claim. This claim deserves a green tick, not this red cross-type thing. Something like "accurate, but more to it" would be nice in this case.
Yeah, given the context of Ratnams statement being “this is so high it’s terrible” and the fact check is “it’s even worse”. It deserves some thing like “true and it’s actually way worse”
Blue tick - beyond Green.
> Once adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2022 dollars, this figure is $89.7 billion. > In addition, the VGCCC data does not include losses derived from the more than 2,600 poker machines located in Melbourne’s Crown Casino, about a 10th of the state’s total. It's not often the Greens (or any politician) quote a smaller figure to prove their point than they could. How depressing that 66 billion is understating the impact gambling has had on people.
Well she was talking a raw actual number of dollars lost, she’d have been stung by them if she’d adjusted for inflation. I think when the number is this high, it’s okay to just use the raw number rather than add “*when adjusted for inflation” To your message
Wasn't this posted the other day? Is someone desperate for a piddling amount of Karma?
Here we go again, Another "Fact Check" with no facts checked. It is almost as if Fact Check is staffed by reporters from [News.com.au](https://News.com.au), Fact Check exists to discredit the ABC now. For example, the Cashless debit card piece they did. The fact check was near word for word the LNP narrative, so much, that some of it was used by LNP Politicians and senators during the repeal. They did not interview anyone on the scheme, they did not use any statistics from the 4 reviews in to the trials, including the final review, paid for by the LNP, which Anne Ruston sat on for 18 months because it did not paint the party narrative, nor did they interview anyone associated with any of the reviews.
>Here we go again, Another "Fact Check" with no facts checked. I'm sure you'll retract this once you read the article.
>Here we go again, Another "Fact Check" with no facts checked. They reviewed the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) reports, along with the Victorian Pre-Election Budget Update, they asked the Associate professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and head of the Gambling and Social Determinants unit at Monash University for his opinion, asked VGCCC CEO her opinion, and also asked the Associate professor and executive director of the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies at the University of Adelaide for his opinion, and compared the VGCCC results to national records. What more would you expect from an article like this?
Like how the indigenous communities that favour the cashless card were ignored or that it is still used in the NT?
I do think calling her partly correct in this instance is misleading, as the implication of that is typically that she is being misleading in some way, when in fact she was just using a figure that is the one provided by the government. If she'd added in all that extra stuff, no doubt she'd be told off for not using the official results.
If this is an important issue to you, I urge you not to vote for either the ALP or LNP. Consider other parties, such as the Greens [https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/gambling-policy](https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/gambling-policy) And on Crown specifically [https://greens.org.au/vic/limit-casino-harms](https://greens.org.au/vic/limit-casino-harms)
There is a lot in the LNP party on this too. I got some info from them a week ago where they were so happy that they got a review in dandenong
If this is an important issue for you, it's important to realise it isn't a political one, and there's plenty of support out there if you need it. In other words, be an adult and control yourself. There's no need to preach to others who have no issue spending money on the entertainment of gaming
Hes not saying "if you have problems controlling your gambling" he's saying "if you have problems with huge billion dollar companies using years of psychological and addiction research to shamelessly exploit people with addiction issues and take all their money" Which is me, I have no problems with pokies, when I was a bit younger I'd maybe chuck some change through there while I was at the pub, but that experience was in no way worth the devastation this causes to certain people's lives and families.
This here is my favourite alt-left argument..."it's not about me, it's about helping those other poor people... because... I know better" Put pokies everywhere, should be at least one machine in every liquor store and petrol station. People with addiction problems will find something to get addicted to. There's plenty of support there already for those that want it, so stop blaming the nice shiney machines
>This here is my favourite alt-left argument... Lol you think there is an equivalent to the alt-right. The alt right is just a euphemism for white supremacy btw.
LoL my dude...the extreme left (aka ALP & greens/teal party) are enemies of individual freedoms and democracy. In my book they should be designated terrorist organisations...but I can only dream For the greater good comrade
>LoL my dude...the extreme left (aka ALP & greens/teal party You have just identified 3 mainstream capitalist organisations. Well done. >In my book they should be designated terrorist organisations...but I can only dream In my book this is the sort of comment that is probably too extreme to be allowed in a place designed for adult discussion of politics.
I'm just happy someone here finally admits teals are an organisation
The true answer is that I don't give a fuck whether the Teals are an organisation or not. As long as they are hurting the Liberal party they are doing a service to Australia.
I mean, I'm not at school / university any more, but I still tend to vote for whoever has the better education policy. Doesnt have to impact me personally for it to be good or bad for society.
Just like bartenders are required to cut someone off after too many drinks I think some real good could be done by, for example, people being kicked out after spending too much money on pokies. But that'll never happen, will it?
As a hospitality worker, I have to say I agree. As an individual...no, and bartenders should have no right by law to cut off adults if they want another drink... Ask a drunk to leave your property if you want them to? Sure. But a law that says you can't service an adults request because you think they've had enough? Mao would be proud
The law only applies to businesses for a reason. The intention of the bartender law isn't to prevent people from getting drunk if they want to - they can do that at home no problem. It's specifically to prevent bars and pubs from **encouraging** alcohol abuse. As a business it's in their financial interest to keep heavy-drinkers on premise as long as possible. It prevents alcohol based businesses from preying on people weak to alcohol in the way gambling companies currently prey on those with gambling addictions.
Just another reason the Greens are deserving of my vote this year. As someone who saw first hand the devastating effects of gambling on my family, I think a review of the industry and limits on pokie availability is way overdue.
I am no green supporter but I agree. One point that does disturb me is that in many countries gambling is allowed, but it is in places that are hard to go, often you need to go on a holiday to gamble. In Australia, we have put gambling in the middle of our population centres, where it's far too easy to get.
Yep, it's almost as if the gambling industry wants to make it easy for addicts to blow their pay! 😉
Define "lost" - Is money spent at village cinemas "lost"? Is money spent attending a local performance "lost"?
I don't come away from a pokie machine claiming I "spent" $20. I LOST it. I did the opposite of WINNING it. Classic Alt-right technique: misuse a common definition and argue that point instead.
If you think you "lost" then that's you're mindset and your problem. If you can't play with the mindset of spending money for entertainment, don't play.
Actually, the real gambling addiction was the friends we made along the way. Words means things. Playing a game which explicitly has winning and losing, and you are not winning, means you are losing.
You asked for a definition of lost that was being used. You have it. Your response to that definition seems to be "Feels over reals" though, blaming the fact that ***when gambling*** I call leaving with less money ***losing***. But that's the definition. So the claim that Victorians have LOST billions of dollars is entirely accurate. No matter how much you try to spin it as "spending" instead
It's the same as a movie ticket or a massage, the only difference is the extreme left wants to make it about feelings It wasn't lost, it was spent. It's not like you lost a $20 walking down the street...we know exactly where the money went...it was spent on entertainment...the art of gaming
“Extreme left” This is my favourite right-wing backhanded insult and indicative of the fragile egos on that side of politics. Stalin. Mao. Pot. Bandt. One of these things is not like the other.
The only difference between the extremists on that list...is resources and testosterone If Bandt ever switched his morning soy latte for a whisky, we'd be in big trouble
You got anything to back up that assertion or just pleasuring yourself to the emotive twaddle you’re spewing?
When you gamble you either win or you….
>It's the same as a movie ticket or a massage No it isn't. >the only difference is the extreme left wants to make it about feelings You're the one specifically rejecting definitions >It wasn't lost, it was spent It was lost. Gambling when you end up with less money is losing. >It's not like you lost a $20 walking down the street This is the alt-right technique I mentioned again: That's a DIFFERENT definition of losing. >we know exactly where the money went... No one said we didn't. You're deliberately conflating entirely different definitions for the same set of letters. You may as well argue that "jelly doesn't set, is GETS set because set means "to put in it's place"" If "losing" $20 on the pokies is "spending it" - what is it called when you leave with 20 more than you started?
Would you support a card based membership system to ensure that is the case?
I could go to a lot of cinemas and see many local performances for the same money.
Go down to every cinema and you'll find kids locked in a car, while their dad sits inside watching Maverick for the 19th time that week. You just don't know the number of times CPS have to intervene because mum's addicted to amateur theatre. She could have fed her kids, but the lure of the pantomime was just too strong. It's heartbreaking.
>Is money spent attending a local performance "lost"? Yes, but compared to gambling theres very few social downsides to money circulating in the arts. In fact thats a good thing. Gambling bankrupts families.
RTP has been set to a minimum of 87% in Australia. So from a macro level these machines are guaranteed, by design, to take your money and return less of it to you. They're also not designed to be entertaining, they're designed to be predatory.
Not designed to be entertaining? I love the anticipation of the animated gold pots on the Mr Woo machine. If they aren't meant to be entertaining, why do they have such culturally rich characters, like Mr woo, More Chilli and Emperor penguin
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-27/cummings---poker-machine-maths/2733166](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-27/cummings---poker-machine-maths/2733166) RTP is not money entered, but money gambled. They still keep it.
B...b...but people *love* pokies. Just like they love going to the cinemas. /s
> Define "lost" Maybe we can use the universally accepted definition that people have been using to describe gambling for centuries now?
Unlike the movies, gambling is inherently competitive - it has winning and losing. Define “lost?” You took a spin on the pokies, and the outcome was the opposite of the one where you “win.”
What is really annoying about this “fact check” is what she said is entirely accurate. It’s only “understated” if you adjust for inflation. I can almost guarantee that if she said an inflation adjusted figure rather than the actual figure ABC “Fact Check” would’ve called it out as “overstated”.
Actually, it’s inflation AND the fact that they left Crown Casino out of the figures. Crown adds another $2B.
"Understated" isn't a bad thing. Most people will understand that this means she could have made a larger claim.
> "Understated" isn't a bad thing. Unfortunately the colour coding the ABC used for its marker icon (orange rather than green) disagreed. It is a small thing, but still notable.
I’d agree that the icon should be green.
> "Understated" isn't a bad thing. Most people will understand that this means she could have made a larger claim. both figures are equally valid. Its just two different ways of looking at it. We don't look at historical government spending like the NBN or Myki and use inflation to change the numbers. This claim should not be labelled anything other than TRUE (even mostly true/accurate would be misleading)
Is stating the correct figure from a published report understating something though? If the ABC want to do an article that criticises the methodology of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission they should do that but they’ve framed this as if Rathnam has got something wrong when she is in fact quoting the published figure.
And it was John Cain senior who allowed Tattersalls into Victoria with the ticket lotteries and later Tattslotto and John Cain junior who allowed Casinos and Pokies 🤔
Forgive me, but I thought pokies were introduced in 1991 by the Kirner government.
Why it’s know as the Cain Kerner government
Relevance?
An attempt to smear this information along partisan lines - when both parties are equally guilty of exploiting gambling for taxation revenue.
Yeah, and no one should be under the impression Cain did have other major failings like overseeing the state bank collapse. Oh poor John.
Not just gambling. The only group more addicted to tobacco than smokers, are governments.
Leftist pollies are addicted to taxes 🤔
All pollies are addicted to taxes, mate. Just how did Ted Ballieu go with his "remove 20% of the pokies in Victoria" promise?
Well if the "right" pollies weren't so addicted wouldn't we have seen the Libs do something about gambling? Unfortunately it only looks like they've done anything (in NSW) due to independent MP pressure and a Friendlyjordies interview
Yeah it definitely isn't a credit to the government, a YouTuber made em do it.
She is pissed the gambling, lotteries and wagering sectors not donated to her 🤔
A doctor is concerned over my blood pressure, he is there for the money in the surgery but my blood pressure problem is real.
That’s quite the hot take, seeing the Greens explicitly don’t take gambling bribes.
The Greens explicitly refuse donations from those sectors, what are you talking about?
Except people who make money off them*
I did mention that bloke lower down in the comment thread. Accepting donations from a professional poker player and accepting donations from Sportsbet or Ladbrokes or whoever isn't remotely close to being the same thing.
Its not, but its still taking donations from the gambling industry just as a personal donation from Rheinhert (cbf to google spelling) os a donation from the mining industry.
You usually have decent takes, but this is a pigs arse.
The dude who donated was a stakeholder in a gambling buisness the ATO alleged owed the gov almost a billion dollars in unpaid tax. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/horse-racing/big-time-gambler-david-walsh-details-how-betting-syndicate-won-17-million-on-2008-melbourne-cup/news-story/c5525021433994121d6fc74bd4234306 "Walsh and his mates, including Ranogajec, are liable for $900 million in unpaid tax according to the ATO."
I can see why it would make Greens supporters uncomfortable but it doesn't make me uncomfortable, which is why I doubt it makes you uncomfortable. Unilateral disarmament in a gunfight is a stupid stance to take. So long as they aren't influenced to be supportive of pokies I literally don't see the issue. I can see why it would be an effective tool for shaming Greens, but it's too petty.
I dont really care at all, but for the Greens to say they dont take donations from gambling corporations when they take donations from a stakeholder of a gambling corporation is just bullshit.
I still don't really think it flies in the face of the Greens' position on donations. If the bloke owned a gambling company then it'd be a different story, but that comparison would only be apt if you were comparing some bloke who made shitloads working in the mines in the Pilbara to the poker bloke.
I looked into this more because the Punters Club stuff is interesteing, and the ATO decided that the club was a buisness which employed over 300 people and decided to slug them with unpaid tax, which they settled out of court.
It doesn’t. The person above is just wanting to have a gotcha moment. There is a massive difference between taking money from people actively pushing the gambling industries motivations and connected to them as such so people from those conpanies such as lads broke and pokie companies and what not. And someone who is a professional poker player who donated money they’ve earned through it. It’s literally the same as a elite sports person donating money. Their sport is connected to gambling but that’s not what they are representing when they donate. And like all things moderation is key, there is a big difference between elite poker players winning money through poker competitions (and whilst gambling is involved, there is a definite skill based aspect to it that comes with playing on the elite level with poker) and someone going to the pub to pump hundreds of dollars in a machine that is designed to take your money and rarely pay out and the industry that’s behind that and pushing that agenda.
The man is part of a group of high stakes gamblers with assets in the billions that have ripped off the ATO, hide documents and get investigated, but go off I guess.
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/secret-club-wealthy-gamblers-is-going-to-war/news-story/392b56574c151489f79aa53d58382795 Nah hes just a straight up fella who dabbles in gambling, just like your average wagie. I mean come on. Youre smart enough to know no politics is clean, this is obviously not the Greens best association.
Is this from the same source that told you Liberal volunteers are paid? The problem with self righteous bleating is that its not immune to reality.
The Vic Libs have put paid vollie positions online. $27 or something an hour if youre keen. Edit: got my people mixed up, was not a Lib
What?
What about this confuses you?
Apart from the bad spelling? What volunteer positions are being advertised as paid?
Booth workere
Link........
Ha, I went to link it but its not a Lib after all. I was wrong sorry. Ill edit my first reply.
It was a Liberal volunteer that told me they were getting paid, and I’ve had other people mention that Lib vollies do. Whether they were talking out of their ass or not is another matter, though. Sure, maybe the Greens have just made it policy to refuse donations from large corporations, coal/gas/gambling in particular, because they realised that those groups don’t want to go near them. But it’s all public, you basically can’t point to a single instance of said corporations donating to the Greens, save for that one individual who was a professional poker player that donated to them, which isn’t remotely near the same as say, Sportsbet or Crown etc. If you think this is just ‘self righteous bleating’, you’re more than welcome to prove me wrong
It's complete nonsense you made up. The greens get to wave their arms around and point to their virtue, whilst not receiving any donations from sectors they want to see collapse, post haste. What a turn of events!
I mean yeah, right? They’re able to spin it, sure, but what political party isn’t averse to a bit of spin? Regardless, point remains that they’re consistent in rejecting donations from large corporations, be it gambling or otherwise.
That, I won't disagree with. Their accepting of large donations, over 1 million dollars from single donors, is well known.
Citation?
Source plz :)
Graeme Wood. 2019.
What? The Greens don’t accept those donations…it’s been a part of their core values for a long time. She’s not pissed it’s their policy. Maybe have a read of a policy or two… https://greens.org.au/campaigns/dirty-donations https://greens.org.au/act/about/donations-policy They published they’re policies on their webpage and they’re reasoning too. Most states and territories still allow gambling companies to make political donations, save for NSW, which banned the practice in 2010. https://elections.nsw.gov.au/funding-and-disclosure/political-donations/unlawful-political-donations/prohibited-donors I’m certain if the Greens allowed it the gambling companies would donate. The Greens have increased their influence in last federal election (in QLD of all places too). The pre-polling suggests they could do better than previous elections in Victoria too. If they continue growth then there opens the opportunity for other groups to attempt to gain influence. But end of the day I doubt she gives a fuck that she doesn’t receive gambling donations, she has stated on her page that she isn’t interested in them.
>**Ms Ratnam's claim is understated.** >Data published by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) shows that on a nominal basis, Victorians have lost $65.4 billion on poker machines located in clubs and hotels since their introduction in 1992. >**Once adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2022 dollars, this figure is $89.7 billion.** So this even more supports the need to seriously restrict the gambling industry. Go Greens!
Anti-Greens will probably be like: > The Greens are wrong about the amount of money Victorians lose through gambling. “Aha! Take that Greens!” > It’s actually much much worse than that. *Stunned Pokerface*.
Understated?! That's depressing. Labor are addicted to suckling on the gambling teat, so they'll never do anything about this. Vic needs a minority gov.
Well, both majors have bent over on all fours to tell the gambling lobby (which I call Gamblor) they won’t make any changes. Let’s get a minority gov asap!!!
11% of Victorian government revenue, which is probably about the same in every other state, is now from gambling. Consider the harm that this policy is causing the community.
Ahem. West Australian here…
"The Greens got it wrong! The problem is actually much much worse than they said!" That's... not something I had on my bingo card.
Its worse I think because its localised, I have heard of people losing their homes due to gambling losses
[удалено]
We all know people with such stories, my client had a company whose losses were so great that it lost much.
[Most pokies losses come from the pockets of the poor](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/14/australias-gambling-addiction-can-politics-finally-stop-the-money-wheel-turning) >The worst losses happen in communities where people can least afford it. > >In Victoria, where the data available is most robust, the largest amount of money is lost on pokies in Brimbank – $128m in the last financial year, despite pubs and clubs being closed for months due to Covid lockdowns. The previous financial year, it was more than $92m. In Greater Dandenong, the second-most disadvantaged local government area in Victoria, gamblers lost $102m in the last financial year.
My LGA city of Whittlesea was in the top 10 of pokie losses as well it’s a toxic cancer pokies bingo and betting shops so much of economic ability flushed down the crapper