The pokie plague: a challenge for the council and community
Relevant offers
OPINION: From 2007 to 2009 Wellington gamblers blew more than $100m on the pokies. They were the losers. And some lost more heavily than others.
Figures for the number of problem gamblers in Wellington are difficult to come by because of the "shame factor", but are very conservatively thought to be in the hundreds. The social impact of playing the pokies is well documented; poverty, marriage breakups and criminal behaviour are all closely associated with this form of "entertainment". Add to these figures, friends and families who are often profoundly affected by the problem gambler's behaviour and we can conclude that we have a significant problem with gambling in this city.
Our legalised gambling system is full of perversities, the most significant one being the transfer of wealth from poor communities to more affluent ones. Indicative figures from the Internal Affairs Department show that 40 to 50 per cent of gambling money raised in Wellington possibly comes from the "areas of concern" identified by Wellington City Council; Tawa, Johnsonville, Miramar, Karori and Newtown. Whilst some of this money goes back into those communities, some of it flows into the wealthier ones.
It may be an uncomfortable thought for many of us that Wellington's football clubs and community fairs are being subsidised by parents who can't afford to pay for their children's shoes because problem gambling affects one or both of them.
It is no accident that areas like Kelburn, Wadestown and Ngaio are not saturated with pokie-parlours whilst pockets of Newtown, Johnsonville and Miramar are. The Health Ministry's list of those most at risk makes for difficult reading: Maori, Pacific Islanders, those with a relatively low level of educational achievement and living in lower socio-economic areas.
* * *
Dingy bars with sad gamblers mindlessly staring at machines at all hours of the day, and the loss of hundreds of millions of gambled dollars - which could be more productively invested into the Wellington economy - are other negative effects of pokies in our city.
It is unfortunate that the dividend paid out through gambling profits gives many people in this city a vested interest in retaining the status quo. This dividend to community groups somehow justifies our acceptance of problem gambling.
And, after all, why should we accept that Wellington's important sporting, cultural and social services are funded by the proceeds of gambling, rather than through rates or traditional fundraising methods? An increasing number of groups are starting to question the ethics of accepting funds raised on such a dubious moral basis.
Some, such as Wellington's Downtown Community Ministry, which supports the city's homeless, refuse to take gambling handouts and survive nonetheless.
A proposal by Wellington City Council to lower the numbers of pokies (about 800 at present) is a good start, but more needs to be done given there has been no significant decrease in the machines since the last review of the council's policy in 2007.
One idea would be to reduce the numbers of these machines more quickly than is being recommended. Council proposals suggest increasing the ratio of one pokie machine to 300 people from a ratio of 1:250 in the suburban areas, but why stop there? The ratio of machines to people could be higher, say one machine to every 350 or even 400 people. There is also a strong case for putting a limit on the currently uncapped number of machines in the CBD. A commitment to decreasing the numbers over time, that is, a sinking lid policy, should also be debated publicly as well as restrictions on the location of pokie venues.
Ultimately though, the pokie plague will not be eliminated until viable alternative sources of funding become available.
The challenge for the council and the rest of the community is to decide whether the cost of the pokies is one that is affordable or not and fund accordingly.
Iona Pannett is a Wellington city councillor.
Consultation on the council's pokie policy is currently under way, finishing on April 9. See wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/publicinput/gambling-venues.html for more information.
Sponsored links
Bain defence still less than convincing
Cases made it a week for the ferals
Opinion: Time for Australia to claim NZ
National wakes from RWC slumber
Downgrades hit National where it hurts
Brash may have sounded death knell
Nats in hot seat over party central
No rankling expected over new list
Voters pick up the dog tucker signals
Parents don't want son's killer in town
Million-dollar view, shame about the house
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Trap for burglars catches policeman
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
Degrassi star died five years ago
Daily trivia quiz: February 18
Banking on return of blue magic
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Bid to scrap race relations office
Wellington earthquake fear: No way in or out
High cost of living mars return to NZ
Cathedral repair bill intimidating
Which theme is worse: Bones or NCIS?
Newest First
Oldest First
A lesson in how to disguise a morality argument as pseudo public health. Cr Pannett apears to have avoided the issue of community funding from Lotteries products ($900M spent last year) that underpins elite athletes and Creative NZ, hardly typical of the activities of those that purchase the tickets. no obligatiosn there Cr?. The Cr's arguement that funds aren't returned to the communtiy that generates them exposes an ignorance to the intentions and requirements of the Gambling Act 2003. This however is the policy of Pub Charity and a lot of effort goes into acheiving exactly that objective. As to alternative sources of fundraising Cr Pannett fails to recognise that some of this funding pays for ambulances and coastguard boats, or the hardships of bottle drives and selling raffle tickets on volunteers. In fact the Cr's views sem to fail to consider he represents the overwhelming majority of people in his ward that play gaming machines without harm or benefit from the proceeds. All in all this piece could have been written by the anti-gaming group the Problem Gambling Foundation.