(Australia) Limit pokie (slots) bets to $1 - Report

paulyt

Experienced Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Location
Sydney
GAMBLERS should be restricted to maximum bets of $1 per play on the pokies, the Productivity Commission's draft report on problem gambling recommends.

It is one of a raft of harm minimisation measures, including limiting access to ATMs at clubs, in the report released today.

Australians spend about $18 billion a year gambling, including $12 billion on pokies, the report found.

About 15 per cent of Australians gamble regularly, and problem gamblers make up about 10 per cent of those.

But the share of money that problem gamblers feed into the pokies accounts for around 40 per cent of $12 billion figure.

The commission said while progress on problem gambling had been made over the past decade, governments could do more to make gaming machines safer.

It recommends a limit of $1 per bet on all pokies, to limit the amount people can lose each hour to $120, and a $20 cash limit that a person can put into a poker machine at any given time.

It calls for a universal "opt-out" system that allows people to set the amount of money and time they spend gambling.

Cash machines located near pokie machines should only be able to distribute a maximum of $200 per card per day and all prize money should be paid in cheques not cash, the report says.

The commission wants the restrictions in place by 2016.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.

a poker machine must not exceed $10 as a maximum bet (of course u wont reach this on a 1c machine.) and the most one is allowed to win/cashout is $10,000 from 1 machine.

Now i dunno how this would work, Will they have to scrap the $1 machines and then theres those progressive jackpots that usually hit the feature the more u bet hyperlink/rapidfire/jetsetter/bluediamond. Which will mean we will either see way lower jackpots or way tighter machines (tight as there legally allowed to) There wont be much incentive to play. They already bought in the check for over $1000 wins. (used to be $1500) wich i found quite crappy as most jackpots start at this amount.

could someone from another country legislation tell me what the rules are in your B&M?

Oh well online casino's are looking better and better everyday for me. That is one thing this government wont stop!.

Don't get me wrong i hate seeing gambling problems.It is quite sad and effects alot of people.
 

JHV

<a href="http://www.casinomeister.com/meister_awar
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Location
Perennial Traveler
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.
As we all know, it's a massive issue in Australia that threatened to spin out of control. I mean, The Whitlams recorded a hit single "Blow Up The Pokies" many years ago now....and it's just been getting worse and worse.

The state governments were too reliant on the taxes generated by the industry (we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world) - and the well-funded (duh) clubs and associations who developed a lot of political power derived, in part, from generating of all that revenue...were / are none too keen to see that money stop flooding in.

I think we're reaching the breaking point now, where people can't afford to ignore it any longer. If you have any experience with a pokies tavern or a land-based casino, you'll see why there has been screaming cries for the government to step in and act. The stories are too sad and depressing to describe in much detail - but I'm sure you probably know what I'm talking about.

But what the real problem is imo...is the 13%-17% HA the government allows the manufacturers to set the machines at. 0.5% HA is brutal if you do substantial volume, 2% is ruthless, 5% is lighting money on fire, 13-17%? I don't have the adjectives to describe how insanely fast problem gamblers get 'raped' there (apology if that word is inappropriate - but it seems to best fit the situation).

I don't like to see governments regulate morality (as a general rule), but in this spot, I really have to agree. But what I'd prefer to see is much heavier taxes on the pokies, making them less like licenses to print money for the clubs and taverns and more of a tricky gamble for the club operators due to vastly lower ROI. In addition, they should enact legislation limiting the max HA for each slot to be something like 2-3%. I'm not 100% on these figures, but I remember talking to the Benowa Tavern manager one night on the Gold Coast, and I'm pretty sure he was saying the most popular machines take in up to $30,000 in a weekend. A single machine! sigh.

Also, they should force every operator to literally BILLBOARD their gaming rooms with really simple explanations of the truth about their gambling expectation. Simply putting fine print HA %'s in a hidden brochure somewhere or having some flyers lying around with "Do you have a gambling problem? Call xxxxxxx" - is simply not acceptable.

The vast majority (where 'vast' = 99.9%+) of pokies gamblers have no clean understanding of how House Advantage works. They would not be able to even comprehend the genuine brutality of a 17% HA machine.

Education is the key I think. And where education fails, restrictions and regulations like this are called for. Or higher taxes to tax the machines into extinction - i.e. they're not regulating morality, just making it harder for problem gamblers to self-destruct - and that's appropriate government intervention, in my opinion.
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
As we all know, it's a massive issue in Australia that threatened to spin out of control. I mean, The Whitlams recorded a hit single "Blow Up The Pokies" many years ago now....and it's just been getting worse and worse.

The state governments were too reliant on the taxes generated by the industry (we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world) - and the well-funded (duh) clubs and associations who developed a lot of political power derived, in part, from generating of all that revenue...were / are none too keen to see that money stop flooding in.

I think we're reaching the breaking point now, where people can't afford to ignore it any longer. If you have any experience with a pokies tavern or a land-based casino, you'll see why there has been screaming cries for the government to step in and act. The stories are too sad and depressing to describe in much detail - but I'm sure you probably know what I'm talking about.

But what the real problem is imo...is the 13%-17% HA the government allows the manufacturers to set the machines at. 0.5% HA is brutal if you do substantial volume, 2% is ruthless, 5% is lighting money on fire, 13-17%? I don't have the adjectives to describe how insanely fast problem gamblers get 'raped' there (apology if that word is inappropriate - but it seems to best fit the situation).

I don't like to see governments regulate morality (as a general rule), but in this spot, I really have to agree. But what I'd prefer to see is much heavier taxes on the pokies, making them less like licenses to print money for the clubs and taverns and more of a tricky gamble for the club operators due to vastly lower ROI. In addition, they should enact legislation limiting the max HA for each slot to be something like 2-3%. I'm not 100% on these figures, but I remember talking to the Benowa Tavern manager one night on the Gold Coast, and I'm pretty sure he was saying the most popular machines take in up to $30,000 in a weekend. A single machine! sigh.

Also, they should force every operator to literally BILLBOARD their gaming rooms with really simple explanations of the truth about their gambling expectation. Simply putting fine print HA %'s in a hidden brochure somewhere or having some flyers lying around with "Do you have a gambling problem? Call xxxxxxx" - is simply not acceptable.

The vast majority (where 'vast' = 99.9%+) of pokies gamblers have no clean understanding of how House Advantage works. They would not be able to even comprehend the genuine brutality of a 17% HA machine.

Education is the key I think. And where education fails, restrictions and regulations like this are called for. Or higher taxes to tax the machines into extinction - i.e. they're not regulating morality, just making it harder for problem gamblers to self-destruct - and that's appropriate government intervention, in my opinion.

Great reply/post. I agree with you 100% The HA is a load of hogwash. In my local tavern when ever i walk in there is someone playing the lowest % payout machine (highest ha) why? because of course the tavern is going to set the most popular machine to the lowest payout in this case cleopatra. and mind you they have 3 of these in which i stay well away from. on average they are all set between 85% - 97% thats a huge difference in payout % over time. And of course u also have jackpot machines which have the worst payout % and everyone plays hoping to hit that one jackpot. The only jackpot machines i've seen that have a decent payout % are the jetsetters but still there set at 96%.They should all be regulated to the same payout % around 97%. Most of the ederly or the not so informed people just don't know how to check the payout %. The government is just too greedy and wont do crap about it. look at mr brumby here in vic allowing Crown casino to have extra tables if they agree to a higher tax rate!!!

Cheers matt.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Here in the UK, Fruit Machines are legally allowed to go as low as 70% RTP, (or 30% HA if you prefer). They can be located almost anywhere, provided they are made available to over 18s, with some way to continually police this. This type of machine is in pubs and motorway service stations.
The max bet has been increased to 1, but the jackpot is limited to a lowly 70. This gives a brutal HA, but with low variance. These machines are "compensated", not random, and some have pre-programmed sequences of enhanced winning potential, triggers for which vary.
Another class is 1 fixed bet, and are similar to Aussie Pokies, having been designed in a similar style. The rules have been tightened on these recently, as before they had stakes varying from 50p to 2. The RTP on these is around 90% (I've seen 88% on one). The max jackpot is 500. These also feature at motorway services.

There are "club" machines that can offer higher jackpots, but these can only be sited in clubs and casinos, not pubs and motorway service areas.

Seaside resorts have now made most of their machines 2p, 5p or 10p play, with jackpots up to 8. Why? BECAUSE CHILDREN CAN LEGALLY PLAY THEM! The laws forced ALL machines with larger jackpots into "18s and over" areas. The problem is that some children live at the seaside, so have these low stake machines available all the time, rather than on their 1 or 2 week summer break, which was the traditional way most children got exposed to these games. Children are SUPPOSED to be supervised by the parent or guardian who took them to the seaside, but there is no way a few staff can enforce this, except perhaps for the well known local kids - but even then, do they bother?

The UK could possibly head into Aussie style problems if they get it wrong, because after years of tight regulation of Fruit Machines, the last decade or so has seen a mad scramble to increase maximum stakes and jackpots by the operators. 1 a spin is 4x as efficient at losing money than 25p a spin, and the play speed is MUCH FASTER on the new breed of 500 "pokie" style machines.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.

Well, I did a little experiment the other week. I stopped off at Winchester services, and played all the machines at MINIMUM stake of 25p, instead of the maximum 1. The higher stakes are supposed to increase your chances, but I did VERY well on 25p stakes, far better than my usual policy of going for the best odds & most enhanced game.

One factor seems to be that when offered, say, 4 on a 25p stake, I am more inclined to accept it as a "good win" rather than play on for more. 4 on a 1 stake is a mere 4x bet, and does not even cover the interval between features, so I usually play on.
On 25p, I was getting regular wins between 3 and 7, and quickly went ahead due to betting only 25p, and accepting these wins more readily.
1 might be good for forcing out the 70 jackpot, but seems less effective when playing just to get ahead a little.

I will have to experiment a little more.
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.
Well, I did a little experiment the other week. I stopped off at Winchester services, and played all the machines at MINIMUM stake of 25p, instead of the maximum 1. The higher stakes are supposed to increase your chances, but I did VERY well on 25p stakes, far better than my usual policy of going for the best odds & most enhanced game.

One factor seems to be that when offered, say, 4 on a 25p stake, I am more inclined to accept it as a "good win" rather than play on for more. 4 on a 1 stake is a mere 4x bet, and does not even cover the interval between features, so I usually play on.
On 25p, I was getting regular wins between 3 and 7, and quickly went ahead due to betting only 25p, and accepting these wins more readily.
1 might be good for forcing out the 70 jackpot, but seems less effective when playing just to get ahead a little.

I will have to experiment a little more.

First off to simmo. you are correct in what you say. australian online based casino's cannot accept any australian players. Although to my knowledge there was only ever 1 any way and this was run out of darwin ( northern territory) which do not have as strict rules and regulations and most states. (im sure jhv will correct me if im wrong) and for me online is already the go along with alot of other australians for many reasons.

to VWM

most jackpot machines in australia work like this.The more u bet the better your chance of winning one. how? e.g Most of the stand alone jackpot machines require u to get 5 of a kind with a special symbol on the 5th reel of the five of a kind. The more u bet the more u see these symbols. an example of this is jetsetter london (as i mentioned above in another post) wich u can see here.[URL="http://www.igt.com.au/games/extra-chance-jetsetter-london.aspx"[/URL]

My local club has 2 of these at which i pay quite a bit when im down there because of there RTP and jackpots. These range form a bet of 0.50c to $10.
Now when betting 50c you will hardly see a jackpot symbol during the feature on the 5th reel. But you bet $10 and u will see the 5th reel is almost full of them.

i guess im just wondering what they will do with these machines. To me there the best games available and if its made $1 max which is 1/10th of the max bet now then we will see way smaller jackpots (the machine above i have seen over $11,000) There wont be any insentive to play.



To many clubs , sporting teams ,Rsl's , communities and not mention our government now reily on the income from these machines as well, so how will our government compensate these people?

hope i made sense think im just blabbering now :)

Cheers matt.
 

paulyt

Experienced Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Location
Sydney
Most clubs may rely on them as you say but the tax on the income from pokies in NSW has been raised astronomical amount over the last few years that a lot of clubs are going broke or looking for new ways to make an income. The only thing making people gamble less will do is make less money go to the state governments as tax.

Also, you can expect almost any anti-gambling bill to be passed through as the Federal Government needs the vote of Senator Xenephon to get their Emissions Trading Scheme through (and any bill actually). If you don't know who he is here is a quick rundown.

He is an anti-gambling campaigner who became famous in South Australia. He was voted into the South Australian parliament on this basis. He decided to run for the Federal senate and the people of South Australia voted for him again. Most people like voting for a 'strong' independent but most people don't realise he is a one issue politician. He is a lot like Senator Fielding. they don't represent the whole of Australia but here we are basically held over a barrel by them. Fielding is a fundamentalist Chrisitan who is also anti-gambling. He also doesn't even believe in man made global warming so I'm not sure how the government will be able to get him to vote for their EMS by using any (probably one based off this report) to get their votes.

The Greens are also needed and are also anti-gambling.

It basically looks like this.
Labor has 32 senators, the Liberal/National party coalition 37, Greens 5, Family First (Fielding) 1, Independent (Xenephon) 1. So Labor needs the Greens, Fielding and Xenephon to vote with them for ANY bill to pass the Senate and all of those votes they need are from anti-gambling people.
 

baabaa006

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Location
Australia
First off to simmo. you are correct in what you say. australian online based casino's cannot accept any australian players. Although to my knowledge there was only ever 1 any way and this was run out of darwin ( northern territory) which do not have as strict rules and regulations and most states. (im sure jhv will correct me if im wrong) and for me online is already the go along with alot of other australians for many reasons.
Aussies also can't play at any casino that uses wagerworks software. Which sux because those slots look awesome (Monopoly etc).
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
Aussies also can't play at any casino that uses wagerworks software. Which sux because those slots look awesome (Monopoly etc).
yep sux alot there slots look pretty cool. Also just found out we can't play at circus casino (baptism by fire) and there playtech.
 

Zoozie

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Location
Denmark
My local club has 2 of these at which i pay quite a bit when im down there because of there RTP and jackpots. These range form a bet of 0.50c to $10.
Now when betting 50c you will hardly see a jackpot symbol during the feature on the 5th reel. But you bet $10 and u will see the 5th reel is almost full of them.
You are not getting a 'better' game by betting higher. The house edge is still exactly the same. This is because the jackpot is the same for small and high bets. So to have constant house edge the chance of winning the jackpot is proportional (Linear) to bet size.
 

JHV

<a href="http://www.casinomeister.com/meister_awar
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Location
Perennial Traveler
And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.
That's 100% correct. In fact (and this is disputed by some and complicated by overlapping federal v state legislation which has seen some updates in recent years further complicating the matter), the federal legislation actually appears to make it illegal for any online gaming company in the world to offer their products to Australian residents.

The stupidity of this element of federal gambling legislation is surreal. Australian government has no jurisdiction over international gaming companies so it's not only a pointless piece of legislation as almost every operator in the world continue to market in Australia - it's basically shooting themselves in the foot as well because they could tax Australian online gaming companies and they cannot tax overseas operators (obv).

There are online casinos and poker rooms that block Australian residents in deference to this legislation (some are mentioned in this thread) yet you have publicly owned companies like PartyGaming and 888 (listed on the UK stock exchange and VERY much able to be squeezed by the Australian government) continuing to market actively in Australia - so clearly their legal teams have green-lit them to do so. The whole thing is a shambles and a joke, basically.

First off to simmo. you are correct in what you say. australian online based casino's cannot accept any australian players. Although to my knowledge there was only ever 1 any way and this was run out of darwin ( northern territory) which do not have as strict rules and regulations and most states. (im sure jhv will correct me if im wrong)
There's actually a handful of them, but yes your point stands. It makes little sense to base yourself in Australia and subject yourself to heavy Australian tax burdens when you can't even market to Australians. I have to wonder if the operators of these companies are brain-dead. Move their servers offshore = don't pay the huge taxes AND offer products to Australian residents (not to mention decreasing their overheads by SKATZLOL amounts).

mattsgame said:
To many clubs , sporting teams ,Rsl's , communities and not mention our government now reily on the income from these machines as well, so how will our government compensate these people?
The clubs have taken advantage of the situation for so long and to such an extent that they are actually the villains here. Have you seen the Souths Sydney Juniors Club? It's like a mega-casino (only Slots obv) complex. It's nauseating, sick and just very very wrong on many levels. They've been pretty much bankrolling the colossal financial disaster that was the Rabbitohs NRL side for many, many years now. This money isn't mostly going to grassroots juniors projects or, in the case of the RSL, supporting various veterans' issues - it's mostly going into shady and dark places, lining the pockets of people you and I and every Australian would not (and should not) approve of (or indirectly allow the government to allow).

As far as the government compensating itself, the issue is that the revenue generated from taxing the industry isn't greater than the overall cost to society. Thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of families have been torn apart - suicides, domestic violence, crime etc etc. It's a disastrous mess - it's just that a lot of people (particularly governments) can't think long-term on this kind of stuff. Governments find it hard to put the brakes on incoming revenue short-term even though it would be the 'smart' play long-term for the same reason your average Joe Blow finds it hard to save rather than spend. But...where there is an incentive for Joe Blow to save rather than spend; if you're darkly cynical (i.e. realist), there is an incentive for government to do exactly the opposite (and governments around the world often do exactly that - take the easy or populist route, hand-balling the issue [further complicated by their actions in ignoring or worsening it] to future governments / generations).

Most people like voting for a 'strong' independent but most people don't realise he is a one issue politician. He is a lot like Senator Fielding. they don't represent the whole of Australia but here we are basically held over a barrel by them.
Fielding is a world-class moron and I have no idea whether his position as Christian anti-gambling Independent Conservative holding an element of the balance of power in government will result in positive changes or retarded ones.

People get too caught up on Big Government v Small Government. The real issue is Smart Government v Stupid Government. You can enact legislation which you hope will protect your constituents from themselves; but if you're a grade-A Moron, all you end up doing is endangering them further by giving up control of regulation and effectively handing the industry to unregulated parties (UIGEA, US Drug War, etc).

Where you're 100% correct Paul is that the Australian system of representative government is so horribly flawed, it's almost sickening. I have a Politics degree but even 2 months into 1st Year Pol, pretty much every 17 yr old student in our faculty could see how stupidly flawed the system is (for the reasons you mention).

For a very brief period of time at university (a lifetime ago), I was considering getting into politics to take advantage of this. Basically, wait for a polarising or controversial issue to develop (you don't even need to wait, they're all around you)...position yourself on one of the extreme poles of that issue (if you have no actual position, you could just choose the side most likely to get you elected)...build your entire campaign around that....Presto!

It's how this moron Fielding got elected to the Senate and it's how the xenophobic Pauline Hanson became such a huge threat at one point to the country that the two major parties effectively stitched her up and sent her to prison over a technicality - a very rare case where you *could* make the argument 2 HUGE Wrongs = a *kind* of Right. Definitely the lesser of two evils I think - but in no way do I support what Labor/Liberal did to her. What I support is changing the unbelievably retarded electoral system so that single issue campaigners who get voted in on that issue (and who represent maybe 3% or w/e of the nation) don't effectively control the balance of power for the state / federal government Coalitions.

I have to go win 1mil Euro now at 32Red and you're probably getting tired of this long post already - but if there's any Israelis or Jewish posters here, I wrote a long paper years ago basically arguing (perfectly and 100% correctly, I might add ;)) that the greatest threat to Israel's long-term security is not their Arab enemies. It's the "representative" electoral system Israel uses (very much like Australia's) which could (some argue WILL) result in Israel's sovereignty being kaput in our lifetimes. You can't have ultra-Orthodox / Haredim representatives (who already control the balance of power, I might add) continue to increase their foothold in the Knesset based on 1 person = 1 vote representation. The system is never representative. And (darkly) ironically for Israel, even if it were truly representative - it will eventually result in disaster (end of Israel as a nation) anyway due to Haredim mothers having 8 children EACH (that's the nation-wide average) compared with secular Israeli mothers (avg comparable with rest of the secular world).

Not to mention the dozen or so other contributing factors intertwined with this Haredim issue which, if not addressed soon by the Israeli citizenry, will result in Civil War or worse within 50-70 years - and maybe a hell of a lot sooner.

The world is a depressing place. I'm going to go drink and gamble now! :)
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
... the federal legislation actually appears to make it illegal for any online gaming company in the world to offer their products to Australian residents.
I believe this is incorrect. Obviously the Australian Government has no jurisdiction over companies located overseas - so what they basically said is that they will NOT recognize gambling debts incurred by Australians participating in online gambling.
 

JHV

<a href="http://www.casinomeister.com/meister_awar
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Location
Perennial Traveler
I believe this is incorrect. Obviously the Australian Government has no jurisdiction over companies located overseas - so what they basically said is that they will NOT recognize gambling debts incurred by Australians participating in online gambling.
Nah, I'm right. But it's not important anyway - the fact is that the government isn't making any efforts to prosecute so it's a dummy-law in Australia (like jaywalking).

Wikipedia isn't the definitive legal authority on the matter (the Australian High Court would be) - but the gambling legislation itself is fairly unambiguous.

Wikipedia said:
Australia

On 28 June 2001 the Australian Government passed the Interactive gambling act 2001 (IGA). The government said that the IGA was important to protect Australians from the harmful effects of gambling.

The IGA targets the providers of interactive gambling services, not their potential or actual customers. The IGA makes it an offence to provide an interactive gambling service to a customer physically present in Australia, but it is not an offence for Australian residents to play poker or casino games online. In stark contrast to the USA, sports betting online is also completely legal in Australia, with many state government licensed sportsbooks in operation, such as Centrebet, Sportingbet & Betfair.

The offence applies to all interactive gambling service providers, whether based in Australia or offshore, whether Australian or foreign owned.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I've read all the legislation myself for state and federal and it's really straight-forward. But obviously, all that matters is the reality, not the law. And the reality is that 888 and PartyGaming wouldn't be marketing so proactively in Australia if their legal teams had serious concerns regarding the legislation.
 

JHV

<a href="http://www.casinomeister.com/meister_awar
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Location
Perennial Traveler
I guess the law only becomes important when someone decides to use it - oops Gary Kaplan, John Lefebvre, Steve Lawrence and co.

Bad luck guys...

----

(Edit: I should note for others [you would obv already be aware of this spearmaster] that Australia uses the "common law" system for judicial proceedings. Whilst "common law" ostensibly deals with historical judicial decisions, stare decisis comes into play when complexities arise between common law, constitutional law, state laws, etc.

stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
I lasted around 3 weeks of Masters Law before I was evicted from UQ for non-payment of tuition fees (my total net worth was negative $3400 and I couldn't pay even Term 1 bill) - so I am definitely no lawyer. But I'm almost certain that stare decisis was used successfully by the defence in some squatters legal dispute awhile back. And I'm almost certain that it would apply to gambling operators providing services in Australia (perhaps this is the logic 888/Party Legal are using also).

This legal approach for judicial proceedings is vastly different to the more 'codified' approach used in the US. I simply cannot see a Gary Kaplan type of case occurring in a country using "common law". There would have to be some type of "test case" which would go all the way to the High Court of Australia if the government wanted to start arresting owners of gambling companies visiting Australia and whatnot - and they'd almost certainly rewrite the legislation first, I would think. Then again, the stupidity of the world never ceases to amaze me - so who knows really...)
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
I stand corrected. But the law is still basically toothless :D

I do find it funny that there are carve-outs - such as horse racing, for example - and lotteries (except scratchies and instants!!). The latter was obviously designed to protect Tatts when it still had the monopoly on scratchies... for that matter, Tatts was probably the most influential lobbyist in getting the IGA passed since they also had the majority of installed pokies in Australia...

As stupid as this law may seem, it looks almost decent compared to the UIGEA in the US - completely useless since they haven't been able to come up with regulations for financial institutions to prohibit gaming transactions in the three years since the UIGEA was passed...
 

JHV

<a href="http://www.casinomeister.com/meister_awar
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Location
Perennial Traveler
We agree on 3 / 3 there.

The law is toothless.

The crap going on behind the scenes with Australian lotteries and who has the monopolies and stuff is sordid, dark stuff when you get into it. I try not to after watching a doco about Tattersalls many years ago and...yea. 'nauseating' but so obviously how these things work - it was depressing obv.

The UIGEA is one of the most stupid laws passed in the history of laws. I'm not a pot smoker, but probably banning marijuana was right up there - considering 70% (according to some reports) have smoked it at least once and up to 20% regularly smoke it. And it's classed Schedule 1 above cocaine and meth? On a Schedule which puts people in prison but no one cares to update it for decades?

We live in a wonderful world of incompetence. Which is ok - except when it's coming from government and their incompetence is regulating morality in moronic ways and putting innocent people in prison - that's not so ok imo.
 

AussieDave

Banned User
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Location
Australia
I remember when the pokies (Tatts Pokies & Tabaret Pokies) hit Victoria. This was even before Crown Casino open at its temporary site.

These things were wound up loose as goose's. At a guess 99% RTP. In Victoria the minimum legal RTP is 87.1%, it's the same is South Australia not sure on other states.

Was the reason for setting such a high RTP to get people who had a predisposition to being addicted to the "pokies", hooked?

Granted not everyone who plays the pokies get addicted. Just like everyone who drinks, bets on the horse or any number of other activities. However of those that do, a percentage will get addicted.

What gets my goat up is again people who may enjoy an activity that does not present detrimental affects in their lives, are again, as always, being penalised because of other people's addictions.

What's worse is that its selective. I mean the number of people who have committed suicide or lost everything due to horse racing or alcohol would far out weight the issues with pokies. But nothing is done to limit these bet sizes.

Personal I stopped playing pokies in pubs, RSL's and aussie casino years ago. They really are one armed bandits.

It's just a BIG F'ing joke and Australian Governments are the court jesters.


Cheers

Dave
 

colly

Senior Member
PABaccred
MM
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Location
sydney
I suspect this new "law in waiting" will be subject to numerous delays and amendments before it gets through.

The more contentious of the new proposals in the "fingerprinting" of players to identify and try and enforce the preset limit proposals.

The problem in NSW at least is the sheer scale and volume of the pokies- not just casinos but clubs and most pubs-In my inercity district there is star city casino, 8 clubs and 7 local pubs- not to mention all the pubs in the city itself- some of the pubs and clubs are open 24hrs with the laughable shut down rule for the pokies (4hrs per day) timing at the venues discretion. Usually 4.30am

It will be intersting to see how the fed gov't will be able to enforce the law in the states-(NT as ACT as territories are different}given that the state and fed govt have separate areas of power and control under the constitution.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think they managed to legislate no australian players at aust online sites as the fed gvt does have juristiction over wireless and telecomunnications. As the state issue gaming licences it will be interesting.

I do think the country needs to bring the pokermachine numbers down but i don't think the proposals will be effective.

cheers
colly
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top