PUNTERS who enjoy a flutter on the pokies in Manukau may be in for a shock this month.
The fate of Manukau City’s 71 pokie machines venues will be decided at a council meeting on December 13.
It’ll put paid to an ongoing debate on the city’s gambling venue policy (Times, August 16).
Last week representatives from various organisations joined Manukau City councillors at a policy and activities standing committee meeting. During a lengthy debate, councillors discussed a possible change from the present cap on pokie machines to a sinking lid policy.
A majority of 10 to five city councillors voted for a policy change, which will prevent the council from issuing licences for new gambling venues, even if an existing venue closes or relocates.
Pakuranga councillor and safe city portfolio leader Dick Quax supports the recommendation.
“Sections of our community are at risk from gambling activities in the city,” says Mr Quax. “The revised gambling venue policy is a step in the right direction for creating a safe environment for future generations.”
Howick councillor Jami-Lee Ross is opposed to the policy change.
He says local groups such as the Howick Rifle Club and Howick Historical Village will lose out on valuable funding if the sinking lid policy proceeds.
“A percentage of funding [from pokie machines] goes back into the community,” says Mr Ross.
“There are a lot of community groups and sporting organisations that rely on the funding. Essentially we’re going to see money lost from these sorts of organisations.”
Under present law, about 37 per cent of revenues from pokie machines are put back into the community.
But according to Problem Gambling Foundation spokesperson Catherine Fitzsimons, there are no guarantees of where the money goes.
“The money that’s coming out of Manukau isn’t coming back into Manukau,” says Ms Fitzsimons. “Most of it will be going into other areas. You’re taking money out of your children’s mouths and then going to [fund] a sporting event.”
The policy and activities committee received 58 written submissions supporting a moratorium and/or sinking lid on machine venues and numbers. Another 30 submissions advocate keeping the status quo, which caps the number of venues at 90.
Among the 30 were the South Auckland Health Foundation (SAHF) and the Lion Foundation. SAHF public relations officer Michelle Kidd says it supports a cap on pokie machines.
She says the foundation doesn’t want to miss out on “all the good things that we can do with that gambling funding”.
“We get a large amount of money from the Lion Foundation,” says Ms Kidd. “What we can provide to the community is going to be limited and reduced.”
Mr Ross says a small percentage of New Zealanders are problem gamblers and he believes this shouldn’t stop others who enjoy “a bit of flutter”.
“I don’t gamble myself. I wouldn’t want to see anyone getting a gambling problem. But gambling is legal in New Zealand and for a lot of people it’s a legitimate form of entertainment. I don’t see the Manukau City Council’s role as moral watchdog of the city.”
Ms Fitzsimons says many New Zealanders are too embarrassed to admit they have a gambling problem. She believes a sinking lid policy will help Manukau’s underprivileged.
“It would be brilliant for Manukau. We’ve got all the pokie machines in low decile areas. We’re ripping off the poor to pay for the rich. I’ve got more access to a pokie machine than I have to a food bank.”
Even if the policy goes through, Mr Ross believes it won’t deter gamblers, as they’ll just go further a-field for their fix.
“The people that are problem gamblers are probably going to cross the district.”
He says machine numbers have declined since 2003 and he expects the trend to continue.
Ms Fitzsimons says it coincides with release of the Gambling Act 2003, which restricted the number of pokie machines in a venue from 18 to 9.
“You had to get rid of nine of them so of course they’ve gone down,” she says.
Mr Ross believes a “fair and reasonable approach” is needed in the final council decision.
“We had quite a long debate at the council. At the end of the day you need to weigh up the pros and cons. We need to take a balanced view.”
