THE POKIE DEBATE RETURNS: IS REDUCING MACHINES REALLY THE ANSWER?
OPINION
The debate over poker machines in NSW is once again gathering momentum, with a proposal set to be considered at the NSW Labor State Conference this week calling for a 50 per cent reduction in the state’s poker machine numbers over the next decade. Supporters of the proposal argue that reducing machine availability is the only meaningful way to address gambling harm, while (largely silent) critics question whether targeting poker machines alone will deliver the social outcomes being promised.
The proposal comes amid growing political pressure surrounding gambling reform. Advocates point to the fact that NSW has more poker machines than any other Australian jurisdiction and that annual player losses have climbed beyond $9 billion (in line with a significant increase in the population not mentioned anywhere). They argue that reducing machine numbers is a necessary step to address gambling-related harm and lessen the financial and social impacts experienced by vulnerable individuals and families.
There is no doubt that gambling harm is a genuine issue for some members of the community. Research continues to highlight links between problem gambling and financial distress, relationship breakdowns, mental health challenges and other social harms. These concerns deserve serious attention, and the hospitality industry has an important role to play in supporting responsible gambling initiatives and assisting patrons who may be at risk.
Proper use of information
However, the question for policymakers is not whether gambling harm exists. The real question is whether removing thousands of poker machines is the most effective and balanced response. That distinction matters because public policy should be based on evidence, not simply on the assumption that reducing availability will automatically eliminate harm. Many of the articles supporting a reduction are using gambling data that includes scratchies, Keno, racing, lotteries, and sports betting, some of which is operated by government itself, as well as poker machines.
The NSW Gambling Survey 2024 , completed by Gamble Aware, noted a decline in participation rates for poker machine play from 15.7% to 14.3% since the last survey in 2019. Buying lottery tickets, the most prevalent form of gambling, and sports betting both increased. According to the government’s own report, the prevalence of high-risk gambling in NSW “has remained relatively stable, with 0.9% of the adult population classified as experiencing high-risk gambling”. The same document confirms a further “3.1% were categorised as experiencing moderate-risk gambling, and 6.7% as experiencing low risk gambling. In total, 4.0% of NSW adults were classified as experiencing moderate- to high-risk gambling”, across all forms of gambling, not just poker machines.
Former ClubsNSW CEO Anthony Ball made this argument forcefully in 2017 when discussing poker machine policy. His position was that millions of Australians enjoy gambling responsibly as a legitimate form of entertainment. Just as Australians choose to spend money on dining out, travel, sporting events or other leisure activities, many choose to spend part of their discretionary income on gaming. For the overwhelming majority of participants, gambling remains an enjoyable recreational activity conducted within their means.
Personal choice
This perspective raises an important issue that is often overlooked in public debate: personal choice. Australia has traditionally been cautious about allowing governments or interest groups to dictate how adults spend their leisure time. While regulation has an important role in protecting vulnerable people, there is a significant difference between addressing harmful behaviour and restricting activities enjoyed responsibly by the majority.
The risk is that policy discussions become increasingly paternalistic. When governments seek to remove legal entertainment options because a minority experience harm, they inevitably face questions about where the line should be drawn. Many activities carry risks, including alcohol consumption, fast food, and even recreational pursuits that involve physical danger (think e-bikes!). Society generally seeks to manage those risks rather than prohibit the activity altogether.
Funding local community
For club and hotel operators, there is another critical dimension to this debate. Gaming revenue remains a significant source of funding for community facilities, sporting organisations, local charities, entertainment programs and venue reinvestment. While advocates of machine reductions argue that venues can transition to alternative revenue models, the reality is that such transitions are rarely simple, particularly in regional and suburban communities where gaming income underpins a broad range of community services.
Social justice
Supporters of the reduction proposal often frame the issue as a straightforward social justice question. Yet the evidence is more complex. Australia has one of the world’s highest rates of gambling participation, but problem gambling prevalence remains a relatively small proportion of the adult population. This does not diminish the seriousness of gambling harm, but it does challenge the notion that all gaming activity should be viewed through the lens of addiction and social dysfunction.
The hospitality industry has already experienced significant regulatory change in recent years. Cash input limits have been reduced, responsible gambling requirements have increased, external gambling advertising has been restricted, and venue compliance obligations continue to grow, with significant support from the club and pub community. These measures reflect an ongoing effort to balance consumer freedom with harm minimisation, rather than pursuing outright restrictions on legal recreational activities.
Finding solutions
As Labor members prepare to debate the proposal, the discussion should move beyond headline figures and emotional rhetoric. The challenge is to find solutions that support those experiencing genuine gambling harm without unnecessarily restricting the choices of millions of responsible adults. Effective public policy should focus on identifying and assisting problem gamblers, strengthening intervention measures and improving education, rather than assuming that reducing machine numbers alone will solve a complex social issue.
Ultimately, this debate is about more than poker machines. It is about how far governments should go in regulating personal behaviour, how communities balance individual freedom with social responsibility, and whether Australians are comfortable allowing policymakers and activists to determine which forms of legal entertainment are acceptable, while the government ignores their own involvement in gambling. Those are questions that deserve careful consideration before any decision is made to fundamentally reshape the state’s club and hotel industry.
We should all remember, the next time we vote in state or federal elections, the people who work with us to support our local communities and the hospitality industry more widely, and those that are just looking to make a name for themselves or grab a headline.
Written by: Dr. Justine Channing (PhD) – Gaming Specialist for The Drop
Sources:
NSW Labor to vote on reducing ‘obscene’ 87,000 poker machines across state by 50 per cent to reduce ‘preventable misery’ | Sky News Australia
Common pub habit costing Australians a staggering $32 billion a year: ‘Need to act’ – Yahoo News Australia
The case for poker machines
NSW Gambling Survey 2024
