Editorial: Councils dealt losing hand on pokies

Poker machines seem to have an almost hypnotic effect on those who sit at them hour after hour. Perhaps the flashing lights cast a spell; perhaps it is the allure of instant reward. Whatever the reason, pokies are peculiarly addictive - and, therefore, particularly troublesome. By far the majority of people who present themselves to problem gambling services say they are to blame for their plight.

Clearly, the machines are a form of gambling that needs to be kept under control. Equally clearly, the time for action is right, given a galloping increase in the number of machines in some areas. Regrettably, the Gambling Act, a fruit of Parliament's labours this week, is unlikely to supply that control.

The crucial flaw in the legislation lies in its invitation to local authorities to take more control of pokie bars. Parliament has gone so far, restricting the number of machines on a site to nine - half the present maximum. The new limit applies only to venues set up since October 2001 when the act had its first reading. Machines added since then and breaching the limit will have to be removed. Further restrictions, however, will be at the whim of local councils.

New gaming licences will be their domain, and they can make a statement by refusing to allow any new pokie bars. But such action will have to be underpinned by a gaming venues policy, the drawing up of which will occupy councils over the next few months.

The Manukau City Council, for one, plans to be active. It presides over an area with particular problem gambling stresses. A report commissioned by the council recommended controls on the number of poker machines, and some in the city want to go so far as to ban new poker machines. There are other options for councils that may wish to be less involved. They might, for example, consider banning pokie bars from close proximity to schools, or to segregate them in zones.

That, at least, is the theory. In practice, bylaws for this type of activity are a blunt instrument. Generally, councils do not have the resources to police them and the police have little interest in enforcing them. Far more urgent matters than council bylaws demand their attention.

It could be, in fact, that local authorities will have their work cut out to achieve the removal of machines, as required by retrospective application of the law. That process will entail a reduction of about 3000 machines. Since there is no compensation, operators will be in no hurry to comply. They can be counted on to draw the process out as long as possible.

Not all aspects of the act are so ill-conceived. The Government has had the good sense to leave the distribution of poker machine profits to charitable gaming trusts. This ensures, in essence, that there will still be local distribution of funding to charities, sports clubs, rescue helicopters, schools and other community groups. If the method throws up occasional questions about the destination of some of the money, it is far preferable to allocation via a centralised bureaucracy, as proposed by anti-gaming groups.

That suggests a far greater likelihood of money going to pet projects unrelated to the local community. Profits from pokies are derived disproportionately from poorer communities. Need, most compellingly, and fairness dictate the money should be returned to those communities.

The social impact of excessive gambling is becoming increasingly obvious in areas such as Manukau City. Debt, mortgagee sales of homes and the neglect of children are just some of the consequences. The problem demanded a cogent response from the Government. Not only has it eschewed responsibility but it has provided local authorities with a losing hand. They, and those hypnotised by pokies, deserved a better deal.