A ridiculous example of bureaucracy
of bureaucracy
It seems a relatively simple proposition. Two self-confessed poker machine addicts want to be banned from gambling outlets around the state in a last-ditch bid to curb their problem.
The Salisbury North couple has already been barred from 184 venues - at their own request - but now want to be excluded from all of the state's 600 poker machine outlets.
Yet the Independent Gambling Authority, in a seemingly ludicrous response, has denied their request.
The authority argues there was not sufficient evidence to widen the couple's already extensive ban.
Clearly, there is an administrative cost in applying and policing a statewide gambling ban. Yet this cost surely pales into insignificance when compared to the more than $400 million the State Government reaps in gambling revenue every year.
Gambling Minister Michael Wright argues the couple's situation is "very complex" and the Government has a "multi-prong approach" in tackling problem gambling.
However, it seems incomprehensible that a statewide ban could somehow exacerbate the couple's gambling problem. Therefore, if a ban has at least some chance of curbing the couple's gambling, there seems scant reason to oppose the move.
Perhaps political will is lacking. The gaming authority's recommendation for a smartcard system involving spending limits has been rejected by the Government.
Regardless of the reason, it appears bureaucracy is needlessly frustrating the genuine efforts of an unfortunate couple to curb their terrible addiction.
It seems a relatively simple proposition. Two self-confessed poker machine addicts want to be banned from gambling outlets around the state in a last-ditch bid to curb their problem.