To the Editor,
I’m writing in response to your article titled ‘Nick Xenophon wants national referendum on pokies on the 20th anniversary of their introduction in SA’.
Firstly, Xenophon’s portrayal of pokies as evil is misleading to South Australians. Viewing pokies as damaging is not only naïve, but also ill-informed. The South Australian state government obtains an additional 3 million dollars every year solely from revenue raised by pokies. The 3 million dollars revenue is a valued addition to the state Government’s budget, contributing to the maintenance of our healthcare facilities and building new ones, such as the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Can you imagine where our state would be without that 5.7 billion dollars accumulated over…show more content… Punters travel to pubs to bet on the pokie machines, removing the pokie machines will in turn halt business, and could see many of our pubs bankrupt. This could lead to the reduction in available hospitality and cleaning jobs, as well as wholesale, delivery and admin jobs. Can you imagine what a loss of more jobs could do to our state in an already damaged economy? Pubs and clubs are used by most within our community, the removal of pokies would not only be detrimental to the state’s economy, but will also place unnecessary strain on those already
It is the responsibility of our state government to revisit the regulations on pokie machines to continue to obtain the economic benefits of pokies. The state government would be helping both punters and publicans by placing reminders on pokie machines about the time and money spent on the machine, and placing bans on online gambling within South Australia. The politicians in the article present a narrow-minded view of pokies and their effects and fail to recognise the economic benefits of pokie machines for South Australia.
Writer’s…show more content… The tone was argumentative and the use of the colourful words, ‘ridiculous’ and ‘fail’ demonstrated passion.
The use of signposting in the article assisted in the formation of a structure by indicating the ‘first’, ‘second’ and ‘third’ arguments. The article was composed carefully and allowed me to come across as informed and knowledgeable to the audience as well as accurately argue the notions presented in the editorial.
My first point, that pokies not only help supplement the state government’s budget, but also prevent higher taxes within SA was emphasised through the use of the loaded words, ‘ill-informed’ and ‘fail’. These are put together with inclusive language, including ‘our state’ and ‘our healthcare facilities’, to ensure the reader feels as though they would be effected if pokies were illegal in SA. The use of rhetorical questions, ‘Do you think that South Australian tax-payers would like to see the missing revenue added to their income tax each week?’ helped to make the reader question how the removal of pokies would directly affect them
