Relieve burden of pokies harm

It is time to dismantle Tasmania’s pokies monopoly, says Charles Livingstone

MONOPOLY is a board game we play with the kids. It’s fun — although it involves hiking up the rent and bankrupting the other players.

Sadly, we also know monopoly is something rich people chase, so they can corner the market and make as much profit as possible. Private monopolies are never in the interests of ordinary people.

But there is a third monopoly that Tasmanians would benefit from understanding. It takes a bit of thought to get your head around this, but it’s important.

It’s by far the most dangerous for Tasmania, because it allows the targeting of harm.

Right now, in Tasmania, the location of poker machines is essentially controlled by one group, Federal Hotels.

We know poker machines are only profitable because they cause massive social harm. More than 60 per cent of poker machine profits come from people with gambling problems. We also know that machines make the most money, and do most harm, in the most socioeconomically stressed suburbs.

The Federal Hotels monopoly (via its subsidiary, Network Gaming) allows this company to decide the location of every poker machine in the state. As the Tasmanian Treasury says: “Network Gaming ... makes the ultimate commercial decision as to whether a licensed venue operator is provided with EGMs.”

Research conducted by colleagues and I at Monash University shows clearly that the most stressed Tasmanian suburbs are littered with poker machines. These are the areas where people spend the largest amounts, and where the most harm is concentrated.

The state (via both major parties) has created this monopoly. It effectively subjects Tasmania to a style of high-level targeted harm.

I would hate to think the people of Tasmania believe that this situation is the norm Australia-wide. It is not.

The closest thing to this single-operator approach was the situation which used to exist in Victoria until 2012. Until then, machine locations and operations were historically controlled by two companies, Tabcorp and Tattersalls.

But that duopoly has since been abandoned, because the system was seen to be harming the people of Victoria and the government. In effect, the duopoly became too powerful to regulate. Finally, it was dismantled. Tabcorp and Tattersall’s sued the government for “damages”. They lost.

If a duopoly is a harmful idea, what does that tell us about a private monopoly?

There are many courses the State Government can pursue to minimise and prevent harm from poker machines. Among these, the Federal Group monopoly must be broken up if the people of Tasmania are to have proper control, and the ability to prevent harm.

Allowing one Sydney-based “family business” to have such control over a dangerous, addictive and harmful product is a mistake. It’s a mistake Tasmania’s politicians should be able to recognise. If harm prevention and minimisation is their priority, the monopoly should be abolished, as quickly as the law allows. Dr Charles Livingstone is a Monash University public health and gambling researcher and a spokesman for the Alliance for Gambling Reform.