Profit the motive behind pokies pain

SIMON Bevilacqua in his special report about the Lyons bribery scandal (Mercury, August 5) notes that I spent some years in occupations which entailed looking at the behaviour of politicians, big business, police and criminals in various parts of Australia and overseas.

The future of poker machines in Tasmania is of some public interest and is likely to be an issue at the forthcoming State Election.

In these circumstances, I thought it might be appropriate to share respectfully with you and members of Parliament one of the major lessons I learned in the course of my experience in and after my term in state politics.

Among my tutors were British Tobacco, Federal Hotels, and Aristocrat (the principal supplier of poker machines). The lesson they taught me was that commercial corporations are primarily motivated by profit, not philanthropy. Of course, I was generally aware of this basic fact, but my tutors drove the lesson home with emphasis.

Several examples come to mind. Whatever the facts about Kevin Lyons, Federal Hotels provided one when they walked away from their agreement to run the West Coast Railway. Another is provided by Aristocrat, which I understand uses neurological science to enhance the power of its machines to take advantage of weaknesses.

I am sure that for many punters a bet on the pokies is no more dangerous than a bet on a horse, but both spheres have shown that they need some regulation to ensure that bettors get a fair go.

I urge the decision-makers to give full consideration to the complicated sets of factors involved.

James Boyce has set out in his recent book Losing Streak a number of ways the best social result may be achieved. I suggest operators in this complex field should have to earn their social licence. Sir Max Bingham

Sandy Bay players’ psychological