Labor’s policy heart to be revealed on Pokies harm minimisation

Kristie Johnston lays down the law on how to deal with contentious gaming machine legislation in a lesson for both Labor and Liberal MPs

STATE Labor is in a policy mess over poker machines — to say it is confused and conflicted is understatement.

But with the demise of Federal Group’s poker machine monopoly, we will see what Labor is made of.

For the first two decades of this century Labor was a pokies cheerleader. A Labor government in 2003 granted Federal a monopoly on poker machines in Tasmania. But by the 2018 state election, Labor leader Bec White promised to remove them from pubs and clubs in Tasmania.

Labor lost that election to the Liberals on the back of an industry scare campaign.

Although Ms White did say the party’s poker machine policy would not change, by 2019 that was reversed. Ms White signed a memorandum of understanding with the Tasmanian Hospitality Association to support the “rights” of pubs and clubs to operate poker machines.

Anti-pokies campaigner Pat Caplice pointed out in Talking Point that Ms White has since stated Labor will “put in place the best harm minimisation framework that we can because it is important to look after those people who are most at risk.” (“Spin wheel for White’s first test,” Talking

Point, July 14). The state government is set to legislate to end the monopoly and grant licences to individual venue operators. The shortcomings of the legislation are manifold — industry selfmonitoring, no end date for reevaluation, significant tax cuts to Federal, windfall capital gains from the licences.

The fundamental legislative flaw remains — without effective harm minimisation in place, it’s business as usual for the exploited gambling addicts. No matter how the Liberals slice and dice the ownership model, problem gamblers will do their money, just as quickly.

When I talk privately to Labor they invariably profess a dislike for poker machines, but like a deer in the headlights they are frozen by the lure of taxation swelling the treasury, and the fear of the wrath of the industry should they interfere with the profits.

Rank-and-file Labor voters, pretty much to a man and woman, hate poker machines too. I hear it all the time, and my plea to them is this: don’t stand for another Labor backflip. Tell Labor MPs that you want Ms White and her caucus this time to stick to their principles. Tell them you do not want poker machines feeding homelessness, crime, suicide, childhood poverty and domestic violence into your community. Tell them you want Labor to protect them and care for them. Tell them not to bow to the industry.

In short, demand the party grows a backbone.

This is where the rubber is about to hit the road for Labor. I know, and Bec White knows, current harm minimisation measures are a joke. They do little to help problem gamblers or prevent those at risk being

addicted. But if Labor MPs aren’t prepared to back real change to harm controls, they will be branded hypocrites and nothing more than Liberallite. And what’s the point of that in opposition?

So here’s a heads-up for Labor. When this legislation is brought to parliament I will be tabling a suite of effective harm minimisation measures for them to support. These will include a $1 maximum bet limit per spin (currently $5); slower spin speeds; increasing the return to player to 95 per cent (currently 85 per cent); and limiting opening hours for gaming venues.

None of these measures are new, unproven or difficult to implement, and none impact on recreational players. They have been proposed for years by independent and respected researchers such as Professor Charles Livingstone from Monash University’s School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, the federal Productivity Commission, and Tasmania’s Liquor and Gaming Commission. They are endorsed by social reformers such as Reverend Tim Costello and social service providers, including the

Tasmanian Council of Social Service.

If Labor needs more reason, a recent survey by respected, independent polling agency EMRS found that 71 per cent of Tasmanian voters support lowering maximum bets to $1, while 80 per cent think licensing changes to poker machines should include consumer protection and harm minimisation.

So why the indecision? For Labor it is a choice — support meaningful reform, or backflip. Again.

The Libs aren’t off the hypocritical hook either.

Recently elected Liberal Madeleine Ogilvie has for years been a voice for pokies reform. Here is a short-list of her activism: in 2014 she said “yes, definitely” in response to a question whether she would support a Bill to phase out poker machines; in 2017 she told local government she would “prefer it if they weren’t in the suburbs”; in 2019 she supported tighter bet limits and slower machine speeds.

Will Ms Ogilvie be a back flipper too?