Small venues, big problems
THE MERCURY | June 15, 2011 10.17am
Human Services Minister Cassy O’Connor looks at the big picture – and the small – of national gambling reform.
ANDREW Wilkie is probably right about many things, but he is wrong about the impact of smaller gaming venues on problem gambling.
Mr Wilkie’s Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform is proposing that larger venues, those with 15 machines or more, come under the new mandatory pre-commitment framework in 2014 and that the smaller operators have until 2018 to comply.
The good news is that the committee proposes to bring in the larger venues two years ahead of the original schedule, but the problem with this compromised approach – and it’s a definite departure from his original deal with Labor to secure government – is that smaller venues are often located in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage, therefore their capacity to cause harm to individuals, families and communities is significant indeed.
Pension day can be a busy day in Tasmania’s smaller pubs and clubs.
On Tasmania’s West Coast, just 75 machines in six venues sucked $2.7 million out of the pockets of the community in 2009-10.
In the Dorset municipality in the North-East, 45 machines in three venues swallowed $1.5 million in the same period.
These expenditure figures, sourced from the Tasmanian Gaming Commission, are a statistical measure of human misery.
According to the Productivity Commission, problem gamblers account for 40 per cent of gambling revenue, so of the $214 million Tasmanians lost on pokies last year, about $100 million came from gambling addicts – and many of them are frequenting smaller venues in rural and regional Tasmania, and on our urban fringes.
While no one can question Mr Wilkie’s sincerity and commitment to minimising the harm caused by problem gambling, under his revised proposal, in smaller venues this human disaster would continue unchecked until 2018.
A quarter of the pubs and clubs in Tasmania have 15 machines or less.
Mr Wilkie’s Joint Select Committee report also proposes a hybrid system to reform Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) regulation.
It recommends the introduction of mandatory pre-commitment, utilising smart card technology for existing high-intensity, high-loss EGMs, but would also allow the introduction of low-intensity machines with low bet limits and low maximum prizes that would be exempt from pre-commitment.
Even under this scenario, with $1 bet limits, a pensioner, for example, could lose $120 in an hour – so a strong community awareness, education and harm minimisation spend would continue to be necessary.
High-intensity machines would require gamblers to set limits on their losses before they press play.
The Wilkie Committee’s report, released last month, recommends that, once set, these limits could be decreased once every 24 hours with immediate effect.
However, for a player to increase limits, a cooling-off period should apply, and the report recommends that players be unable to increase their spending limit during the time period they have fixed for their limit to apply.
Such a pre-commitment system would allow big spenders to play at high intensity, and the report does not propose that an upper spending limit be mandated, so no doubt a campaign to explain the desirability of committing to sensible limits would accompany these reforms.
To date, Tasmania is the only jurisdiction to commit to a national mandatory pre-commitment system.
With less than 2 per cent of the nation’s EGMs, it would be extremely difficult for us to go it alone, and the industry here will need time and support to adjust to the reforms, which will be made possible with the help of the Commonwealth under a national approach.
I was proud to represent Tasmania’s position at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on gambling reform in Canberra recently, though the day was overshadowed by the unwillingness of the other states and territories to agree on voluntary or mandatory pre-commitment timelines.
The bottom line is that they are worried about their budget bottom lines – the revenue they reap from gamblers.
However, the reality is that if agreement is not reached, the Commonwealth Government can and is obliged to act unilaterally because of its agreement with Andrew Wilkie.
His revised scheme is likely to be discussed at the next Ministerial Council meeting.
While progress on national pokies reform is frustratingly slow, it was acknowledged at the Ministerial Council that the community expects all governments to act decisively to prevent the harm caused by problem gambling. That is what we are morally obliged to do.
I believe this imperative is what motivates Andrew Wilkie, but as the minister responsible for administering the harm minimisation budget and acutely aware that pokies cause the most terrible suffering to some highly vulnerable people, I urge Mr Wilkie to rethink his revised approach to smaller gambling venues.
Published in Mercury, June 15: HERE
What Andrew Wilkie wrote to Mercury in response, Mercury, June 17:
The Greens’ criticism of my national poker machine reforms warrants a response (Mercury, June 15).
The allegation I’ve departed from my original deal with Labor on pokies reform is wrong.
My agreement with the Prime Minister calls for mandatory pre-commitment to be fitted to poker machines by 2014 and that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
This is consistent with the recommendation by the Productivity Commission, as are the associated decisions to introduce low-intensity machines with $1 maximum bets outside of mandatory pre-commitment and to give small venues until 2018 to implement the reforms.
I agree with Human Services Minister Cassy O’Connor that harm will befall pokie players between now and the implementation of these reforms. But good public policy needs to strike a balance between rhetoric and reality, and I’m confident the Productivity Commission’s 2018 deadline for small venues gets the balance right.
I also remind Minister O’Connor that the Tasmanian Government does not need to wait for a single Independent Member of Parliament in Canberra to drive national poker machine reform. The Greens have been in the Tasmanian Cabinet for over a year now and could have used their own balance-of-power to drive much greater poker machine reform here in our state.
For a start the Labor-Greens Tasmanian Government could have agreed to Canberra’s request to host a trial of mandatory pre-commitment technology. Instead it worried more about the Federal Group and said no to Canberra.
Andrew Wilkie MP
Independent Member for Denison
Monday, June 20, on ABC Four Corners: Wilkie’s Gamble
Australian, Tuesday: Wilkie: Pokies reform ‘is not perfect’:
TASMANIAN federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie recognises that some problem gamblers will fall through the cracks in his scheme to set limits on the amount people can bet on poker machines.
The acknowledgement comes as the states — which reap about $5 billion from gambling revenue annually — depicted Mr Wilkie’s reforms as an infringement of their rights.
NSW and Victoria have threatened to kill off Mr Wilkie’s gambling overhaul through a challenge in the High Court, with NSW minister George Souris telling the ABC TV’s Four Corners last night: “This will be a battle about the Gillard deal with Wilkie. This will be a political event, and I’m afraid the focus will shift from problem gamblers, where it ought to be, to the political battle.”
However, Mr Wilkie is not budging from his threat to withdraw support for the minority Labor government if it fails to legislate a mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines by May next year.
“I’ve never minced my words there, and nothing’s changed. If it means the end of the government, so be it,” he said.
Mr Wilkie wants venues to install a mix of low-stakes machines — with $1 bet limits and $120-an-hour loss limits — and high-stakes machines that require the use of a pre-commitment technology card. While he does not support outlawing the machines, Mr Wilkie says anything short of this measure will result in some people cheating the system.
“Some people will set unrealistic limits and this system will not protect them. But short of removing poker machines, which I’m not advocating, we can’t protect everyone for sure.”
On Tasmanian Times, Greg James: Sack public servants but do not disturb Greg Farrell’s business
• Nick McKim: Greens want casinos to contribute pokies take to Community Support Levy
Announced in Budget Reply Speech
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
The Tasmanian Greens today announced that they intend to legislate to require the casinos operating in Tasmania to contribute a portion of their poker machines take to the State’s Community Support Levy (CSL), from which they are currently exempt, in line with the legislated requirements on pubs and clubs.
Greens Leader Nick McKim MP, who made the announcement during his Budget Reply Speech, said that at a time where all potential budget savings and revenue options need to be considered, it is appropriate to expect that companies which have benefited from the State’s largess, now also front up and assist the community meet the budget challenges ahead.
“On behalf of the Greens I can announce that we will be moving to have casinos contribute to the Community Support Levy just as pubs and clubs which have pokies are required to do,” Mr McKim said.
“This initiative could provide an injection of an average of at least $3.5 million annually into the CSL, where it can be utilised to support community organisations, as well as gaming harm minimisation measures, at a time when Tasmanians can do with every bit of assistance possible.”
“To turn the state’s financial situation around and put it onto a sustainable footing will require long term structural and cultural changes. One of which is challenging the unhealthy and counterproductive cultural legacy of the majority Labor years of sweetheart deals for the big end of town at the expense of good social policy.”
“The Greens have long been on the track record opposing the pokies sweetheart monopoly deal with Federal Hotels Ltd, as we believe this deal has resulted in a flood of hard-earned cash being sucked out of the community via the pokies in pubs and clubs, and into the pockets of this company.”
“Federal Hotels has profited massively from its exclusive pokie licence, and it is appropriate that now the company digs deep and assists the community from which it benefits.”
“The current CSL is set at 4 per cent of the gross profit (player expenditure) on pokies in hotels and clubs, which saw an $4,812m in 2009-2010 from a total pokies expenditure pool of approximately $119.6m. The total pokies expenditure for casinos in the same period was approximately $96m.” [1]
“The Greens estimate that should the casinos be required to contribute the same 4 per cent into the CSL, as required by pubs and clubs on their pokies profit, it would generate an average of at least $3.5m into state coffers.” [2]
[1]: Tasmanian Gaming Commission 2009-10 Annual Report; this also includes a small amount from Betfair commissions.
[2] Casino Pokies (EGM) figures from the Tasmanian Gaming Commission 2009-10 Annual report, with the bottom row including the estimated projection of the Greens’ proposed CSL contribution requirement.:
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 AVERAGE
EGM player expenditure total (CASINOS) 90,657,981 91,338,831 96,640,260 100,809,015 95,847,718 95,058,761
CSL Contribution (at 4%) 3,626,319 3,653,553 3,865,610 4,032,361 3,833,909 3,802,350
