Once legalized, THEY own you!

At one of the Massachusetts State House Hearings, one of those testifying explained that once legalized, the State of Massachusetts would become a PARTNER, vested in the success of Slot Barns (otherwise incorrectly known as 'Destination Resorts').

It makes no difference where Predatory Gambling is conducted, the Business Model is the same: Create New Gamblers, Create New Gambling Addicts.

Attempts to control, limit or reduce Gambling Addicts are met everywhere with resistance.

And why should any politician, who depends on the largesses of a wildly profitable Industry, support anything other than meaningless rhetoric?



A policy jackpot for wily leaders
By Katharine Murphy


Malcolm Turnbull made a nuanced contribution on pokies reform this week. The day after Tony Abbott ''predicted'' the Coalition would oppose and then rescind mandatory pre-commitment reforms if they actually managed to get through this all-singing, all-dancing Federal Parliament, Turnbull was asked to advance his own view.

He duly endorsed Abbott's prediction about the prevailing anti-nanny state mood of the Coalition party room, deeming the observation from Abbott ''well informed'', before pointing out that the Coalition didn't actually have an official position. The blueprint being proposed by Labor and Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie had not been debated in shadow cabinet, or the party room.

Turnbull declined to share his own view on pre-commitment - a system that forces gamblers to set a limit on their losses. ''I won't give you a personal view on it because I haven't actually seen [the legislation]. I do want to see the legislation first,'' he said.


Sensing equivocation, the radio interviewer persisted.

''I'm not a fan of the pokies,'' Turnbull offered as the conversation went on. ''In my state, in NSW, one of the worst things the Carr government did was to let pokies into the pubs. I've known people who have been gambling addicts and it's not pretty. It's a very, very, very destructive addiction.''

But the nub question for the Coalition, he felt, was this: would the pre-commitment scheme being sought by Wilkie actually work, and did problem gambling actually warrant significant government intervention?

''At the end of the day, the real question is how much interference do we want to make on how people live their lives?''

Mandatory pre-commitment, despite the fact the gambler sets the limit, is a tough ''yes'' for genuine libertarians. There are many inside the Coalition who believe that voluntary curbs, and a model that focuses on treating addiction, is more appropriate to address problem gambling.

A variation of this idea has also kicked around in Labor's ranks: hit problem gambling with a big-spending mental health package, funded by a levy on the clubs.

Further complicating the picture for a voting public that is not so much hostile, given opinion polls showing that most people support reforms to curb problem gambling, as increasingly bamboozled about who is actually proposing what, is a Greens proposal to impose $1 bets. Proponents say this is a simpler and less costly transition for the clubs (although the clubs naturally beg to differ).

Abbott may have believed that his ''prediction'' in Campbelltown this last week - lawyerly as it was - deftly validated the squall of the pro-pokies crowd, while leaving the opposition sufficient room to manoeuvre; a bloodless oath if you will, subject to a transfusion in due course. But the timing was interesting. Abbott had been dead-batting questions from journalists for months. He clearly judged it was time to step the pokies issue up a notch, making the philosophical cleavage between the major parties more distinct during a visit to Labor's traditional outer-suburban heartland.

The public will get a more comprehensive fix on the Coalition's problem gambling policy over the next few days.

With Parliament set to resume next week, Abbott will release a discussion paper scoping out new policy options covering pokies, and beyond, broadly in line with the dominant Coalition philosophy - problem gambling is an addiction, so let's treat it like that, keep the curbs voluntary.

This foray will doubtless make life more difficult for the Gillard government. So far the pokies issue has hurt Labor politically far more than the Coalition. The clubs are playing a brutal grassroots game. Labor MPs are under siege from aggrieved clubs in New South Wales and Queensland. The clubs are also expanding their ''no'' push in Victoria to target 13 federal electorates.

The restiveness in Labor's ranks has been building for some time. The dissent is both about the substance of the mandatory pre-commitment policy (Labor has its fair share of libertarians, not to mention good soldiers for the clubs); and the damaging appearance of a weak government being seen to be led by the nose by Wilkie.

This week Kevin Rudd refused to buy in to the debate - triggering a run of speculation about whether he would use the issue as part of his platform for resuming the Labor leadership.

If Rudd is actually positioning himself as the saviour of the clubs (and more pertinently Labor's marginal seat holders in at least two critical states), this would be ironic in the extreme. It was in fact Rudd (taking regular private counsel from anti-pokies campaigner Tim Costello) who set Labor on the path to pre-commitment.

The Productivity Commission was tasked to provide advice on gambling reform when Rudd was prime minister. The Wilkie scheme is the Productivity Commission's scheme, although Wilkie's timetable for implementation is more uncompromising.

A Rudd comeback based in part on junking or modifying a policy he helped create is intrinsically so nuts it could actually happen.

But the release of Coalition policy options this coming week will not only apply a boot to the neck of Gillard's minority government - it will also allow a focal point for mild internal discussion within the opposition. And the leadership is not in a mood to tolerate much internal debate, read division, with opinion polls in landslide territory.

Tony Abbott is perched daily on the edge of his seat, straining with anticipation, a heartbeat away from stealing The Lodge.

When the independently minded West Australian Liberal Mal Washer this week repeated a view he had advanced in February that a profits tax on the mining industry (Labor's policy) wasn't actually a bad idea, he was smacked down publicly by Abbott, who issued this less-than-genial threat about the importance of maintaining esprit de corps: ''Mal is a good bloke and he's a smart bloke and I am sure he is going to get the message one way or another.''